Hi all,
we have now played the third session of UW and my players are loving it. There is just one area that does not work for us, probably because I am doing something wrong, and that is combat.
We had the situation that my players had to engage an enemy who was behind cover in upper ground.
I am sure I did it totally wrong, but the first player attacked the guy to kill him and rolled a 6. So I concluded that he did not succeed in his plan to kill him, but instead exposed himself to fire and suffer harm. So the sniper was still in play engaging the players. The theme continued though with every player trying to attack him and failing. It was a tense moment and they did enjoy the shootout. However I am sure I did it wrong.
Now, the root cause is probably our deep seated approach for combat from decades of playing “traditional” RPG with hit points, combat rounds etc. as that feels “normal” to us. And I am also sure the biggest issue is my take on how combat flows.
So I wonder if any of you here might shed more light on how to do this better? How I can wrap my head around how combat should work here? Because I get what happens when a player wins the engagement, that is easy. But if not? What then?
The short answer is, if your players had fun and everyone enjoyed themselves, you did it right.
A longer answer is make whatever GM move feels the most exciting, dramatic, or appropriate for the situation. I too default to “deal harm” a lot in combat, which is a habit I’m trying to break. To that end, I put check marks next to each GM move as I make them. That lets me see which moves I’m using often and which I am neglecting.
.
If you have one sniper in an elevated position and you have the means to engage them in combat (weapons with the appropriate tag, a position in cover to shoot at them) that triggers open fire.
On a 6- / 7-9 as the MC you have to make moves to propel the story forward. Simply causing / exchanging harm might become boring and repetitive. To spice it up you can involve a faction or foreshadow trouble (a routine patrol approaches or the sniper calls in reinforcements), something breaks (your party’s cover gets destroyed, a weapon jams) offer a choice (there is an anti grav lift nearby but whoever runs towards it would come under fire) etc. The list of GM moves in UW is not the most inspired I ve seen but it still give you a lot to work with in order to force the players to act beyond just trading bullets.
The thing is we like trading bullets, as I said we are at heart traditionalists but love the narrative mechanics of PbtA. I try to vary my moves and the idea of checking them off is herewith adopted. The thing I am struggling to understand is: When the player attacks it usually is done with one roll if they are successful. However when not it turns into a more classical shootout, until one player finally succeeds again in either “winning” the roll or solving the situation in another matter. There is this discrepancy of how a conflict feels. It is either over in a few seconds and the players feel a bit “cheated” of a meaningful win or it takes a bit longer and becomes a more classical exchange. I personally am far more favorable to the latter then the former due to my gaming history. Alas I want to make sure I get the intent behind the game and get it right.
I’m pretty sure the intent of both combat moves are to resolve fights in as few rolls as possible, which can feel unsatisfying some times.
But the moves are writtenin such a way that you can zoom in or out on a situation. If you zoom all the way out, the entire combat can be resolved with a single roll. If you zoom all the way in, each blaster bolt or shock sword swing triggers the move. Think of it like a dial that you can turn to produce the most exciting and enjoyable results.
Also, despite being called a failure (which I really wish it wasn’t), the book points out that a 6- doesn’t have mean the character fails. A “failed” Open Fire or Launch Assault move can result in the PCs taking out their targets as intended. It should just leave them in a worse position than what a 10+ or 7-9 result would have.
I haven’t run UW all that much, but my favorite GM tactic for other PbtA games is to give the player exactly what they wanted on a 6-, but in such a way that makes things unbelievably worse. 😀
My secret in having a succes feel meaningful is letting the players narrate their actions up to a point and then add a complication to which the players have to react. You know that the PCs will win the conflict but that doesn’t mean it is over after the (successful) roll. Likewise for the miss. Timing is vital. As soon as the exchange feels boring (as Chris Stone-Bush mentioned) you can still have the players kill the sniper only to find out that … she was a loved NPC … an estranged half-sister of one of the PCs … had activated a time bomb before she died etc. If you like the combat part, play it out until you think it is time to move on.
Please don’t forget rolling combat moves does not end the narration here, if after the roll you just say in cold “take damage and something somewhere explodes” it is just that cold and uninteresting. After move is rolled success of miss keep narrating knowing what is the end result. So player delivered his part of initial version of his attack, you then jump forward with “before you get sniper in your sights he throws a flashbang and you are blinded, what do you do?” player can respond that he tries to hide behind cover then you jump in saying that “as you are blinded and exposed sniper lands a shot at you, your weapon escapes your grasp and …” -> describe the exchange, even on miss.
Secondly – instead of having every player roll separate move for Open Fire have them roll Get Involved with +Mettle to bump the miss result to some success, now you can have both players narrate together how one provides cover and accidentally opens a gas pipe that bursts into flames as the other one takes a hit but managed to take out the sniper.
Lastly if you want to make players work a bit harder for winning before letting them roll Open Fire discuss are they in position to do it, if not they have to get to a position using other moves first. In your example Sniper had high ground and cover, which in most tactical games like XCOM give him huge advantage, so ask your players how are they going to counter his advantage before they can roll Open Fire, possible options: throw flashbang at sniper to flush him out, use jet boots to get higher ground over the sniper, use heavy weapon to blow up his cover etc -> this will most likely be done as Face Adversity from Sniper fire.
I hope it helps, have fun.
On a Miss, you should be making as hard a move as you feel is appropriate as the GM. The discrepancy you’re feeling in terms of Rolling Well = Short Fight/Rolling Poorly = Long Fight is the result of not making a GM Move that is as concrete and final as the 10+ result from the move.
And that’s 100% fine, by the by. It is very legit to take a 6-, say the PC gets fucked up a bit, and if the PCs want to keep at it, dive back into the shoot-out.
But what I’m saying is this discrepancy is both in your mind and in your hands: it doesn’t have to exist, and as GM you have the tools to change it.
Like, if a sniper has cover and an elevated position on some people? On a 6-, you might say that doesn’t devolve into a shootout: that’s someone’s PC getting put down hard and, you tell the PCs that they’re pinned under cover, and shooting back means popping up and taking Harm before even rolling the move. You might tell them how absolutely fucked the situation is, and make it clear this isn’t a straight-up fight to be won unless they change tactics.
Because they rolled a 6-, and the GM can make as hard a move as they like, and as makes sense.
In the old days they had Fumble tables to show things that might go wrong (and you rolled on a table, no choice what would happen). But here you can get more creative. Think about the setting ahead of time and jot down a few things that MIGHT go wrong to give plausible things when you roll 6-.
Opponents having high ground and under cover gives them a serious advantage; you can ask the players if they will do special things to even the odds like lob a grenade in their bunker.
.
Thank you all for the advice. Lot to think about. Has anyone of you actually “replaced” the combat rules with say AW combat?
Nope, haven’t thought of that. What would you like to gain by changing combat rules?
Pawel Solowczuk A bit more crunch.
What would “more crunch” help you do, Marcus Burggraf? What parts do you feel are missing that need shoring up with more mechanics?
That a combat is over with one roll. I mean I will continue trying to make the way UW does it work for us, but so far it is not really satisfactory. We like a variety of maneuvers etc.
Break up your threats into groups, like the rules tell you to. Combat isn’t over in one roll if they’re fighting multiple groups engaging them simultaneously.
And the combat moves in Apocalypse World are more to your taste? I’m not trying to be snarky or unhelpful here. I’m just curious. The combat moves in AW, namely Seize by Force, feels pretty similar to the one in UW to me.
Marcus Burggraf If you decide to do it, please let us know the results.
If your group has a heavy focus on combat, I could understand that tactical and support moves from AW look nice to spice things up. I had the same thought when I was playing Action Movie World (that I would like to have the tactical and support moves from AW), but that’s a game mostly about action, while UW places a combat on the same level like social or any other move/interaction.
Maybe you can spice things up with a better combat scenery. Place some automated defenses that can be hacked or otherwise will require serious weaponry to damage. Place stealth conditions on them – if you fire before disabling transmitter a backup with sizable force will be here in seconds. That will make them trigger and roll other moves.
Look at their XP triggers and place opportunities to fulfill them in combat scenario.
Do some space ship combat, do some vehicle combat.
Hope it helps.
I am already breaking them up in various groups and vary combats, same as I would do in any other game. But even with multiple threats , one roll and the enemy is done. And we like our enemies a bit tougher you know? And yes, we are a very action oriented group. Social etc is of course also present but we do like fighting a lot.
I know what you mean, I also like fighting. But that’s why I enjoy playing in one group with players who enjoy social challengers or fixing/breaking stuff, so what we each have different plots and I usually have enough combat when others get into trouble and plasma bolts starts flying.
You might take a look at preview of upcoming supplement that Sean is posting and look at new careers he prepared that allows the use of magic and telekinetic abilities to spice up your combat repertoire.