Hey guys! I have finally been able to get some Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay games going, largely in thanks to Mr. Neil Foster's awesomeness. I ran a game with two different groups, using the same scenario I dreamt up to let the groups get comfortable making dice pools and interpreting the dice and such. Part of it was a social aspect, hassling a guy for information (with wildly different approaches and results) and then combat.

While the social 'combat' was amazingly fun, the combat, however, felt a little flat.

Now, I'm not complaining per se. Instead, I'm curious; does anyone else feel the combat isn't really all that exciting? Or do people specifically not feel that way? I'd like to hear both sides, really, and perhaps some suggestions as to what I might do to make it more snazzy.

For some context, the groups were both four players strong. Group 1 was Soldier, Warrior-Monk (the basic career Yepesnopes made for Sword Master), Performer, and Apprentice Wizard (Grey). Group 2 was Dwarf Engineer, Apprentice Runesmith, Initiate (Sigmar), and Smuggler. They fought the following:

Battle 1: Ruffian x3

Battle 2: Cultist Member (Henchmen) x1, Cult Mutants x3, Cult Leader x1.

The first battle was just a warm up; it was deliberately made very easy so the players could get used to how combat worked. The second one was more challenging, but admittedly it seemed not by much. Am I perhaps making combat too easy? The players didn't seem interested in adjusting their stance meters beyond one space deep, didn't seem interested in trying to perform more than one maneuver on their turn (indeed, they rarely did anything except movement maneuvers), and really it just seemed like they were spamming Melee Strike while waiting for their more interesting abilities to recharge. One casualty of this was that talents went almost completely overlooked, because everyone (me included!) was getting used to how things went.

Any insight is welcome!

Well, I guess it worked about the same way for my group when they were learning the system. They were kind of stuck in just hacking the enemies down, not using much else in the way of actions and seldom using extra manouvers either. After learning the system the players started to diversify, using different action, often taking fatigue to get extra manouvers (though still mostly for movement) and adjusting their stances more.

I believe learning the system is the primary reason for more varied combats. It also takes time for the players to get used to all the cards and bits, so overlooking talents isn't a big deal, when the players know the basics of the system they'll probably exprore and use all the options avaliable to them. Also, you as a GM could suggest stuff in the beginning, for example "you have a lot of stress/fatigue, check out assess the situation" or "you might want to get defensive, look up guarded position". Same goes for manouvers, you could point out that the players could assist each other for example.

Same goes for the GM, initially my combats were fairly easy, the players could hack their way through the enemies without breaking a sweat. To get a feeling for what's a balanced combat encounter comes with time. Also try to work in some complication or surprise in some encounters, like an ambush, reinforcements, a bigger threat (when fighting ruffians, what do you do when a troll show up?), weather effects, location (is the fight taking place in a burning building or on a river boat?).

I believe most of this comes with experience in the system, in the beginning you like things simple and easy to be able to learn the basics, then both the GM and players can explore all the options avaliable.

In my games I have two types of combat:

1. Completely avoidable combat

2. Combat in which your life is actually in danger and there is a lot going on, from which you have two choices: risk your life or run away.

Combats in this system are not made "better" by shuffling cards or moving the stance shift meter (IMHO). They are made more interesting by having a few tough opponents and some mooks to clean up on as well as somthing interesting going on at the same time (burning building, crazy mob, darkened room, heavy rains, terrain, someone who's about to get away, a take-them-alive bounty, etc.)

When I look at all my years playing other games, the same things are what make it interesting. Toe to toe fights with zombies and bandits leave a lot to be desired, even with this system.

Regarding talents..well..we don't use the cards anymore. They're built into the character and "always on" or exhausted per combat. Hence, we also don't use party sheets anymore either.

Regarding stance shifts, it helps if you the GM encourage them to do things: "Would you like to change your stance? Would you like to use a talent?"

A crucial tip about combats in this system: KEEP THEM MOVING. Tell players to get their dice pools together BEFORE their turn, and when two players are at the same initiative, have them go at the same time.

jh

..

For learning the battle system it is ok to have some easier fights to get the hang of it.

If, after some time, your players still use only the same actions and do not vary in tactics, you could try spicing up your opponents a little and adapt encounters to your parties fighting style. If they only hack with their melee strike from front to back, add some ranged units or spellcasters to the back, forcing them to get to the back somehow. Same goes for letting them run into traps, ambushes or getting closed in.

I'd also encourage them to use the "Perform a Stunt" card, rewarding good ideas with fortune dice and/or fortune points.

If you're unhappy with the linear proceeding of a fight, you could try to include some scripted events. Enemies could call for reinforcements, or flee (and lure the players into a trap if being chased). An all-time favourite of mine (and in imho far too less used) is to use chaos stars to include events. Once my group was fighting against some beastmen and suddenly (after someone rolling a chaos stare), a bunch of spiders crawled out of the woods, attacking players and beastmen alike.

It definitely takes some time for players to learn the system and how to get the most out of it. Plus, starting characters don't necessarily have a lot of interesting options right out of the gate. But then, my group is very 'game' oriented. We're more into the mechanics of the rules than the fluff of the story, I think, and they get engaged by defeating their opponents without having to worry about descriptive actions or anything. I could see how for other groups it might feel a little flat, but in this instance I'd first advice giving them some time to grow into it.

(Or slip a severe wound on a player, that will wake 'em up fast.)

I generally feel all combat feels flat, that isn't a fault of the system but my opinion of combat in RPGs in general. I use action cards if I have them which does add a little to the "interest" levels but overall the only way I enjoy combat if it's descriptive and with the various types of dice the results with boons, banes, comets and chaos stars this game helps me visualise far better then numerical statistics. I have made this whinge before but this is how I make combat interesting for me.

I discourage sayings like "I use melee strike, it hits for 8 damage" by themselves. This reminds me of the action bar in Pokemon Blue. Hans uses melee strike, it's super effective!". eg

Player "I'll do melee strike. It hits for 8 damage"

Me, "he takes 4 wounds"

This is boring (for me), so in my games what I do the followng.

Player "I'll do melee strike"

Me, "how do you attack?"

Player, "I swing across the body and try and smash his head like a watermelon. I hit for 8 damage."

Me, "you miss his head but crash into his arm sending the bloke reeling in pain, he takes 4 wounds"

This is less boring (for me), this is telling me about a story with characters, not a spreadsheet with numbers and it definately holds my attention far more as a GM and as a player. Sometimes when the player will knock the guy out to his threshold and I don't really care if he lives or dies I just say "tell me how you kill him". That way I get to sit back while the player gets to describe his victory and whatever manner he feels like. This way "spamming melee strike" doesn't feel like your doing the same thing all the time, melee strike is a very broad term and a player can describe his attack in many different ways.

Yes I agree with you, combat does feel flat (in my opinion) and from what you said you are not doing anything wrong, just remind them about the stance and their talents. My suggestion is to be descriptive, if your group isn't in to that and is more into the numbers then I don't have any good advice at all only to persevere until you get a little bit more experienced in the system.

I agree with Fenderstat. It's all about how you describe the combat. I'm running a 4e game right now and it's sooooooo boring because the characters are 21st level now and each combat takes about 2 hours. Seriously! We tried describing the fights but when you are in your 10th round of fighting the same monster using the same power over and over again, well, you see where I'm going with this.

There is a huge difference in these types of games since WFRP combats appear to be quite fast (depending on the # of enemies) and usually 2-3 hits will take out most common creatures, while in D&D 4e, the characters whittle away at a dragon's 1000 hp 20-30 hit points at a time and then 1-2 other powers go off on other people's turns as well. It's just stupid and feels like a bloody video game.

I can't wait for them to finally confront the big bad dracolich and potentially all die from a party wipe.

This is all pretty fantastic advice, really. While the two groups don't seem interested in continuing more games (they're so picky!), I have fresh things to try for next time. Really, one thing I might mention is that stance die typically are better than mere characteristic die. They might have been too afraid to chance it, or maybe felt they wanted to keep the option open to use the opposite stance, should the need arise.

In any case, I think the ticket is to perhaps set up Chaos Star things in advance. For instance, one Chaos Star accidentally breaks a barrel of ale, making it so that banes can result in slipping and falling prone. The second Chaos Star knocks something over that starts a fire, which starts inflicting stress and fatigue every round. Etc.

Adding reinforcements/changing events sounds like the key to victory, so to speak. And I think the idea to add more narrative would make for more fun, as well, and certainly allow for opportunities to earn some Fortune.

Don't forget the advice in the Player's Guide on freestyle banes and boons, and freestyle chaos stars and sigmar's comets. These are awesome ideas for GM's to adjucate on the fly when a player or monster's last roll has one of these symbols left over and you're not sure what effect it should have.

I'm guessing most of the time action cards, location cards, and the universal effects will allow the player/GM to spend most of the dice symbols but the freestyle suggestions can add a little extra fun, especially during combat.

In the end though, they are all just symbols and they need explanation and narration, as these game rules rely a lot on that kinda thing.

For instance:

Successful melee attack causes attacker to take fatigue damage could be described as the enemy is hit by attacker's weapon, but the weapon is held by the defender for a few seconds and then the defender retaliates with a kick to the attacker's legs, sending them both staggering back a few steps.

One of the deliberate effects of the WFRP3 dice pool is the fact that you get aid from the dice as to the "story" behind the hit. If the roll just got enough successes and the Expertise die rolled a success … then you (or the player) can describe the attack in a manner suggesting that the PC's skill was critical to the hit. If weather added a misfortune die, and the result failed due to a challenge on a misfortune die, the miss can be described by slipping in the mud, etc.

Let the dice help tell the story.

dvang said:

quoted for truth!

At the heart of this game is the fact that the narrative and combat are in sync. Action cards are designed to be descriptive, but many are open to interpretation in terms of what the visual or narrative aspects are and in some cases you are expected to describe the action in great detail as part of the mechanic to function (like determing the difficulty) Perform a Stunt as an example.

Because combat is short and violant, you can embelish. This above all else is what makes WFRP 3.0 combat so great. If it was more tactical and took longer, it would be a nusance, but as it is short and sweet, its a role-playing oppertunity instead.

I agree with what everyone is saying above - it takes a while for players to get the hang of the system, but once they do, it rocks. Our last big fight (the end of Edge of Night) we had a player swinging from a chandelier into combat, followed by two players in succession running up onto a pile of cultist bodies and jumping into the air to clear some lackies to get to the main big bad. It was one of the most cinematic combat scenes I've ever GM'd. Now that the players are getting the hang of passing extra fortune dice around with assist manoevres and boons, and generally interpreting the results of the dice in more interesting ways, there's always a whole lot going on beyond the usual my-hack-your-hack combats.

I highly recommend coming up with a reference card for each player with their standard dice pools on it (mine also have a table so they can keep track of fatigue and stress effects, which let's face it is pretty tough to remember in your head) and, as already mentioned, players should have their dice pools and their plans ready when their turn comes around.

There's a definite learning curve, but as you get to know it the system just gets better.

UniversalHead said:

any chance you can post an example of that reference card?

edit: never mind found it … javascript:void(0);/*1337310161746*/

As GM, design of a combat encounter is critical. Here's my design template:

1. Combat motive - why are parties involved willing to / resorted in fighting each other? Provides frame for combat objective.
2. Combat objective - what is the goal for each party in terms of combat result? Buy time, run away, capture, kill, humiliate, incapacitate etc.
3. Combat strategies - what will the enemies try as their main and alternative strategy, will they try to keep their distance or charge head on.
4. Non-combat objective - during combat there can be a non-combat goal such as raising a draw-bridge, setting fuses, escorting civilians to safety etc that is targeted with maneuvers mainly and greatly affected by how characters are positioned in combat.
5. Location - don't fight in empty space but great obstacles, lighting effects, different elevations, perilous traps, stunt requiring maneuvers like swinging on a rope etc.
6. Events - what happens when either side is getting on top? How does a character death affect the battle?

Using the dice system, you can associate banes, boons, sigmar's comets and chaos starts to be drivers and triggers for any of the above. Falling down, furthering away from non-combat objective, being forced into an unfavorable position etc are all good flavors and bring the system to alive.

Also, have each attack being affect with fortune and misfortune dies based on the power balance. Outnumbered? Prone? Higher elevation? Backlight? All good elements.

Running the combat, here's a few tips that keep each round and turn rich and effective:

1. I allow "combat action" and "adjusting action" both per each turn. Combat action refers to direct damage action and adjusting action to any other action that adjusts the combat balance, usually dealing banes and boons to either side. This way every player has two levels of success in their turn and the narrative is richer than a simple attack roll.
2. Use simple but fast character positioning to visualize who is where doing what - this gives context and reference point to movement thus maneuvering. Don't worry about exact distance - that's usually not proving much excitement but is more about "system accuracy over narrative".
3. Let groups fight as groups, not just sequenced individuals. Simplest approach is to give benefits of being side-to-side. Also, PC turns may cross by them helping each other out and "trading" fortune dies by doing so.
4. Allow control on "who fights who". PCs should in general be able to strategize how the battle is being played out OR being subjected to the enemy (GM) deciding it for them. Tough melee fighter should be able to provoke the toughest enemy to a duel etc. A thief should hide in the shadows and maneuver to make a critical surprise attack.

Whatever you do, consider that each combat event is an investment of 30-120 minutes of playtime in average and should be designed to be thrilling to the end. If you see it continuing for too long - use an event to cut it short. If it seems to be over too fast and unwantedly unexpected - use another type of event to continue it for a few more rounds.

stanmons said:

Good advice and I whole heartedly agree. I think the point to make here is that GM's should be giving the story of combat the same attention they give their other story elements. I find that often GM's spent countless hours writing intracate story plots, characters and narratives, but than just slap a few monsters out of the monsters guide into any given fight. The result is a gross discrepency between how great the story is and how weak and uninteresting the combat is by comparison. Their should be a consistant amount of attention paid to all aspects of a session and combat is not some place you cut corners. If your combat feels flat in this game which is narrative and abstract intentionally to allow GM's flexibility to create unique and interesting scenes, than the problem isn't the mechanic but how you have used it. This above all else is the lesson GM's should take from this discussion because I think by design the game is intended to be used in this way. Great post !

I will "third" the call for it being important why you are fighting. I find many sessions (of D&D mind you) end up boring me to no end due to it being a three hour combat I just don't care about. It is terrible. Combats have to have meaning to the story and the characters.

To more specificly address the original post though, when I had the opportunity to run a pair of demo session for WFRP my players really got into it. I don't think myself much of a GM and was running canned adventures to just try and show the basics, but my players probably used almost every card I put in front of them, inluding Perform a Stunt. So it could simply be a matter of what your players are into, our group is into checking out the nuts and bolts and really "kicking the tires" so to speak, so perhaps they persued it with a bit more zeal than most.

stanmons said:

That's a pretty good list to keep in mind. Thanks.

On a related note, does anyone know where to find a list of cool and dynamic locations to use as set pieces on battles? I love the concept of location cards, and have been trying to go through them to get inspiration, but despite having a pretty healthy deck of them it's often hard to find some that fit into the upcoming scenario. And unfotrunately, interesting locations don't come naturally to me… (umm… you're in the hills. There are trees and, ummm… hills.)

I would say look for inspiration in landscape and architecture photographed by people in general. Just search for interesting images in Flicker for example and those should give you an idea where to place your encounters.