[Circle of Hands] Combat system getting nailed down

[Ron Edwards]

I think I have it now! Mostly as most recently posted, but with one crucial addition or clarification.

1. Fair-and-clear. This happens once, so everyone's oriented before we move into the action.

2. Go in order. At the end of your action, state your next intended action, and describe one thing which shows your character initiating it.

i) If you get sucked into a clash and do anything but full defense, you lose your upcoming action. This may be no big deal to someone who just wants to fight, but it's a little risky concerning the advantage die, all else being equal. Even if you lost the intended action, still state your next intended action right on schedule.

ii) The advantage die is awarded to one side of every clash just before its resolution, but before the offensive and defensive point splits. It is not discussed or negotiated.

3. The order changes in two ways:

i) if your Q drops due to injury or anything else, moving you further from the "go next" point.

ii) if you pump B to get immediately to the "go next" point, which can be done at any moment unless someone is already rolling dice. You'll stay in that position relative to the other characters unless (i) happens.

5. Spellcasting includes a slight variant to 4(ii) in that one can pump B to get "into" a spellcaster's move rather than precede it, for the purpose of oppositional magic only. Your character stays in the position ahead of the character who was casting the spell, just like normal "pump to go next" actions.

6. Modifications like the +1 to allocate for a sword don't do anything to the order.
---
I think this will "pop" play into exactly the right format.

Let's try it! Make up two Circle knights using Gethyn's thingie, and give the one with the lower score total a tally item.

Pit them against these guys, in separate mini-playtests.

1. Three unnamed freemen armed only with spears + a manticore. Locate it on a rocky coastline stained with birdshit, like this. The knights have arrived on horseback on the bluff to the left, the opponents are in and among the rocks right at the water margin.

2. A named Amboriyon wizard (attributes = highest knight's) with the outdoorsman profession and two Rolke panthers who've befriended him or her, in this environment. It's an ambush, and guess who's on the receiving end.

3. Two named NPCs with martial professions (high or low doesn't matter, arm & armor appropriately) and two nzaggs, in this Pananthuri underground tomb whose décor looks like this. The opposing groups are each hunting the other. Light sources matter for everyone.

Tell me how it goes!

[Moreno R.]

i) If you get sucked into a clash and do anything but full defense, you lose your upcoming action. This may be no big deal to someone who just wants to fight, but it's a little risky concerning the advantage die, all else being equal. Even if you lost the intended action, still state your next intended action right on schedule.

The intended next action is declared AFTER the clash is concluded/narrated/visualized/etc and BOTH combatants declares their next action at the same time, right? It's like a new mini-free-and-clear-for-two where if I say "I turn back and hit him again" the other guy can change his next action declaration, or it's already fixed? In this second case who declare first?

And if the sucked-into-clash character did not limit himself to full defense, he is declaring not his action when it will be his turn in the rotation again (seeing that he did lose that action) but the next one after that?

If a character has used full defense to keep his next action, but then change the action declaration, he lose the next action?

ii) The advantage die is awarded to one side of every clash just before its resolution, but before the offensive and defensive point splits. It is not discussed or negotiated.

So:
1) A (as he declared previously) suck B in a clash
2) before anything else is narrated (tactics, actions, etc) the GM assign the advantage die, basing his decision on what already happened and the situation at this time.
3) A and B decide how many dice assign to defense and offense
4) Both roll, they compare results, subtract damages if warranted.
5) The GM narrates what just happened, with fictional details, based on the outcome of (4): for example if one of the two successfully hit the other with a knife attack, they are now fighting in very close quarters
6) They both declare what their next action will be. For A is the action he will try to do in his next turn, for B, if he did not limit to full defense, it will be in the next turn after his next one.

Correct?

3. The order changes in two ways:

i) if your Q drops due to injury or anything else, moving you further from the "go next" point.

ii) if you pump B to get immediately to the "go next" point, which can be done at any moment unless someone is already rolling dice. You'll stay in that position relative to the other characters unless (i) happens.

And you can act even if you did lose your next attack, right? (I am just checking if a previous reply was still valid)

You can change your action too, or even if you pumped B you are still tied to what you declared before?

5. Spellcasting includes a slight variant to 4(ii)

There is no (4), you are jumping from 3 to 5 every time you post this list...  :-)

Let's try it! Make up two Circle knights using Gethyn's thingie, and give the one with the lower score total a tally item.

Uh? Now? In this thread? Posting all the numbers? Or we simply try and tell you the impressions afterwards?

[Ron Edwards]

Off-list, and post about it here later.

More detailed answers to your questions will arrive soon.

[Ron Edwards]

The intended next action is declared AFTER the clash is concluded/narrated/visualized/etc and BOTH combatants declares their next action at the same time, right?

No. Only the officially acting character declares his or her next action.

And if the sucked-into-clash character did not limit himself to full defense, he is declaring not his action when it will be his turn in the rotation again (seeing that he did lose that action) but the next one after that?

Neither. He does not declare an action after the clash. He will declare his new action after the end of his next turn (the "empty" one).

If a character has used full defense to keep his next action, but then change the action declaration, he lose the next action?

No again, for the same reason.

So:
1) A (as he declared previously) suck B in a clash
2) before anything else is narrated (tactics, actions, etc) the GM assign the advantage die, basing his decision on what already happened and the situation at this time.
3) A and B decide how many dice assign to defense and offense
4) Both roll, they compare results, subtract damages if warranted.
5) The GM narrates what just happened, with fictional details, based on the outcome of (4): for example if one of the two successfully hit the other with a knife attack, they are now fighting in very close quarters
6) They both declare what their next action will be. For A is the action he will try to do in his next turn, for B, if he did not limit to full defense, it will be in the next turn after his next one.

Two things. In (3), it's points, not dice (this must have been a minor typo, no big deal). In (6), no, not both, just the character whose turn just finished.

And you can act even if you did lose your next attack, right? (I am just checking if a previous reply was still valid)

You can change your action too, or even if you pumped B you are still tied to what you declared before?

I don't know what these mean.

[Moreno R.]

And you can act even if you did lose your next attack, right? (I am just checking if a previous reply was still valid)

You can change your action too, or even if you pumped B you are still tied to what you declared before?

I don't know what these mean.

The first one is about this reply: http://indie-rpgs.com/adept/index.php?topic=302.msg3011#msg3011
Citing:  Doing this (pump B to jump to the top of the order list) cancels the "misses next action" status.
I assume this is still valid even after these changes, but seeing that if was not explicit in your post, I wanted to check.

The second one is:
A, B, C and D are fighting with each other, and they are in order of decreasing Q, so A act first, B second, etc.
They declare their next action in the free and clear phase. C declare that he will attack D.
A suck C in a clash, C stay in full defense, and now it should be B's turn to act, but C pump Brawn to act before B.
C is still tied to his previous declaration about his next action, and he must attack D, or pumping Brawn can change that, too, and C can attack A instead? ?

(I am asking because if he can't change it, there is a strange rules combination at work:  if C use even a single point to attack A in the clash, he lose his next action, and pumping B he can do a totally different thing. But if he did stay in full defense...  he can't do it?)

[Ron Edwards]

I see!

Pumping Brawn overrides all else - you jump to the next action position and you can do whatever you want - it's a full and thorough reboot. Afterward, you announce your intended following action.

I am quite excited about this. I think all the holes and special cases are gone, and that we always now what every character is about to do, all the time.

I think the only thing left is to explain how unnamed characters can hurt the player-characters individually, which I keep forgetting to do.

[Nyhteg]

Hi, Ron I have some thoughts about the current combat system/sequence...

Basically, this new bit about declaring the next action as soon as the current action has been resolved has thrown me for a slight loop.
Having run a few basic engagements with a handful of characters, I don't really understand why it's necessary.
I find it an overhead in fact - in terms of extra complication and in terms of Things To Remember Or Write Down.

What I mainly seem to find is that all sorts of declared actions become void all the time as things play out:

Let's say Albrecht clashes with Berthold and knocks him down, then declares he will switch his attacks to Dieter for his next action. Berthold was on full defence because last go he said he wanted to lob a spear at Cedric but now has to get his arse out of the mud double-quick-like instead. And in the meantime Cedric leaps in and decapitates Dieter with a well-swung axe from behind so Albrecht has to declare a new action when his turn comes up...

I don't know if it's how I'm calling things in the clashes and so on, but that kind of interplay happened often enough to be noticeable and raise a question for me.

Declaring next actions also seems, for me anyway, to remove the immediacy of the fiction.
Knowing 'what everyone wants to do all the time' feels weird in the context of the 'putting it on the line' feeling of the choices within a clash, say.

So...I don't see what declaring my next action adds to the process.

Without that element, I suggest we have something that looks like this:

A. Set-Up in the Fair and Clear.
Everyone knows exactly how the the engagement initially forms up. ("I'm hurling a spear at you. Your buddy is casting a spell. My buddy is dashing for higher ground. OK. Let's go!")

B. Turn-taking.
On my go, I announce what I'm about to do. If anyone doesn't like the sound of that, they can pump B to jump in and try to stop me.
(Pumping B for counter-magic doesn't change the order, but the principle is the same. You've just declared you're casting a spell and I decide I don't want you to do that.)

At the start of the engagement, everyone knows what everyone is about to do and where they're doing it and strategises accordingly.
When we're in the chaos and the to-and-fro of the turn-taking, everyone knows:
i) Everything that everyone has just done or is busy doing; and
ii) Exactly what the currently active guy is just about to do.

As I see it, all actions then become a calculated risk with limited knowledge.

- on my go I don't know who your guy is going to shoot his damn arrows at next, but I'm sick of him doing it at all and I want to stop him...
- I didn't realise you were going to cast a Blast at me on your turn, so I'm going to have to pump B to try to take you out in a clash when I can't really afford to...
- I don't yet know why your guy went on full defence when I clashed with him just now, but it's certainly a red flag to my buddies coming before
him later in the order...
- etc...

That sort of shifting tactical action based on limited knowledge seems more realistic and immediate to me.
Everyone has to commit to in-the-moment decisions, primarily choosing targets and deciding right now whether to pump B or not to tactically change the order. Plus, there's no remembering extra stuff across everyone's goes, which I consider a massive benefit.

Conversely, with this new mode of fully declared intent at all rimes I can, for instance, ignore people because I know that I'm not their target this go. To my mind, ignoring someone in a fight should always be a significant risk.

Now, although my experience is that I don't like it, my assumption at the moment is still that I equally just might not get it.
I could be missing something - a bigger picture; your thought process about this; your own play testing...something.

So there we are...those are my thoughts and my question: how is declaring next-action more functional (or in other ways better or preferable) than
declaring current-action only?

Best,

Gethyn

[Ron Edwards]

I see your point and I think I see a way through.

First, I'll explain where I'm coming from. The original notion, and this dates back 20 years or more, is to get away from the almost universal model of resolution which resembles a series of stop-time moments, in each of which, one person gets to act. It's my turn, so everyone else is literally frozen, and I rub my chin and look around and decide what I want to do.

Historically, an alternative has been available since role-playing's earliest days, manifest in Tunnels & Trolls: whole-round, all-group resolution, with some unconstructed opportunities for individual action here and there. Comparatively, it's been a tiny minority.

(Interestingly, most iterations of D&D have attempted to be both-and-neither, a whole 'nother topic. 3rd edition tried to make things more reactive, 4th dramatically more so, but I can see it already, this is a huge threadjack so, not now.)

So I wanted action without stop-motion and yet with individual react-and-respond. I first began with the clash notion in Gray Magick, and the earliest versions of Sorcerer adopted that. However, without a coherent larger framework, the clash idea falls apart, and as it happened, I discovered and adapted the rather excellent system in Zero for Sorcerer, removing clashes. That game did not really explain the opening framing of its resolution very well, so I developed the fair-and-clear for Sorcerer, resulting in what I think is one of the most dynamic conflict resolution systems in gaming. You can see differing variations of it in both Elfs and Trollbabe, somewhat loosened up in the former and tightened up in the latter.

It Was a Mutual Decision goes to a more scene-based resolution method, and S/Lay w/Me is an entirely different animal from any of the others, so the concept doesn't really apply. Spione and Shahida also provide diverse methods based on multiple-players with few characters, and tuned toward "soft" decisions that may or may not emerge from the context of the hard mechanics.

So what I'm doing here is resurrecting the clashes and seeing if I can achieve the same goal I did with Sorcerer, with this mechanic as opposed to directly opposing dice per action. The obvious method is to preserve the fair-and-clear and simply embed clashes in Sorcerer-style rounds, and that's what the first playtest draft pretty much does. John liked it that way and I know it works from my own playtesting. But I decided that I want to cut back even further, pre-Sorcerer entirely, and build something new. I'm basing it partly on my little not-a-game Mongrel from 2003, which is where the get-thee-to-the-end-of-the-line method comes from.

Again, the priority is not to permit any stop-motion even though everyone gets to act individually. The bump-to-front mechanic gets us at least 75% of the way, but I don't like the way that once you go, your character is frozen until the next go unless sucked into a clash.

All right, that said ...

I think the solution to what you're talking about is merely to get a little bit of reactive narration in there. Is your character ... trying to stand up, holding his face, after receiving a shield-smash? Nocking another arrow? Reaching into his or her sleeves? Jumping off the bluff? None of which is to be considered totally binding, but merely in the very first microsecond of initiation. The character can still do whatever the player wants at the moment their actual turn is initiated.

Part of the goal is cognitive: each person experiences his or her character as engaged, without "stand down it's not your turn" interludes.

Part of it is communicative: everyone at the table maintains the group awareness of fair-and-clear at all times, so characters' positions, motions, the directions they're looking ... the simple cinematic imagination is maintained through talking.

I think that's a good compromise between what I suggested and what you're saying, preserving the goals and experiential qualities of both.

I bet a number of us are doing this to a certain extent during post-roll narration anyway.

[John W]

So, the combat mechanics as they stand now (stood yesterday), am I bound to either perform the action that I declared (or prefigured) last turn or else give up my action?  Or am I allowed to change my mind and still have freedom to act?

Thanks,
-J

[Ron Edwards]

We might have posted simultaneously. I'm scaling back my original post in this thread from "declare next action" to "narrate a bit post-action," to provide visual context for everyone. It has nothing to do with committing to the action for next time, but provides context for whatever it is that you end up doing, and the character isn't frozen in the posture of merely completing the previous action.

I'm pretty sure that there is no longer any change declared action anywhere in the process at all.

[John W]

Okay good, then I like it. :)  It's for momentum of events, but it's not mechanical, it's not something that we have to remember from turn to turn for every character.

I can already hear some players thinking "oh, I can get Advantage by telegraphing one thing, but then doing another, thus confusing my enemy."  I assume this just falls under "nothing you narrate before your roll affects who has Advantage," and so it doesn't work like that.

Thanks,
_J

[Nyhteg]

Interesting.

So the fundamental, underlying intent in all this is to escape from a sense of this stop-motion "tick-tocking" in engagements? The you-go, I-go, wargame vibe?

I'm reminded of a mechanism in board game (it's also widely played with pen and graph paper) called "Bolide".
The game is about Formula 1 motor racing and uses a 'vector movement' system.
Bear with me, I'm convinced this will make sense...
So in this boardgame, you have a little car on the racetrack but you also have an associated pawn, placed off in front of the car somewhere.
This is where your car's momentum will take it on your next move.
You can move your car to the pawn or to a bunch of spaces around it, and in turn the pawn displaces off in front of your car as you do so. Faster you go, the further ahead of you the pawn gets.
Upshot is that everyone playing has a general sense of your speed, trajectory and choices, but on your go you can also arbitrarily slam on the brakes or accelerate harder to end up somewhere else entirely if you choose.

So. Back to CoH... Inertia and momentum and intent...
It sounds like you're suggesting something along the lines of:

1. On your go, announce your action and do it, then;
2. Describe your 'new trajectory', the present state of momentum, that results from the outcome of the action.

Where that second step applies to anyone else involved in the action too.

As you say, not a declared next action, binding in any way, but - I don't know - like a 'statement of vector' in order to keep everything active.

Is this the gist?
If so, I'm starting to like it...

G

[Ron Edwards]

Yeah! As I said, hardly anything different from what a lot of us are probably doing already as part of post-roll narration. Just a bit more attention to it, that's all, and getting it into the player's hands rather than the GM's.

[Joshua Bearden]

Tonight, in our 2nd play test I hope to finish our adventure and then try out some of the combat scenarios.  We'll probably all have more useful and insightful feedback then.

In the meantime here's a quick thought that I hope to revisit later with more actual play experience.

I'm really attached to the combat queue idea as simply ACT then get to the end of the line.  This makes me question the utility of adjusting the combat queue during a fight based on any consequences to Q.

Here's how I see it.  During Free and Clear we set the fight in motion with our opening moves. We line up then in order of Q. Then throughout the rest of the fight taking any action moves us simply to the end of the queue.  We take action in 1 of three ways: by  waiting for our turn;  by spending B and jumping ahead; or by responding offensively to a clash and getting pulled up.

Saying the same thing in outline form:
1. On my own turn I ACT then go to end of queue
2. On someone else's turn, we spend B, ACT then go to end of queue
3. On someone else's turn I get drawn into a clash, I ACT offensively and go to end of queue.

If I take Q damage that's bad enough in terms of reducing my offensive and defensive pool, but is it really worthwhile to try to keep tracking it, relative to other players Q scores throughout the whole combat?

With this method we never really need to say "you lost your action" because you got "sucked in" to a clash.  Instead we could say, "you're invited to take your turn early - by fighting in this particular clash." Accept, and you get a chance to deal damage before going to end of the queue. Refuse, by defending, and take your turn when it comes up naturally in the queue.

What I like about this view of things is that it enhances the distinction between this game and D&D style initiative based turns & rounds.   It truly eliminates "rounds" and thus jettisons the notion of a unit of time that expands to contain all the actions that all the combatants are entitled to take. The only similar thing would be a "clash" which involves two characters taking 1 action simultaneously.

Cases like in our last game where we needed to set a time frame for the arrival of an external element to the melee can easily be dealt with by setting a number of actions. So instead of saying the mob will get here in 3 rounds, or as I said in that game "after everyone has had 2 opportunities to act". I could simply say, the mob will get here immediately after the 7th action has been taken. Now I don't have to worry about who had an action and lost it.. and how many times we've gone around a circle.  Instead I simply count down, each clash = 1 turn no matter who's in it; each spell or other action = 1 turn.  When 7 have gone, even if it was the same person spending 8pts of Brawn in a row, then the time is up and the mob arrives.

[John W]

You know....  I like this idea.