I remember the days when game designers were looking for really good kick-backside single combat systems. The one vs. one duel, the first attempt noticed I noticed was En_Garde! back in 1975, a game about duellists.
It wasn't very successful at meeting it goals. No one has been.
There are a number of problems that stand in the way. The most important one is the requirement is to come up with a system that involves the player to the same (or greater) degree as all the complexities of group combat- and do so in a why the presents meaningful choices that aren't effectively random (historical most attempts in this area present the player with random choices).
I consider this problem to be unresolvable, for if it was actually solved- the game becomes too complex to play with groups. An group play is really what the rpg is all about.
My own game (Age of Heroes) like many works acceptably with one-on-one combats in that it resolves them. But group battles are far more interesting tactically. They are also much safer, a single PC can easily be undone by a short series of bad rolls or decisions- groups spread these around and allow allies to aid stricken players.
A result that nicely mirrors the needs of table top gaming if you ask me.
Posts
Go see John Carter
1 day ago
1 comments:
I think I agree with your statement about the two being essentially unresolvable. My system can actually make for interesting one on one duels, but is slow in larger humanoid battles, so it's probably a little more complex than is ideal. There's a simplification that is used in combats with most monsters, but not with intelligent humanoid opponents.
Post a Comment