|
|
|
#8 | ||
|
Join Date: May 2015
|
Quote:
I've been lucky to have some very clever players, and also most of my players were cautious and responsible about keeping their characters alive by not attacking everything, and being willing to run away from foes they couldn't beat. (I may take partial credit for that from my GM style - I tend to give players as many warnings and hints as I can when their characters detect foes and danger and so on, and make it clear there are options other than combat to the death with everything.) However, most of my players have also been pretty eager (often more than I'd like or expect) to fight things and initiate difficult combat. And my games (especially my original TFT games) tended to be very combat-focused and combat-heavy, with multiple battles per session. How is that possible? Well, tactics, avoiding super-deadly situations, willingness to retreat, and numbers. Numbers as in, being sure you have enough people and at least one non-combatant physicker, so that you can handle most encounters and also not be stopped if a few people get seriously hurt. And, this often only takes a few minutes of play time: Bob: "I think we have too many wounded. Let's make camp and rest." (Discussion of camp set up and who's resting, how many days, etc.) GM rolls for encounters for a few days and deducts rations, lets any game situations advance (e.g. moving/resting injured opponents), etc. Quote:
As does the ability to resolve the non-combat events quickly, even if it means weeks of rest, travel and recruiting new comrades. Yes, because they are so unlikely to have any real consequences at all. And that does tend to make players escalate what they're willing to take on, which eventually gets to a chance of consequences... which at that point is likely to be either death, or no one died and everyone was trivially healed. |
||
|
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|