Combat in PbP: Or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Encounter

[Powderhorn]

I was looking at the introduction post from @GM Spiral and concerns around the limitations of play-by-post for combat. Now, I myself had that exact same mindset for many years of my time on Myth-Weavers, however I also found that to be a bit limiting. My wife and I routinely watch Dimension 20, and as one of the characters said (paraphrasing from memory), "Adventurers are chaotic wanderers!" (or something like that). In other words, you people roll up characters with blades and bows and spells and want to use them - which means that shying away from combat due to perceived limitations of play-by-post may be doing your players, and even yourselves, a disservice.

I've gotten to a point now, as a DM, that I'm not actually afraid of combat anymore, and indeed have found it to be a bit of a crucible where things in the game can suddenly change - which according to The Art of Storytelling (or something like that, it's around here somewhere amongst the various tomes...) is what makes stories interesting. In essence, humans are hardwired to look for change, so it appeals to our ancient savanna selves, or something like that. I digress.

Unlike this post is rapidly turning out to be, I aim to keep combat tightly focused, and I personally have a routine for this.

1. I use a base image dungeon. For me, I purchased Dungeon Alchemist to quickly put together cool scenes, but there are so many free to use maps out there that you don't have to. Also, a simple parchment background with some lines for walls and shapes for features is 100% viable.
2. I open the image in paint.net, a free image editing software that has the key functionality that I need: Layers.
3. I add a layer for the following: Grid (hex or square, as needed); Enemy Tokens; Allied tokens
4. I use the "Snip" tool in Windows to grab a picture of what I want players to see
5. I upload it to imgur.com
6. I open the image in a separate tab, and take the URL from it
7. I use that URL in Myth-Weavers to share the image.

What this accomplishes is that players can very quickly see where they are and what their options are; and from a DM's perspective, it's very easy to just move the tokens on the map (be sure to be in the correct layer when selecting and moving) to update each round, which leads to the second piece of how I run combat:

Group-based initiative. The big reason a lot of people gravitate to play-by-post is that they find it hard to schedule with everyone else they know. In group-based, I can simply say, "These are the actions of the baddies. Now all of you go, and your actions resolve in order of being posted." So rather than Player B waiting on Player A to post, and essentially throwing sand in the gears perpetually, you can instead say, "OK, Player B posted they moved in and stabbed, now Player A will need to choose to do a spell, and maybe not use fireball." Player A knows this, so they don't have to have a big background conversation to figure out how things will resolve.

The third thing I aim for is for combat to be relatively constrained. I'm finding, personally, that three rounds is about the collective attention span of players, because each round tends to take about a week to resolve. YMMV of course, but keeping that focus tight seems to help quite a bit as well.

These are my own experiences so far, and I'm very interested to hear others as well!

 

[Vladim]

I'm more of a narrative system kind of guy (for the most part), but many RPGs feature combat heavily, so it feels a bit as a disservice to not include it. Especially since combat scenes are (or can be) high stakes, and can therefore heighten the tension and drama.

That being said, I prefer (for the same reasons) more lethal systems where the fight can be resolved in just a few rounds-3 or less is a good number. More is ok for more elaborate scenes, like a fight broken up by a high-tension parlay scene, a chase, a skill-based challenge and so on. Anything that makes it more dynamic.

What I've found challenging in PbP at least is (1) systems that tend to assume a number of combat encounters per day to challenge the party and slowly drain resources and (2) anything map-based. I just can't be bothered with maps these days-so mapless, "greater of mind"-style combat is my go-to. I'd rather be writing posts than making maps, though a map can be a good way to convey information.

[Raistlinmc]

I'm with Vlad on lethal systems, definitely. Give me victory or give me death in a few rounds and I'll be happy.

As for my combat philosophy as a GM: I've always been far more on the theatre of the mind spectrum of combat. I've used maps...and I don't love using maps. I'm fine at it - far from great - but my heart's not in it and everyone playing with me knows it. I just find that, especially in PbP, the whole narrative rule-of-cool tends to play out better when I'm not as worried about the difference between 30 and 35 feet.

If that's not sacrilegious enough, I also tend to take a JRPG random-encounter approach to my storytelling in DnD-like games. Fighting goblins and kobolds and bandits makes sense, sure, but the weirder, lesser used creatures in the monster manual call to me like a bridge to cross in Dragon Quest. There's too much JRPG in my gaming history and soul to not tell stories as if I was the one directing Chrono Trigger this time around. Give me a monster no one has ever heard of over another horde of goblins any day.

I've played in a lot of games, and had fun in a lot of games, and very few people tell stories in this medium the way I tend to. If I was a more anxious person, that might create a crisis of conscience. Luckily, I'm blindly optimistic for the most part, plus my players generally don't complain much, so I figure maybe it's a niche worth filling. haha

Edited March 9 by Raistlinmc (see edit history)

[cailano]

I used to make battle maps for any combat that suited them, which was around 90% of them. I think they add a lot to combat.

But they are time-consuming to make. I generally run published adventures, so I use screen snippets of the map (my 4K monitor naturally makes them all high-res images, which is nice). I then follow a process similar to Powderhorn's, but I use a free image editing software called GIMP and upload them to the Weave directly.

To reduce my workload a bit, I now only make battlemaps if the battle is too big to describe narratively or if tactical movement will be important in the fight. The more combatants are involved, the more likely I am to make a map.

[cailano]

But more to the point of this thread, GMs definitely shouldn't be afraid to throw in combat! Not in D&D-based games, certainly. In my own games, I try to always have something dangerous on the horizon and to keep the story moving along quickly until the game reaches that point. It's not that role-playing and story development aren't important, but I find those things take care of themselves. My job as the GM is to keep the story moving forward and to keep the action flowing.

I must not have long lulls. Lulls are the game-killer. Lulls are the little death that brings total obliteration.

[hakootoko]

My most active game on MW right now (I'm not running it) illustrates combat with screen shots from the GM's roll20. Each round he moves the tokens, changes the visibility, and zooms in on what's currently taking place.

 

I don't think the number of rounds of combat is the problem. I don't see all combats being over in three rounds. As cailano says, it's the lulls. If you're in combat and one player isn't posting, the GM must skip them or take their action for them to keep things moving.

[Bobcloclimar]

I would expand the definition of "lulls" to include "rounds in which the game state doesn't materially change." No strict definition, since the threshold at which someone defines a "material state change" is intensely personal, but some examples might include a player performing the same actions for multiple rounds (e.g. "no movement, standard attack"), or a giant HP sponge with no change in combat abilities or output, or even where there's too many options resulting in analysis paralysis.

 

Come to think of it, it's not all that different from roleplay-centric scenes - keeping players engaged means letting them have a material impact on the state of the scene.

[Choomie]

For me as a player, what kind of kills the mood during a combat encounter is when the GM's response/resolution of a turn of combat is lackluster. The players will spend a week trying to write something cool or epic or tense, and then there's a reply like, "The goblin is killed." I think that, even if the combat is dragging on, it can still be good role-playing and maybe that can keep players engaged as readers?

[yxanthymir]

I am also choosing mapless combat nowadays. I save a lot of time and sanity by doing that, and I don't have the free time I used to have. If the system is combat heavy, I use 13th Age system as a substitute and it works perfectly at least in my point of view, otherwise I just use the combat rules of the system used.

By going mapless, I am able to save a lot of time, and can redirect my focus to the narrative part of the game. Also by going mapless, I am able to create combat scenarios with features almost impossible to do right or without a lot of work with a real map, like a revolving room.

[Tecumseh]

I have the opposite experience: I find that that combat is when the players are the most engaged.

The primary key to success is setting expectations with your players. If you set a standard and hold them to it, you can train them.

If I'm going in initiative order, my #1 rule is that you have 24 hours to either declare your actions and/or ask clarifying questions about the situation or your position. After answering your questions, you have another 24 hours to act on them. (The timer is paused during weekends and major holidays.) If you don't, then your turn is skipped and we move on to the next person in the initiative order.

The players learn. They become attentive and get in the habit of checking the site frequently. That momentum helps carry things along and avoids lulls. Yes, I've had combats that lasted three weeks or more, but there was continuous progress throughout.

If done right, a short encounter can juice a lagging game and give it new life. In my experience, combat is not when things grind to a halt; it's when things slingshot forward.

[Vladim]

In some groups it absolutely does-but it really depends on the players, and what they get out of the game.

I do wish more GMs handled combat in a dedicated OOC thread at times, and posted a summary of it in the IC. In my experience, blow-by-blow descriptions of a fight don't make for great fiction-especially if it's a particularly long fight.