Descriptive Combat: Where to Start? With the GM!

To many people, the term 'descriptive combat' might seem like an oxymoron. I think it's safe to say that just about everyone who has enjoyed this amazing hobby for any length of time has been at a table where combat sounds a little like this:

GM: "As your party searches the forest for any remaining orcs, one drops out of a tree, landing directly in front of you."

Player: "I attack the orc. I rolled Great [+2]."

GM: "That's a hit. for 4 points of damage. That's a Hurt result, so the creature will be at -1."

I think it's also safe to say that a majority of gamers would prefer a table where combat sounds a little more like this:

GM: "As you sweep the forest, searching for any remaining orcs, one of them drops out of the trees, landing awkwardly with a grunt, apparently in pain from the arrow sticking out of its leg. You immediately recognize it as one of the orcs who attacked your village that you've been hunting down. The creature brandishes its blade menacingly, but you can see the fear in its eyes."

Player: "Prepare to join your brothers, you filthy dog! I raise my axe and rush towards the creature, putting my full hatred of orcs into my swing! I want to take advantage of it being injured!"

GM: "The orc raises its blade to attack! Let's find out what happens!" (The GM knows that the Orc has a Mediocre [-1] Melee Weapons Skill, and it's also injured with a Serious Wound, which lowers its Skill to Poor [-2]. The GM rolls Fair [0], giving the Orc a Poor [-2] Total. The PC has a Good [+1] Melee Weapons Skill, but is attacking Aggressively, which lowers her Skill by 1, but if she wins the Exchange, she'll get a +2 to her Result. The Player also rolls Good [+1], for a Good [+1] Total. This means that the Player has won the Exchange with 3 Successes, and she gets to add +2 to her Result for taking an Aggressive stance, raising that to 5 Successes, which is a Critical Wound.

"You have won the Exchange, and you have struck the Orc for a Critical Wound!"

Player: "Seeing the fear in the creature's eyes, I take advantage of its hesitation as I run straight at the creature, axe held over my head. Just as the creature begins to stand and raise its blade, I bring my axe down, straight into the orc's shoulder, nearly separating its arm from its body."

GM: "The creature slumps to the ground, dropping its sword and closing its eyes, and mutters a quick word to its fallen brothers, and waits to join them."

While there is certainly no approach that will appeal to everyone, I thought I would post my approach in the hopes that it might encourage others to find ways to tweak their games with more description, just as this approach was inspired by reading as much as I could about how other GM's run their games. I believe that the more we share with each other, the better all of our games will be.

I'm a sucker for systems that are easier to remember, so I have what I call "the 7 D's of Gaming". This used to be "The 5 D's of Gaming", but I've expanded it a bit to cover an entire conflict. So here it is, my GM checklist for running conflicts. Bear in mind that this approach is best suited to a game with simultaneous actions.

1. Describe the Scene
2. Determine the Goals of the combatants
3. Divide the combatants into smaller groups
4. Describe Intent
5. Determine Resolution
6. Dice
7. Describe Outcome

Before the Dice Fall

Describing the Scene

Firstly, I think the number one way that a GM can encourage more descriptive combat is to "set the scene" in a way that encourages players to interact with elements within the scene as part of their strategy, and their descriptions.  A detailed description of the scene that involves multiple senses not only increases the immersion level, but it provides the group with information that they might be able to use to their advantage while trying to resolve the present situation.  Here are some elements that can make a scene more interesting:

• Objects.  Specifically, objects that might come in handy for the situation at hand.  A wine bottle on the table could be an improvised weapon, or the overturned cart could be great cover from arrows. Provide an environment that encourages the players ask questions to get more details on the room.  Be sure to remind  players that they can also spend a Fortune Point to make a Claim, which ensures a favorable coincidence.  For example, a character caught off guard without a weapon in a castle, could spend a FP to declare that there are a couple of crossed swords on the wall as decoration.  Now the character's primary goal is to reach one of these swords to increase their odds of survival.
• Terrain.  Interesting terrain can play a huge role in a combat scene.  Loose or slippery footing, extreme slopes and elevation changes can play a huge role in player strategy, and also helps to encourage more descriptive.  This is another great way to introduce Barriers between Zones in a given scene, such as pits, stairs and half-walls.
• Vision Conditions.  Visual elements are a great way to include more senses, which helps to create more evocative and more immersive scenes.  Low lighting conditions can create shadows and one's eyes can play tricks on them.  Smoky or foggy scenes can reduce visual detail and force characters to use other senses to compensate.  Some of these conditions can hinder in one area, while helping in another.  Take rain, for example.  While rain can impair vision and hamper movement, it can also make stealthy activities easier, such as sneaking up on an enemy or evading them altogether.

Determine Goals

One of the most important elements of any Conflict to me are the goals of those involved in the Conflict.  I've been a player in many games where monsters and wild animals are just mindless and relentless attackers that fight until they die.  I find it much easier to run believable and entertaining conflicts if I first know the goals for all involved.  Animals and creatures usually only attack because they are hungry or protecting their territory, their young, or the rest of their pack.  And once most creatures are seriously injured, they are very likely going to try and flee, lick their wounds, and live to fight another day.  If, as the GM, I know going into the Conflict what the goals of the antagonists are, it gives me a much better way to play the Conflict out. The same holds true of NPC's too. The thief that stole the barbarian's bag of coins at the tavern probably isn't willing to die for them. He's far more likely to return the coins and beg for mercy if caught.

Divide the Conflict into Groups

Since everything in an Exchange is assumed to be happening simultaneously, it's important to know who intends to interact with whom. and divide everyone involved in the Conflict into smaller, more manageable groups.

Running the Conflict

Describe Intent

Since Blood, Sweat & Steel uses a "simultaneous exchange" format for combat, the first step before rolling is to announce intent.  Both sides declare what they intend to do, each side rolls the appropriate Skill, and the winner of the opposed roll gets their action.  While it may seem difficult to give a good description of intent at first, it becomes second nature with practice.  The trick is to see through the eyes of the NPC/monster and "think" like them.  While some NPC's may actively try to disguise their intent until the last moment, most monsters and creatures will be very obvious.

One thing to keep in mind is that the game doesn't shift into Exchange mode until something actually happens.  In other words, a PC and a sabretooth tiger circling each other isn't happening within an Exchange.  It's only when one side takes an action that forces the other side to react that the game goes into Exchange mode.  This goes to "thinking" like the monsters.  In our sabretooth tiger example, perhaps the tiger is merely protecting a nearby cub, so its intent is to ward off potential danger without risking its own life unnecessarily.

The GM might describe this scenario like this: "As you round the bend, a massive sabretooth tiger lands silently, just thirty feet in front of you.  Its large teeth are showing, its shoulders hunched, with hair bristling straight upward, it paces across the path, letting out a low, menacing growl, never taking its eyes away from you."

At this point, the creature hasn't lunged or attacked.  The character could draw their weapon and charge, or they could simply backpedal and see how the creature reacts.  Since the GM has already determined that the tiger is just protecting its cub, it won't attack unless it's attacked.  By taking a few moments to figure out the creature's intent, it becomes easy for the GM to play out the scene and interact with the PC's.

Declare Intentions

Once the game goes into Exchanges, the GM can get even more evocative in the "declare intentions" phase.  Once the first attack has been made, the GM can express intent by describing how the NPC or monster is moving and looking. In a simultaneous actions system, combatants first declare their intentions before rolling the dice. As a GM, the only time I announce the NPC/creature intent is when it's obvious that they intend to try and act before the PC's. For example, the party is searching an ancient burial chamber when a group of animated skeletons form from bone piles, picks up their swords, and begin to close in on the party.

GM: "As you approach the main sarcophagus, the piles of bones with swords resting on them that you thought were tributes to warriors begin to glow. The bones assemble themselves into skeletons, and the skeletons pick up their swords and begin walking towards you. What do you do?" 

This description makes it clear that the animated skeletons are there to protect the sarcophagus, and that they are closing to attack. This will hopefully prompt the players to consider their choice and describe what they want to do in the situation.

Determine Resolution

Once you know what everyone wants to do, it's time to figure out what everyone has to roll and any modifiers that are appropriate. Using the example above from the "Declare Intentions" section, let's say that the barbarian stated that his intent was to charge the closest skeleton and try to bash it to bits with the flat of his axe.

GM: "OK, since you are in the same Zone as the skeletons, you can engage the nearest one without any penalty. But since you are charging the skeleton, we'll treat your barbarian as attacking aggressively, using your Melee Weapons Skill. That  means you'll have a -1 to your action roll, but if you win the Exchange, you'll get to add +2 to your Total. Also, since you're using the flat of your axe to bludgeon the skeleton, you'll get a +1 bonus for Superior Weapon, effectively nullifying the -1 penalty for attacking aggressively."

Barbarian: "Works for me!"

GM: The GM sees that the skeletons have a Fair [0] Melee Weapons Skill, so he'll be using that for the skeleton's roll.

Dice

Once both sides have declared their intent, they make opposing Skill Checks.  Only the winner of the opposed Check gets to take their Action, while the loser of the Exchange is assumed to be reacting to the winner's Action.

Continuing the previous example.....

Barbarian: "I have a Great [+2] Melee Weapons Skill and no modifiers. I made a Good [+1] roll, giving me a Superb [+3] Total".

GM: The GM makes a Poor [-2] roll for the Skeleton, for a Poor [-2] Total.

Describe Outcome

Once the rolls have been made the GM compares the Totals to determine who won the Exchange. In this example, the Barbarian won the Exchange with 5 Successes. Since the barbarian was attacking aggressively, he gets to add an additional +2 to his Total, for 7 Successes. In this game, that would be a Critical Wound, and the skeletons are destroyed on a Critical Wound or higher. Another way in which Blood, Sweat & Steel  tries to encourage more description is with a simple rule; the winner of the Exchange gets to describe the outcome.

GM: "The barbarian wins the Exchange with 7 Successes; a Critical Wound. The animated skeletons are destroyed on a Critical Wound or higher. So barbarian, what happened?"

Barbarian: "I rush towards the closest skeleton, with my axe high over my head. As I reach the skeleton, it makes a feeble thrust with its rusty sword. I sidestep the skeleton's thrust and bring the flat of my blade to the skeleton's head, knocking it clean off, and the rest of the bones fall to the floor in a pile!"

In summary, if you like a game with rich detail and vivid descriptions,  I'm hopeful that this approach will give you some ideas on how to encourage more of it in your games!

Simultaneous Actions Combat; Part I

While I absolutely love the concept of Simultaneous Actions combat, it can be a bit difficult to explain to those unfamiliar with it, and tricky to adjudicate and manage at times. Before digging into my approach to this type of conflict resolution, it might be helpful to define it and compare it to the more popular, Alternating Actions combat.

I think most people are more familiar with Alternating Actions combat because it is the most popular way to handle combat in RPG's. Some generalization is about to occur for the sake of simplicity, and to make the comparison more clear. In an Alternating Actions combat system, the combatants all begin by rolling initiative to determine who goes first, and the order of actions for everyone involved. Once the combatants are sorted by initiative order, combatants take turns, taking their actions, and rolling dice to determine whether or not those actions were successful. So, your typical components of an Alternating Actions combat system are initiative, making an attack, and rolling for damage if successful. Once every combatant has taken their turn, that combat round or exchange is over, and you either start back at the top of the initiative order, or re-roll initiative, depending on the game system.

So how does this compare to a Simultaneous Action combat system?

Well first, there is no initiative. In a Simultaneous Action system, the game shifts into "Exchanges" as soon as someone announces that they intend to take an action that is likely to be resisted or have consequences, such as drawing their sword to attack someone, or a tiger crouching with its teeth bared, preparing to pounce. Players then announce their PC's intention, describing what their character wants to do and how they want to do it. Everyone else who can act in the Exchange also declares their intentions. In a Simultaneous Action system, everything is assumed to be happening at roughly the same time, so all actions are resolved at the same time. In order to make it easier to figure out what happens, the GM will break up the Scene into smaller groups, and resolve those groups separately.

The second major difference between an Alternating Action system and a Simultaneous Action system is who gets to act in a given exchange. In an Alternating Action system, everyone involved in the fight gets a turn to do something. But in a Simultaneous Action system, only the winners of opposed actions get to take their action, while the losers of the opposed action are assumed to be reacting to the winner's action. So generally speaking, combatants are divided into groups based on who is engaging with whom, everyone in that group rolls for their action, but only the winners get to take their actions. What I like most about this approach is that it tends to emulate a more realistic response from players. If they want to control the fight, they will stack up every advantage imaginable to win the exchange and force the action, just like most people would do in a real fight. Also, this type of system encourages people to use the skills and attributes they excel the most in to maximize their chances of winning the exchange and taking their action. Those who aren't as skilled at melee combat as their opponents aren't forced to go toe-to-toe with them. Instead, they can try to use their strengths to overcome the situation.

The third major difference is that there is no damage roll in a Simultaneous Action system. The difference between the combatant's action rolls not only determines who gets their action, but the difference between the two totals also determines the relative outcome of that action.

But one of the things I like most about a Simultaneous Actions system is that it really encourages more detailed descriptions of both intent and resolution of actions. When a player gives me a vivid description of their intent, it is much easier for me to compare actions and visualize how the exchange plays out. Blood, Sweat & Steel has the rule, "the winner of the exchange gets to describe the outcome", which also helps to encourage players to come up with good descriptions.

What are some of the advantages of a Simultaneous Actions system?

I think one of the biggest advantages of a Simultaneous Actions system is how much faster it is to resolve a fight. When you consider that there is no initiative roll or damage roll, the Simultaneous Action system has 1/3 of the rolling that an Alternating Action system has, which does speed things up considerably.

Another thing I really like about simultaneous actions combat is that it reminds me how we used to play long ago, in a childhood far away. Early versions of D&D were much looser with combat rules, and there was a lot of room for creative description and common sense resolution.

So, what are some of the disadvantages of a Simultaneous Action system?

Complex fights can be a challenge, particularly when multiple opponents are involved. It can also be difficult to describe how hand-to-hand combat, ranged weapons and magic all happen in a given exchange. Two of the most valuable assets when using a Simultaneous Action system are trust and common sense. I think Fudge handles ranged combat well, treating it largely as an unopposed action, unless the target is aware of the impending ranged attack and they wish to take cover. The key, for me, in handling Simultaneous Actions is to take a moment to visualize what everyone is trying to do, look at the results of the winning actions, and describe things in a way that makes sense.

One other thing worth noting is that a Simultaneous Actions system can make situations where opponents are attempting to perform different types of actions much more fun for me. For example, a thief has run off with a barbarians coin purse, but the barbarian catches up with the thief and corners him in a dead end alley. On the first Exchange, the barbarian says he is going to try and knock the thief out and get his money back. The GM decides that the NPC thief is just going to try and get away. Now you have 2 different types of actions in play. The barbarian is trying to attack the thief, using his Brawling skill, and the thief is trying to slip past the barbarian using his Agility Attribute. If the barbarian wins, he attacks the thief, possibly knocking him out. If the thief wins, he runs/tumbles/dodges the barbarian and slips past him, and the foot chase continues.

Just as in all things gaming, there is no one-size-fits-all solution that pleases everyone. But I do try to encourage folks who have never played a game with Simultaneous Actions to give it a try. They might just fall in love with it as I have.