'Aight, I got a problem... How do I make it so that combat is interesting? I recently GM'd three sessions of Shard with some friends (It went wonders, by the way, More on that later), and the combat seemed a little... lackluster... Which is how it is with my friends... unfortunately.
See... We're all very smart, mathematically and otherwise, so when it came to combat, and I showed my players the maneuver location table, they kind of glanced at it, and then forgot about it. This isn't the main problem, though, most of my players think in numbers. What will grab them the most amount of damage in one hit, and many of them realize that, in order to get the most amount of damage, they need to have a lot of dice (can you see a very combat heavy group here?), so the second thing that happened was they didn't find that the maneuver location table added anything that would get them the most damage, when a "Normal" attack would net them more damage, and possibly even destroy the enemy. This, on top of bundling actions, lead to some uninteresting combat with high numbers in damage, and the obliteration of some foes that I had made within the limits of the game that were supposed to be tanks.
And then there were times when nothing happened. They'd grab their dice, they'd throw them, and the enemy would defend against it all. It didn't take them long, though, to realize that grouping up on one guy would rip him to shreds like none other. or if it was one-on-one, a "fair" fight, they'd throw 1-2 successes, and the enemies armor would absorb it all, but it would leave them completely open for the enemy to attack.
And finally, there were points when the enemy would just obliterate one person! I mean, that's how I designed the enemy to play, but I didn't want to outright OBLITERATE the player (having to bend the rules so that it was more subdue damage then fatal damage, as I don't want to actually KILL the players... too quickly at least...), but it would take one of the players off guard, and throw that player out of the fight for a good portion of it ("well, if you need me, I'll be downstairs" was a phrase I heard at two different occasions).
Also, I'm in a group that doesn't like going up against lots of weak enemies to try to give them a challenge, they think it doesn't make much sense that the players are all Bruce Lee, while the GM's "Critters" Are all the henchmen just waiting to get their tail kicked. So I gotta find "Grunts" that are better then grunts, and "Elite units" that are slightly better then elite units. The problem here is, I sometimes want to make an epic fight where the enemy is just so darned better then the players, that it DOES take the entire party to take HIM out. unfortunately, the times that I try to do this, the party all just gang up on him (The only one there), and just blow all of their actions making him defend, and if I DO go first, then I gotta take into account that they're going to blow all of their actions making him defend!
I'm still learning, I don't want to metagame and make realizations that players have spent all of their combat actions, then NOT attack them, but at the same time, I don't want it to feel like I'm PICKING on the person who used up all their actions either (though I still want to learn him a lesson, but those lessons usually end up in "well... You're unconscious now.")
Oh, and no one really reacted to anything else, they'd all just let the hit's flow, and wait until their turn to act... But I don't think that I showed them that mechanic very well.
So... I guess my main points are:
1) How do I get my players to use the Maneuver location chart more often
2) How can I make enemies that can wall decently, but not so decently that nothing happens
3) How can I mod the game a bit to make the stamina the players have stretch out longer?
4)How do I make enemies that are evenly matched to the players, but won't be obliterated when grouped up on, or obliterate the players outright?
5)and How do I teach my players (without killing them, or brutally maiming them) to possibly save more then ONE action to defend.
See... We're all very smart, mathematically and otherwise, so when it came to combat, and I showed my players the maneuver location table, they kind of glanced at it, and then forgot about it. This isn't the main problem, though, most of my players think in numbers. What will grab them the most amount of damage in one hit, and many of them realize that, in order to get the most amount of damage, they need to have a lot of dice (can you see a very combat heavy group here?), so the second thing that happened was they didn't find that the maneuver location table added anything that would get them the most damage, when a "Normal" attack would net them more damage, and possibly even destroy the enemy. This, on top of bundling actions, lead to some uninteresting combat with high numbers in damage, and the obliteration of some foes that I had made within the limits of the game that were supposed to be tanks.
And then there were times when nothing happened. They'd grab their dice, they'd throw them, and the enemy would defend against it all. It didn't take them long, though, to realize that grouping up on one guy would rip him to shreds like none other. or if it was one-on-one, a "fair" fight, they'd throw 1-2 successes, and the enemies armor would absorb it all, but it would leave them completely open for the enemy to attack.
And finally, there were points when the enemy would just obliterate one person! I mean, that's how I designed the enemy to play, but I didn't want to outright OBLITERATE the player (having to bend the rules so that it was more subdue damage then fatal damage, as I don't want to actually KILL the players... too quickly at least...), but it would take one of the players off guard, and throw that player out of the fight for a good portion of it ("well, if you need me, I'll be downstairs" was a phrase I heard at two different occasions).
Also, I'm in a group that doesn't like going up against lots of weak enemies to try to give them a challenge, they think it doesn't make much sense that the players are all Bruce Lee, while the GM's "Critters" Are all the henchmen just waiting to get their tail kicked. So I gotta find "Grunts" that are better then grunts, and "Elite units" that are slightly better then elite units. The problem here is, I sometimes want to make an epic fight where the enemy is just so darned better then the players, that it DOES take the entire party to take HIM out. unfortunately, the times that I try to do this, the party all just gang up on him (The only one there), and just blow all of their actions making him defend, and if I DO go first, then I gotta take into account that they're going to blow all of their actions making him defend!
I'm still learning, I don't want to metagame and make realizations that players have spent all of their combat actions, then NOT attack them, but at the same time, I don't want it to feel like I'm PICKING on the person who used up all their actions either (though I still want to learn him a lesson, but those lessons usually end up in "well... You're unconscious now.")
Oh, and no one really reacted to anything else, they'd all just let the hit's flow, and wait until their turn to act... But I don't think that I showed them that mechanic very well.
So... I guess my main points are:
1) How do I get my players to use the Maneuver location chart more often
2) How can I make enemies that can wall decently, but not so decently that nothing happens
3) How can I mod the game a bit to make the stamina the players have stretch out longer?
4)How do I make enemies that are evenly matched to the players, but won't be obliterated when grouped up on, or obliterate the players outright?
5)and How do I teach my players (without killing them, or brutally maiming them) to possibly save more then ONE action to defend.