I took a hiatus from my game for awhile because I ran into a problem with the system not supporting the atmosphere.

40K touts itself as a bleak, grimdark setting with heavy CoC style influences which place pcs in desperate situations against horrible foes, etc. Great stuff, really, and I have no problem enforcing that until combat begins to ensue ... then suddenly you've got all these numbers and crunchy, min/max flakes floating around demanding to be consumed. Combat in DH fairy well assumes you are using all the varied modifiers that you can in battle - cover, range, half aim, full aim, movement, etc. etc. The problem is, this sudden sequence of number juggling tears the guts right out of any suspenseful scene you've spent the last few hours building up ... the mood is lost behind the technical nature of the battles and utterly disrupts the flow of the story. And I'm not sure how to fix this.

I considered taking the maneuver charts away so people didn't what what kind of benefits their actions were giving them, but that came with the twofold problem that, first most of pcs would still recall and react on the major modifiers, and second that if the pcs didn't know what kind of numbers they were rolling for they will become more frustrated when they fail ... as if the gm is doing all the magic behind his back and simply deciding whether or not they hit. That is a big issue - the sense that the pcs have some ownership of the outcome ... if they fail or succeed they want to see that so they can take possession of the event themselves, rather than feel like observers.

So, I was curious if others had suffered from this problem and found ways to work around or through it.

I have not had much in the way of problems with this. Might be the approach you are taking?

If big number crunches are coming up (and I find DH to be refreshingly fast and easy to work out combat modifiers) on a regular basis to ruin your suspense then I have to ask if we are talking about the same thing? If all the players are furiously calculating combat modifiers then they have solidly moved out of the suspense phase of a scene and into the roaring battle phase. Possibly try slipping in dramatic pauses in a combat scene on occasion (where appropriate) if you want to tweak tension levels around some. (Think the scene in Aliens where the Marines have barricaded themselves from the swarms of aliens and the scanner shows contacts.... that are too close to be outside! So where are they? Oh crap- look up!)

As the GM you are in complete control of how you present the scenes and lead up to any fights. Once players are involved in active combat actions then the set-up is pretty much done. Unless you have more surprises planned for the middle of the fight that is.

Ya, I noticed the same thing too in regards to the heavy crunch of combat being a bit too technical and numbers oriented. Unfortunately, i don't have much of a solution other then a major overhaul.

one thing I've noticed is making combat more lethal for everyone involved helps by dent of speeding the combat up (so there isn't as many numbers for as long) and making getting hit even once a frightful prospect (so they fear combat even starting). That seems to work decently and i guess it's a good thing that i have players who don't really care to know the rules all that well anyway. They have no idea what maneuvers do what or much of anything. They just tell me what they are aiming to do, i tell the the test and give them their modifier. Still, I wish that the combat system was a bit faster and more cinematic and less tactically slanted.

I guess the first simple step that direction would be to loosen how you handle combat up a bit, be less strict with definite half/full actions and do away with maneuvers. The players simply tell you what they would like to accomplish, you tell them the test and modifier and go from there.

Graver said:

This is pretty much what I'm getting at. Creating atmosphere before and after the combat is fine, as is tossing in atmospheric description during the event ... but once the modifiers start rolling out the game becomes too tactical and the fourth wall damaged.

I wish I could simply not have the players tell me which tactics they were using and describe their actions without keeping those numbers in mind ... but it won't happen; they are too seasoned, as players go, and the numbers - now that they've been introduced - will henceforth remain part of the exchange. Besides which, as I mentioned, if the pcs don't get to see the result of their efforts they won't ever feel responsible for success or failure in a scene.

And, really, those modifiers are built into every aspect of the game, not simply the combat system - the system encourages one to always be looking the edge to give them a few bonuses in every scenario ... which is fine if you want a tactically minded game, but harder if you want people to be thinking outside the numbers.

from france

i have a similar approche i dexcribe the scene of combats ask them the gloability of combat oriented skil, talent and other witch give me a big picture and i fix the difficulty according to this. it s a lot easier and a lot more cinematic. if not if you stick to the rules one round ( 6 secondes) of combat can take more than 10 minutes of real times for you and the player. so no don't use math but instinct.

the 8 spider said:

Interesting. This has some potential. But it still has, I think, the problem of somewhat divorcing the players from owning the results of their actions. What do you think, Jack? Can you find a way to tweak this in a way that would solve both problems? I admit that I can't think of one at the moment.

I do a couple things to help the feel of combat in my game, as I have also noticed that it can end up feeling like a Turn-Based Strategy game.

-First, each player has 6 seconds to announce their action. If they aren't paying attention, or are screwing around, their character stalls in combat. This doesn't include time taken to roll dice and resolve the results of their actions. (Note: For new players that are confused, I will waive this.) Pushing the speed of combat adds to the frantic feel and keeps the PC's on their toes somewhat.

-I also, (and this is obvious, but worth mentioning) never ever let the PC's see the stats of whatever they're fighting. I don't tell them what it's armor is or how much damage they're doing to it or how close to death it is. This is obviously important to preserving the suspense of a scene.

-The last thing I do, and this is the important one, is that I make sure I have narrative descriptions running throughout the fight. I try never to leave it as "you pass your ballistic skill test, and hit it." I then add, "Devia springs from behind the crate drags her pistols in an upward arc, peppering bullets across the Daemon's chest, but it barely flinches. 'Is that all you have, fly?' It asks..."

Doing that continually reminds the PC's that while the results of combat are determined by statistics and tactics, their characters' personalities and style are very much still present in the fight, and that realization adds to the tension.

My two thrones, anyhow.

Oh, and I also always try to enforce the rule of cool, within reason.

To be honest I have have never found atmosphere coming up against the mechanics in DH. Bully for me I hear you say, I may not know how I do it but do keep strong atmosphere. Here are some things I actively do:

1. Only decribe the bare situation, then if asked questions answer with as much detail as needed but don't labour the point. Let there imginations work.

2. Combat is a trial to go through not the be all and end all of the game. So the mission never ends when the bad guys die.i.e. They then have to report it or take the body somewhere etc.

3. The players always have to describe what their character is doing, so I incourage cinamatic descriptions, short but stylised.

4. I don't sweat the rules. I try to get the rules right but if i don't, better luck next time.

5. I try not to be advercerial with the players. I'm there to create a cool backdrop/story for their cool characters to show off in( so when their guy dies , thats just to keep them interested).

Hope this helps

Damian

I gotta echo Zilla here, not just because I'm in his game, but because I've never had a problem with players going for more cinematic actions then just "Hide behind corner, shoot around." It's always been cool stuff, like our team Tech Priest holding off 2 bruisers on his own (gogo starship package), or the adept, with no training in heavy las weapons successfully using a twinlinked quadlas turret to take out four rocket-equipped enemies.

Try having enemies burst out of a wall that the acolytes thought was solid, or LITERALLY bursting out of one. Have the enemies ruin all plans, and get the players to think action movie style.

maybe i haven't been playing the right RPGs but i have yet to find one that doesn't have this divide.

much of trying to blur the lines of this divide is based IMO very much on the GM and the players. the investment of both that goes into it. and a level of trust. there are mechanical ways to eliminate this but u have to ignore a few of the rules.

ignore the rules for movement. u know what the maximum movement of the player is...use reason and common sense..negotiating walking, running and charging in combat.

allow a characters full range of motion and actions. use the characters Ag bonus. for example, Assa the assassin Ag +4. has 4 action slots, decides she wants to run, kill a badguy, jump off a ledge and land in the midst of some baddies and take down another one. running would be one action, taking down a badguy represents another one, jumping off the ledge and landing among the baddies another and having another attack is another one. obviously this ignores the rules of actions. and grants the characters that have a larger bonus more actions. maybe u can rule a minimum of 2 actions...

to maintain a better flow. u can allow preemptive actions. this can be messy but opens up real tactical actions. so lets say Assa decided to take 2 of her 4 actions. she can hold another 2 in reserve.

Assa (1) attacks and kills an opponent. seeing another enemy with a heavy stubber moving to flanking her. she (2) runs and dives into cover. her companion, Max the Ogryn takes a few heavy stubber hits and (1) opens up with the ripper gun taking down enemy heavy stubber. 4 more cultists move in to foolishly take on Max. Assa feels he can handle them but poor weak Adept Marca is best upon by 4 real nasty looking types. she leaps into action (3) gunning down 1 and (4) runs to his aid. that completes her actions.

all actions of all combatants must be completed before Assa has her turn again. this eliminates the waiting factor to some extent and opens up some on the fly tactical actions. the players would have to keep track of their characters actions of course. and the GM has to allow some leeway to not break up every movement by way of 'action points'...

i've just cranked this out real quick but it might work. I can't say how well it will work but i will certainly try it and see how it works. i do allow preemptive actions in my game but it has been limited to one action per player. it keeps the players in the game.

other ways have been listed but crucially so are 2..which i will reiterate.

i do not give the players what the difficulty level of something is..i will say..u can see that the leap over the chasm is quite the undertaking and ur not sure if u can do it. i don't give any technical data on things they encounter..i just describe the scene and the encounter. i stay away from technical numbers not inherent to the actual adventure.

one can argue that this 'divorces the players from owning their own actions' i disagree with this. real life has no bonuses or penalties showing up in front of u to say yea or nay. having been in real combat numerous times u make do with what u have and the experience and the training do the rest. the players only need know what their bonuses are or penalties..and even that is debatable. they only need a measure of how 'good' they are. for example taking 3 tiers of Acrobatics..well u know ur pretty **** good as that is the maximum. the problem with this approach is evident..lots more work for the GM. have a calculator handy...lol

the other is allowing the PCs to describe their actions fully. and cinematically. this can be difficult for some players. some folks feel odd at putting themselves out like that. but i endorse it fully. the better they describe their actions the more they own them. i say u read the books for a reason. watch movies and maybe play video games for a reason. this is ur book. ur movie. ur video game..own it.

i'm not sure if this divide can be addressed as fully as u may want. or maybe i ain't smart enough to be the one to come up with it. hehehe

cheers

Kylen said:

I don't think the OP's problem rests in not being descriptive or of a cinematic mind, though, me not being psychic and all, i could be very wrong there. The problem he 9and I to an extent) have is with how opaque and somewhat heavy the combat rules are. You can have a genestealer suddenly and without warning burst out of a caramasteel ceiling plunging down upon the PC's who noticed the blip a bare second ago giving them just enough time to look up to the shredding ceiling as the stealer plunges towards them. And then, combat officially begins and it's like someone pulled the handbreak on the pacing as everything suddenly grinds to a halt and numbers and math begins being tossed about.

Granted, any GM worth being called a GM will be as descriptive as he or she can during the combat and go a bit further then "you swing, you miss, he swings, he misses" and dose his or her best to bring the life and death struggle of combat to, well, life. However, the mechanics of DH and RT combat being what they are, a lot of times the natural tense narrative flow that should occur during combat is interrupted too often with number calculations, a few charts, and other things which interrupt the narrative flow and feel instead of accentuating it. How things are set up and how the GM describes things doesn't help with this much if the group plows through combat by the RAW as those rules will always jump to the forefront and obscure the narrative to a degree instead of sitting quietly and unobtrusively behind it.

The best way around this, i think, would be to work towards running combats in a less structured method with more arbitrary actions (not half and full) and little to no initiative order. Unfortunately, this invalidates several talents, requires a good bit of player faith in the GM to be fair, and, as the OP pointed out, can lead to players feeling disconnected from the outcome if they don't have those concrete numbers to think about and use as a tool for owning the fight. I don't think there's anyway around that except for the players having faith in the GM and the results he rules upon to be fair and truly based on character action and not his or her own whims. To help with this, the outcome of a fight would need to hinge more on clear character choice then dice outcomes. This way, a clear line of "I chose to do this, which caused that, which killed the bad guy" could be established and thus give ownership of the fight back to the players as opposed to "I chose this half action getting this benefit and then this action, then I rolled really well, and after that, all i had to do was just anouther half action with a crappy roll which killed the bad guy".

Basically, as Leigekiller said, in a nutshell, sometimes you just gotta know when to toss out the rules and go with the flow and have players that trust you to do such in a fair manner that reflects the choices their characters make.

@The Liegekiller, ya, I don't think a perfectly translucent set of rules has been invented yet, but there are many games which do a better job of making combat rules more transparent and less in the way.

Graver said:

No, you understood the problem quite well. I have been gming for nearly two decades now and used MANY settings and MANY systems in that time, but I have never had this exact problem. It isn't merely because this is a horror game - been there, done that - or even a tactical combat system - though I haven't used many quite so tactical as DH - it is a combination of the two. The atmosphere the game tells me I should be creating vs the tools it gives me to do so.

In the past I have always prefered more complex systems for grittier settings, as it brings the game down to "reality" a bit by slapping very real limitations on what one can do, rather than letting them go half-cocked and do whatever it is they like. (there are rules light storytelling systems for games appropriate to those, and heavier systems for settings appropriate for those, an experienced gm knows each has its place) But something about how the system here pieces together is more disruptive than most when combat begins - it simple feels too mechanical, I guess.

Now, I could trim off some of the rules and numbers, pulling them all behind the screen, during encounters - but as Graver said, so many of the talents build on one another and specific situations that I'd have to either take those options away or decide myself which the players were using - neither of which is a solution ... particularly when players spent good xp to have those options in combat. (and you can't just say "well, always have them use those options", because many times you are faced with two or three applicable talents and tactical decisions based on those every round ... and if I'M going to make those decisions for my players there is no point for them to have character sheets at all) And if I say "describe what you're doing without using talent names, etc." that leaves I great deal of room for me to misinterpret and ruin a player's chances because of such. (this is where "owning" a scene is important for player good will)

It doesn't help that while my players are all top of the line rpers, they are ALSO power gamers (the two needn't be exclusive) and will not be happy with me taking their toys away. Part of this may also come from the issue that we don't play DH exclusively, but are fairly new - within the last year - to it. Which means they are still in the "getting to know you" phase with the system where taking things away is going to frustrate and confuse them.

I can just use a system we are more comfortable with, of course, but I try to use the one provided by the designers, as they had a certain intention when they built it the way they did. Unfortunately I'm not sure how they maintained the DH atmosphere with the choices they made and was hoping to get some insight into this .... what it appears I'm getting, though, is quite a few people with the same problem.

don't sweat it. and i would emphatically say..never mind what the designers intended. u really only have to know what are YOUR intentions.

i have reworked this system by practically pulling the guts out of it. all my characters start off between 3-5 rank in power. i've reworked how skills and talents are acquired and when they are acquired. i only use the rank system to denote when they have reached a threshold for XPs. i don't use it to tell me when they can have a skill or talent. as long as the XPs are there and the prerequistes are met. they can have said skill or talent. it has created some truly unique charcacters as how i picture Acolytes serving the Throne.

my skills are more gradiated +5/+10/+15/+20 as opposed to +10/+20. individual weapon proficiencies are now treated as skills. as opposed to a block and thats it. i have even created specific abilities for all the careers, that only they can access. and its been a blast.

my point is, in doing so I haven't had to throw out a skill or talent as yet. as a matter of fact its allowed me to create more of them and create more role playing opportunities. DON'T BE AFRAID TO REWORK.

it's not an all or nothing proposition. in a game for example, the players can still call out the talent they wish to use. they can still call their shots and commit to their own actions. they can have access to their particular stats and bonuses. but the real number crunching happens by way of you as the GM, hence where the trust comes in. they don't really have to know how difficult it is numerically to sweet talk the Arbite Judge Hevyhandis. as GM though you can give verbal indications by way of background, word of mouth, whatever that this may be a difficult task. your looking to MINMIZE player interactions with the numbers but not eliminate their choices.

again it will never be perfectly the way you want it but then few things are. don't be afraid to talk to your group and say lets try some new things out. the atmosphere should usually rule over the mechanics. at least thats just my way of thinking. the mechanics is just the car. the main things is the journey. one way or another, i'm looking out the **** window and enjoying the ride. and if that car breaks down, time to walk it. gonna enjoy that too.

cheers

I have run so many different systems over the years I prefer to use the system installed when I can simply for the sake of making each new game experience different even on a mechanical level. Certainly I can and have house ruled a few things, but it really isn't my desire to through out the system as is unless I have no other choice.

And I guess I should make it clear for the few whom have mentioned this - I don't tell the players what their target numbers are initially, but that doesn't stop them from working every number angle they can to get their bonuses - and whether I asked them too or not they would do their own math, so I had might as well save myself a little headache and have them do it on their side only once than do it twice.

But at any rate, yes it seems if I want to maintain the type of atmosphere I'm shooting for I will need to do some serious reworking ... the question is, do I really want to take the time?

Jack of Tears said:

I disagree.

The system covers many aspects of the game to help inexperienced GM's with appropriate modifiers and how to effortlesly solve different situations using skillrolls and tables if they can't make it up on the go.

I do believe that pretty much every RPG ever written (or close to it) always comes with a disclaimer that GM's and players are perfectly free to add, disregard, change or throw out certain rules or parts of rules listed in the rulebook if they feel that they don't like them.

If you always keep at the back of your head that the rulebook isn't a LAWbook, you should du just fine. Although I have a hard time seeing why tactically sound strategies used during combat have to take away action and suspense from the combat itself. It has never happened for my group thus far, and I know for certain that most of us do think about the numbers during combat as well.

It's all about action description really. You don't explicitly point out that you use this and that manouvre and point out which bonus and penalty you're receiving. It just gets mentioned on the go, but the focus is still towards describing your combat actions in a cinematic and cool way (in my group the players get to do most of this instead of the GM having to describe it all).

Jack of Tears said:

first, i think that similarities between CoC and DH are often overemphasized. CoC is about avoiding the combat and direct confrontation as much as possible while DH is about finding and blowing things. CoC (and its DG variant) are mostly investigative games of atmospheric lovecraftian horror while DH is game where investigation more often then not takes a backseat to actual 'dealing' with a 'problem'. also, in CoC flight is always more prudent option then fight while DH is trying to balance things out. and this is as it should be.

second, i don't think that your problem is with actual mechanics of the game (although it might be) but more with a fact that you are trying to make game balanced. one point that DH probably most differs from CoC or other old school games is that there is a feeling that games should be balanced for PCs. PCs are thought of as heros that are important for the unfolding narrative and GMs more often then not are trying to fit the challenge for them. in early CoC games some players went through four or five investigators per campaign. i have a feeling that DH games are not that bloody and IMHO they should be.

so, don't do that. just play by the setting, throw the dices in front of the players and rip them a new one as soon as you get a chance. after all you are playing cultists, xenos and horrors from warp and they don't play nice or respect narrative importance of players. set your games so that there are un-winnable situations and battles that should be avoided. not everything that appears in your game is there to be fought. or if it is then there should be definite consequences of that. i feel that once you start playing a little bit more old school your players min-maxing will get a desperate edge and you won't mind it that much.

so, just repeat after me: TPK, TPK, TPK... : )

Jack of Tears said:

First of all, is this issue yours or do your players also feel the system can't provide the right "feeling"?

The way I run things is that i keep rules to myself. The players know and assume that certain actions (taking cover, suppressive fire, moving to range...) benefit them but they don't see the exact modifiers. Also, instead of detailed grid-map I use a rough drawing with no measurements to point where people are in relation to each other.

When my player decides his action he doesn't say: "I use half action to move 3 grids forward and half action to fire my bolter... Which will hit with roll of 52 or lower. I roll 51 and 11 which is 11 points to head. Take that you scum!"

In my game the situation goes like this:

My player says: " I want to run towards that box there to take cover and fire my bolter at enemies while doing it."

To which I answer: "Okay, you can run as fast as you want and get there in one round but then you can't really hit anything... or, you can run a bit slower to reach the cover in next round and fire one accurate shot each round."

"Okay, I'll go a little slower and try to hurt my enemy while going for the cover."

"Right. You start to jog towards cover while firing you bolter... (while reading modifiers to myself) You really can't use the sights while jogging, but you manage to aim quite well by just pointing into right direction and seeing where your shots go just by looking at the small bolts explode while they hit the ferrocrete wall. Roll 52 or less to hit."

"51. Thats a hit. Damage roll is 11."

"Okay... (I'll look at armor and other modifiers). Right. As you start to jog one of the opponents peers behind the ferrocrete cover. You see part of his head and the barrel of his gun pointing at your direction and take a quick snapshot. You see the bolter round hit his helmet and explode but you aren't quite sure if it penetrated the helmet as the head disappears behind the wall."

A good methode for my style of play was the integration of the "cinema" Bonus. If a player describs a really cool or funny action, I ;as GM; normaly apply a modificator ... on the fly, I just chose a mod from +30 to -30 that fells right, an appropriated attribute, that was it. + a small godwill modificator for a realy nice describtion from the player.

I have to admit that players who like to play " straight by book" have a problem with this. There is nothing absolute about this decisions and they are not to understand as houserules. I simple ignore most of the rules during the game. I make a note and compare my decision against the rules and decide what i want to keep. The flow of the story is much more important for me, fortunatly I´ve got no hardcore power gamer in my group.

To wrap it up, cinematic bonus and story before rules is a good thing for me and my gang but the players have to trust their GM.

P.S.: I recommend this approach only to GMs who like to improvise a lot.