This thread is specifically for discussing the combat system in my 'Charlatan Fencing Masters' game, which was introduced in this thread (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?p=164928#164928) -- it deals with more overarching aspects of the design. Combat is hairy enough, and tentative enough, that it needs its own space.
So, one possibility, in rough form, is as follows. This is more detailed than I had originally planned, but maybe I need more detail to create sufficient tactical depth through choices.
- Every fight is broken into engagements, where the opponents draw together and exchange blows before disengaging, unless someone loses entirely.
Each fighter will have three 'global' resources that are tracked through the entire fight. These are stamina, ego, and injury. Fights will mostly be about wearing an opponent down (making him lose stamina) and humiliating him (ego), with a final devastating blow (injury). In other words, combat is not primarily about injuries. But they alone can end the fight.
Historical aside: Stamina might not realistically be such a significant factor for trained fighters. But remember that we're talking about charlatans here. And at any rate, even a small amount of fatigue will reduce the precision of one's technique. On the other hand, the fighting manuals have a lot of material that seems designed specifically to humiliate an opponent, particularly during a duel. (Frank Hunt discussed this, in the context of dussack fighting, in a lecture he gave during the Symposium for Historical Swordsmanship, held at the Center for Renaissance Studies at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst this past April. Sadly, Frank wasn't able to demonstrate the technique for throwing your opponent into a sack with the help of two friends.)
- Each engagement has 3 phases, and there's 1 between-engagement, or 'pause,' phase as well.
In the pause phase, you can choose either to mock your opponent, delay him, or to engage with him. If you and your opponent both want to mock eachother, you roll to see whose mocking is more effective. If you want to mock but he wants to engage, a different kind of roll determines whether you (1) destroy his ego so much that he pauses, (2) harm his ego but still must fight, probably with a penalty to your actual combat roll, or (3) fail miserably and are taken off-guard, with a large penalty.
The next two phases are Approach and War.
First, however, you decide who's starting out on the better foot. If a mocking or delay was attempted in the pause phase, then whoever came out on top there has the better 'footing.' Otherwise, an initial roll decides who is able to best fake-out and size-up the other, and thus to have have the Vor (Before), or initiative. Vor is kept track of throughout each engagement and the person who has it controls the direction of the fight. In both Approach and War, the fighter with Vor chooses what kind of attack he wants to perform. He adds gets to count his bonus for that technique in the die roll. If he wins, he may harm his opponent (see below) and he keeps the Vor. If he fails, he loses the Vor and may be harmed himself, but he dictates what kind of technique his opponent uses against him.
In the Approach, there are just 2 techniques: strike and thrust. Regardless of which way it goes (see below for details), the fight then procedes to the next phase, the War, unless one fighter is greviously injured.
In the War phase, the fighters' weapons have locked 'in the bind' and their techniques change. There are now 5 techniques: strike, thrust, slice, disarm or throw. The fighter with Vor can also choose to disengage without seriously attempting another attack. This is usually a bad idea, as it involves a intentionally giving up Vor; with a successful roll, the engagement ends, otherwise it continues.
After War, either both fighters can try and keep fighting, continuing the War, or go to the Withdrawal (Abzug). If both want to fight, the War continues as before (except maybe more dangerous and less predictable). If either wants to withdraw, then a roll is made. Whoever wins it will harm his opponent as usual. If the winner wanted to withdraw, the engagement ends; if he wanted to keep fighting then the phase is considered a War phase in retrospect, and the fight procedes from there.
So, overall, the phases goes as follows, with Pause and War being repeatable.
Pause > Approach => War > Withdrawal >|
- After any roll, one fighter has a margin of victory. That margin can turn into a bonus in the next phase, injury to the opponent, or humiliation. For it to be injury, it has to be a significant amount. So, frex, a margin of 1-3 would have to be bonus. But when it hits 4, it can be injury. Given that requisite though, the winner has the choice of deciding which it will be. For the margin to turn into humiliation, an even greater margin is needed or the player could have declared his attack (if he had the Vor) to have the intent of humiliation. This declaration makes the attack harder, because the figher is vulnerable, but automatically becomes humiliating (as well as slightly injurious if serious).
- Grappling techniques (disarm or throw) can lead to their own special phases of combat where the rules are different. If either is successful, it can end the fight quickly. But if not, it may turn the fight into an extended grappling or wrestling contest. Different skills would be used here, but there are no technique choices, so it's just straight rolling, more or less.
- If a margin of success is ever very big, that character can have a skill improved. If the person with Vor won, he's already locked in to what technique he used -- but he can alternately choose to decrease one of his opponent's skills. Conversely, if fighter with Vor lost, he chooses what skill of his opponent the other player can raise.
- The longer term consequences of a fight can include:
- Reputation change
- Monetary compensation paid to the winner
- Reduced actions in the next few turns of play, during recovery from injuries
- Bruised Ego ? Maybe Ego should be a stat. After all, a charlatan is only helped if he believes what he's pitching...
[/list:u]
Phew. That's about everything I've come up with in the past two days or so. As I said, it's just one possibility for how things might go. I might toss it out completely. But for now I'm going to consider it a working model. It's more back-and-forth, phase-oriented than I was originally going for, but it might work. The selection of technique is still a prime issue, especially for the person who doesn't have Vor.
Thoughts? I'm especially concerned with how tactically interesting it is, and whether there's enough color without it being too mired in detail.
gnerally good though a bit different from my solutions, but like them anyway.
There seems to be no optionf or avoiding, parrying setting aside etc. Once in the War phase, it seems to be only about attacking, which while vital is not the only option, especially if planning to grapple etc, as one would set aside etc. to get close enough to carry it out.
I am assuming that other stats atributes etc will give bonuses? After all a more skillful fighter could pass on the Vor, allowing that they have superior speed, and read and react to the opponent for example
Tactically I think you need some form of manouvering. The way is seems at the moment, it sounds like modern sport fencing with fixed phases and but no option for offlining in the approach phase, in reaction to a thrust for example, perhaps combined with some form of setting aside technique.
Also how do reflect the increased options available to more experienced fighters. ie, faced by the same attack, the inexperienced fighter will be less able to make use of the options available than a more experienced fighter, and the more more experienced one has the grreater the repetoire that can be called on, as well as an increased ability to carry out 'simpler' options.
Jonathan
I guess I didn't really explain the conceptual basis for the system before. I think a lot of your concerns will be addressed by this though.
I'm conceiving of each 'technique' not as a single or particular move, like a literal thrust or the use of Absetzen, but rather as any number of techniques which ultimately lead to the same approximate end, namely one of the three 'woundings.' So a player who declares, "my fighter will attempt a thrust" is really saying, "he'll try to use maneuvers that end with a thrust."
The subsequent roll then decides who came out on top in the exchange. Up until the roll, the second fighter hasn't declared an intended move, because he's going in the Nach (After), and is mostly responding to his opponent. If he wins, then a wounding needs to be chosen, but we'll assume that he takes whatever opportunity presents itself, so the selection is unpredictable from our vantage-point (in that we're not dealing with the tiny details that would actually dictate the techniques used). The roll simply sums up the whole exchange, and we can imagine maneuvering and parrying taking place as part of it -- if the person with initiative loses the phase, he must have attacked, been deflected, and then counter-attacked.
Regarding Vor. I shouldn't belabor that too much I guess -- you're right that timing issue are more complex, and fluid, than simply having the Vor or not having it. I want to express the concept of Vor and Indes to the game's players, but perhaps I should simply call the advantage of choice, as described above, 'Initiative' -- with the understanding that posessing it will usually involve making use of Indes and fighting in the Vor.
I hope I'm clear in describing my thoughts on all this. Does this deal adequately with your desire to see parrying, maneuvernig, etc. ?
As for stats and attributes, yes, they'll give bonuses. Or control the number of dice rolled, or something like that. Here are the kinds of skills I was thinking about having. They'll all probably be factored into some overall kind of number, but will also have particular influence in certain areas of the fight.
- Courage / focus - gives bonus in that first initiative roll
- Ego - ?
- Basics skills like footwork, wards, and general concepts.
- Strength
- Approach techniques (in real-world terms, mostly the master strikes, Displacement, Uberlaufen, Zucken, Absetzen, Nachreisen, maybe Hende Trucken)
- War techniques (Fuhlen, Winden, Hengen, Durchlaufen, Durchwechseln; and to a lesser extent the strikes, Zucken and Abschneiden)
- Withdrawal techniques (mostly as for the Approach)
- Cutting techniques - for when the cutting wounding is chosen
- Thrusting
- Slicing
- Disarming
- Wrestling[/list:u]
So a fighter might be good or bad in any of those areas. Obviously there's a lot of overlap in what each realistically covers. That's okay -- what matters is when they get applied.
As for more complex maneuvers for more experienced fighters...that would be cool. I'm not sure how I'd acheive it, given the level of abstraction I probably want to use. Since the main choices right now are between the three woundings, it seems weird to restrict that...though grappling and such might be limited to those with more skill. Perhaps some of the individualized/secret moves from each school could actually serve as special techniques here, with particular trade-offs and difficulties. They should probably tend to inflict ego hits as well, since one master's proprietary moves would be defeating the other's.
All quiet here. Any new thoughts?
JW
This is very cleverly done. As a gamer and a re-enacting brat, I like the element of comedic realism brought to it by the warring schools. It's like a Three Stooges movie with more bloodshed. HUZZAH and HEY-NONNY-NONNY!
...Yes, I read Dork Tower, why do you ask?
This is a problem I hav ehit in my system, making it 'real' feelin without getting bogged down in too much detail.
Also all systems emphasise different techniques and stratergies and approaches.
My current feeling is that the basis of all things is around, timing and commitment being the two main factors in any action in comabt and balancing those to off set ones opponent, different techniques and stratergies will improe these in certain ways and would therefore alow a shift in stles and systems based apon a common mechanic. But still hard to implement
JW
Jonathan, I'm intrigued by the commitment/timing breakdown. I too have been trying to find some overarching principles that could be used in lieu of agonizing detail. I have a somewhat modified system now which I've been hammering out. Timing is definitely a key element, and maybe commitment too in a certain sense. Another big issue is having enough choices so that some meaningful strategy can evolve.
I'll try to describe the changes in my new-ish system shortly, and I'll maybe post the whole thing too -- but I've been putting a lot of stress on the tendons lately, with typing, so I had better not overdo it.
It might also be of interest that I'm experimenting with some other break-downs of the historical techniques. I won't go into the details, but I've analyzed Ringeck's manual and done various statistical analyses, trying to group different techniques by when they're used. The results (such as they are now) are interesting because moves that aren't necessarily similar in physical practice may nonetheless be used in similar circumstances. But the data from Ringeck is not great either, so I don't want to draw too much from it.
If you look at the Guild website you will see that we teach based upon the Principles of combat, these do not change and as such all techniques fall within them. Hence you will find, as you mentioned that certain 'techniques' will work in several situations and several solutions are available to evry situation. That is why that I am leaning toward the timing/commitment aspect as these are seeming to be the definig factors when actually applying an action/reacton situation.
Of course how one applies that is something else. Do certin 'techniques give bonuses to either area. or does one use basic actions, cut, thrust grapple etc, and make use of the timing/commitiment thing within them to allow certain styles/techniques to be favoured??
JW
Yes, but the question is what principles does one highlight, and how does one approach them? All the masters talk about timing, so that's an easy one. They don't talk very much about distance though -- yet surely that's terribly important too. And a problem especially with something like that, but also in general, is that none of us are masters today. The manuals are not always very explicit, leaving some big unknowns. If we try to make a game, we have to fill those holes in somehow, or abstract above them.
And the point about getting specific mechanics to mesh up with an abstract model is well taken. I'm hoping that some of the statistical analyses I'm running will help with that a bit.
Alrighty. Here is a pdf outlining a modified dueling system: http://www.primevalpress.com/games/charlatans/sys2.pdf
Some parts are still sketchy, but I do have some actual provisional mechanics in place -- i.e. with some dice and numbers. I realize pdf isn't the most convenient here, but as I said, I'm trying to save my carpals/tendons...
I'd particularly like feedback on the pre-engagement (initiative-determining) phase and the War/Krieg. I considered a bidding mechanic, but that seemed too drawn out. The present system of simultaneous drop (like in tRoS) seems adequate if not elegant.
I appreciate any thoughts -- and this system is still highly tentative. If I can get it hammered out a little more, I'll playtest it and see how it works. The other major alternative is a more discrete list of techniques, with paths between them.
I think that didtance is quite well covered by the 'phases that you have, approach, war etc. I would add 'close' as well for grappling actions or as a distance, where shoter weapons are used. Weaponms would have modifers depending on when trying to use them, so pole weapons would get some kind of bonus during the approach phase, but would get less effective as the war and close phases were used. Adding the opertunity to manouver and maintain a distance/phase would allow players to attempt to work within certain ranges and phases.
The system that we have in the Guild has been used for over 40 years and so we have seen a lot of different types and styles used, and it still does not make it easier as after all, a lot of what happens in a fight is about chance and luck, the training just allows one to try exploit theose chances, or not.
JW
Quote from: JasperYes, but the question is what principles does one highlight, and how does one approach them? All the masters talk about timing, so that's an easy one. They don't talk very much about distance though -- yet surely that's terribly important too. And a problem especially with something like that, but also in general, is that none of us are masters today. The manuals are not always very explicit, leaving some big unknowns. If we try to make a game, we have to fill those holes in somehow, or abstract above them.
And the point about getting specific mechanics to mesh up with an abstract model is well taken. I'm hoping that some of the statistical analyses I'm running will help with that a bit.
What news?
Not had much time to look at this but my feeling is that the choice of stratergy is very important, so that rather than using kill rolls etc, the emphasis should be on the moves that are chosen/that can be chosen?
JW
It's coming along quite well, with a new version. I'm pretty pleasd with it. The main thing that's needed now is playtesting -- though any comments are stll welcome.
The new version is described here: http://www.primevalpress.com/items/2
The main changes are two-fold. First, there's only one roll per phase: the defender rolls to defend himself and to simultaneously counter-attack. If he succeeds, then he becomes the attacker in the next phase, and his margin of success is rolled over, making it harder for the other guy to defend. So the initiative basically bounces back and forth, as long as no one fails to defend himself.
I've also got what I think is a fairly clever little die mechanic which makes the fight more random (less dependant on skill) as the fight goes on.
Having had a bit of a look through, personally I prefer an option that would give a grater emphasis on the actual choices that makes rather than relying on the skill that the PC has.
Jonathan
Jonathan,
You're going to have to give me more than that. Personal preference doesn't really go too far. Why would you change the emphasis? For added tactical complexity? For realism's sake? For...?
I could easily create 10 options per phase rather than 3 or 5, but would that really matter much? Since I'm avoiding gritty details, it seems like plenty of combinations are afforded right now (except in the Withdrawal).