Based upon recent threads and my own musings on combat systems, is there such a thing as a new way of dealing with combat? I'm not so sure.
I know that many of the ideas i've seen are inversions of conventional methods and I know that the combat system should serve the dirve of the system it is part of, but what do people think? What would make an inovative approach to combat?
My take is that it has to do with what I call Timing, the who goes when aspect of the system , this is more that initiative in the conventional sense, as rather in real fighting its less about who starts first, but rather who can act when they want and also who gets to do more in the same amount of time. But this is my take.
What do others think is important?
Best
JW
Personally I think that emulating combat is a very hard task for role playing games.
On the one hand you a want of a balance issue, where you want things to be fair.
On the other hand you have the idea that a fight is never really fair "in real life".
I have not been in many scrapes to know how true this is; however this complaint "This isn't realistic" or "Real fights don't work like this." are things I hear every now and then from players who comment on whatever combat system were playing at the time. This is a complaint I have heard of all the systems I have played.
So I guess a "new method" of combat would be one that does not treat fighting as a fair even, but would be "gritty and real" if such a thing can be done by any form of system.
How you would get this effect baffles me, but I think that would probably be new.
The main hitch to combat is that in real life, fighting is a rush. A single hit, and, potentially, you're out for good. If you're talking fantasy, one hit with a sword spells death. With shooters, you're a single hit, and you're dead, or at least not in a position to fight back.
But when playing games, you don't get that rush. So a combat that mimics this is very boring. In a fight, time almost slows. In RPG combat, time continues at full speed.
When you give damage, you're taking away the essence of combat. If you're leading others to fight, it's different, because, hey! If one guy gets hit, at least you've got others. But, generally, and at least when I think of RPGs, you're ONE PERSON, fighting ONE other PERSON (If you're fighting multiple people, it's only one person at a time). So, when we give damage to draw out combat, yeah, we're making it more fun, but you lose that authenticity.
I believe there are new combat styles to be discovered. One option is using real world physics, where if you get hit in the head, you're dead, but if you get hit in the arm, you might not be dead, but your performance is greatly diminished.
The point is, you have to get as close as you can to original fighting. Creepy shots, vision blocking blood and debris, and loud, suspenseful music will get the adrenaline pumping, and after that, it doesn't matter how authentic it is. No one will have time to analyze it, and those who DO, are completely missing the point of the RPG: Playing out your wildest dreams as though you were experiencing it first hand.
Hope that helps.
Quote from: Hereward The Wake on June 20, 2007, 06:25:25 PM
My take is that it has to do with what I call Timing, the who goes when aspect of the system , this is more that initiative in the conventional sense, as rather in real fighting its less about who starts first, but rather who can act when they want and also who gets to do more in the same amount of time. But this is my take.
One problem is that, the moment you start worrying about the order people begin actions in, you get questions of how exact do you really have to be with a system. In general, the more precision you introduce, the worse the system gets bogged down in the numbers. And who is to say anything is balanced or precise enough to bother after a certain point?
Order of actions exists for one primary reason: because it's a game, and in most of these games, the players take turns.
This certainly isn't a necessary facet of a game, and certain games do just fine without it. There is some realistic justification for doing away with it as well. In real situations of competition, many actors are doing things at the same time.
-Jason T.
This may belong in a new thread, but...
I did a quick search on the forums for this, didn't find anything. Has anyone thought of perhaps programming a side-scroller fighting game (a la Street Fighter) as a combat resolution system? Different sets of stats and stuff would remain relevant (if programmed in well), while adding in the factor of player skill with a controller?
Rather than just using a computer to generate random numbers, keep track of maps, and online game-by-post; and of course rather than going the whole way and creating an MMO, has anyone tried integrating combat with a computer in this manner?
Quick and exciting method of resolution. With a good design idea, and a few weeks of coding in your free time (art optional; use stick figures!) you could replace those slow dice and human-based calculations.
-Jason T.
Instead of making more numbers and variables, one way is to simplify things is to ask what the combatants are fighting for. Once you know what their fighting for, you only work on a combat system that determines whether they get it.
On the other hand in another thread a poster just about scolded me for the idea, saying who cares why the fight started, we should just design to resolve the fight. But I think that will greatly detract for the roleplaying reasons for begining the fight, once play occurs.
I asked this same question in the first thread I started on the Forge -- http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10977.0 -- which produced a LOT of interesting answers.
If you haven't already checked out Jake Norwood's The Riddle of Steel and Luke Crane's Burning Wheel, you definitely should. They're both complex choose-your-maneuver systems in which timing is critically important, but they handle these elements in very different ways.
Quote from: Callan S. on June 21, 2007, 03:53:07 AM
On the other hand in another thread a poster just about scolded me for the idea, saying who cares why the fight started, we should just design to resolve the fight. But I think that will greatly detract for the roleplaying reasons for begining the fight, once play occurs.
I agree with most of your premise. Combat at its core is a conflict of goals. The game provides for a system of resolving who has the ability to realize the goal.
I sort of agree with the person who scolded you, though I think that argument is flawed as well. The reason is that in conflicts, unintended consequences can occur and participants can change goals partway through the conflict.
The question is what role conflict plays in addressing the requirements of the game. Games with detailed conflict resolution systems with many variables to be weighed when resolving conflict tend to be more about conflict and its preperation. Treating different conflicts with different resolution mechanics can shape the feel of the game (think about the difference between D&D combat and social conflict resolution mechanics).
In one sense, the basics of conflict resolution are known and in that light, there probably won't be any new conflict resolution types. On the other hand, these fundamentals can be expressed in countless ways and innovation will continue for the forseeable future.
There is a huge potential for new design innovation for role-playing combat. Absolutely.
Basically, you're asking if it's all been done before? Let's close up the Patent Office because everything's already been invented[1] (http://ask.yahoo.com/20050407.html)!
Here's a new method for resolving combat. It's not very good:
1. Roll 7d10. Arrange the digits any way you want.
2. Dial those digits into your phone, including the long distance prefix, just in case.
3. If someone answers, tell them what you're doing, and ask them how well you hit your opponent.
4. If they answer in a way that makes sense, accept it. Share the answer with the other players. Embellish.
5. If they don't, you hit in a minor way. Describe it.
6. If no one answers or if the number is unreachable. You missed.
My point is that, with just a few seconds of thought, I was able to come up with a combat system that I'm pretty sure no one has ever conceived before. Game design is the process of taking crazy ideas and making them playable. Making phone-combat playable is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)
...I like that.
What medium are we talking here? Is this on the computer, or something else?
Hi
Adam Dray: you are officially so cool.
I would like to hear Hereward The Wake give a list of existing "combat systems," and maybe a better definition of the term. My list would include:
- Dice (or other arbitrary things taken from reality, such as phone numbers, the shapes of clouds, tarot cards given #values &c...)
- Dice & Minis (as above, but with more of a phocus on tactical movement across a board of some sort)
- Bidding (of points, or whatever)
- Pure description (or description of things taken from reality, such as the shapes of clouds, or tarrot cards without values)
- Boffering (using real life combat skills and softer than real weapons)
- Other games (like playing a game of igo, or street fighter, or a poker hand, and extracting success)
What am I missing?
If the question is "is there a fundamentally new method for resolving combat in an RPG?", then that is a very interesting question. If you are just asking for a new way to use an existing method (such as generating random phone numbers, or random quotes from confuscius, or consulting the bible), then the answer is a resounding and indisputable "yes," as there are tens of millions of different things in the world that could be counted in billions of different ways in order to arbitrarily judge the success of events in RPG combats.
My suggestion (difficult to execute) is: RPCCG
z.
"My suggestion (difficult to execute) is: RPCCG"
Atomoton came pretty close to nailing that a few years ago with the excellent Zero*Gravity, a combination RPG/TCG with poseable action figures and interchangeable gear. In advanced play, you have a deck for your gear, and a deck for your character, which included things like special maneuvers, personality quirks and flaws, skill sets, character archetypes, and states of mind. The game has been out of print for some time now, but the fan community is still going strong, and it's not difficult to get ahold of as long as you're willing to do a little searching.
Here's another, for the sake of off-the-dome-ness:
Deal out two cards to each participant. Put three face up in the middle of the table. Each participant antes a result - "i raise a blow to the head", or "i see your blow to the head and raise a fistful of torn hair." Once nobody wants to raise again, flip another card face-up on the table. Bet again. Flip the last card, and another round of betting.
Whoever wins the texas hold-em hand gets to be on TV with annoying lizard-eye hologram glasses, I mean, inflicts the currently anted stakes on his opponent(s).
Its good to see that the subject has gotten going!
To clear up some points here, of course there are plenty of new/different was to resolve combat in games, we seen a few here. What I was rfeferring to here was that there have been a number of discussions of ideas lately and really they have basically inversions of existing ideas or amalgamations of ideas form different systems, I include my own in this.
Systems that have something going for them, as far I am concerned, thats not to knock others only that this have aspects that fit in with my experience of combat, in no particular order, Riddle of Steel, Burning wheel, Swashbuckler, Contender, Feng Shui. All these have elements that capture parts of the flavour of combat
I also remember that there was a game described here dealing with combat from Homeric poetry that was quite interesting.
Obviously the role that combat plays in a system and the form that combat takes will be dependent on where the designers/players interest lies. The level of realism or abstarction will also follow that criteria, Which all means that I really have answered my own question, or new it before I asked.
Though really my main interest was to spark some discussion on peoples view points.
Best
JW
Hello everyone,
I would like to help here if I can.
First, to let you know, I am a Scadian, a member of the SCA, The Society for Creative Anachronism, Inc. Anyone that wishes to can look this up if you like on http://www.sca.org/ and/or http://www.midrealm.org/index.php.
I bring this material up in this thread because I feel that it might help the idea of ( Re: Is there such a things as "a new method for combat?" )
Within the SCA I take part in what's known as "Marshaled Heavy Combat", it truly is a marshaled art of combat, I wear a full metal suit of 15th century armor, I carry a heavy wooden shield and I use differing weapon types. These include but are not limited to great sword, bastard sword, long sword and dagger, although my favorite fighting style is what's known as Florentine (or 2 weapon fighting). And yes it hurts like hell when you get hit, even though the weapons are made of Rattan (a thick, dense form of Bamboo), which in effect is like little more than being hit with a baseball bat. You can call it crazy but I love the physical act of fighting another person with weapons and pitting my skills against them. The only difference between this type of fighting and game (RPG) fighting is that the swords or not made of metal and no one has ever died while participating in the activity. This fighting is not acting and it's not scripted, its live and full-on hitting and requires a great amount of skill to be any good at it, or you get your ass kicked a lot. It is definitely not for the faint of heart and separates the men from the boys and women for the girls so to speak, and if you're meek, you're a tool and usually dead meat.
Unless you have actually taken part in a armored/weapon or weapon fight it might seem strange to take on this next concept, a concept that its true and I suppose has always been true, that when humans have fought over the vast expanse of recorded history that it has taken place mostly with hand-held weapons and of an up-close personal nature known as melee (a term all gamers know), with the intent to kill your opponent, not to subdue or injure, but to kill. Although in game terms you could/can add in the subdue/injure option.
Fighting in a real weapon induced, armor clad fight can be intimidating and even frightening, even when the weapons or Rattan. This is good starting point any game developer could employ when judging combat, have a rating for say "coolness under fire" a check made with or at the start of a fight that might help avoid combat totally at times, as you or your opponent backs down or runs off balls silly with fear. If you think this doesn't or hasn't happened in real life, I can tell you it has and it's damn funny too, hehe. This alone can open up many new fight scenarios. But when neither opponent backs down or flees, try this.
Judge combat as a Combat Attack verses a Combat Attack, with the winner of that round/turn of the fight dealing damage, repeat as needed until someone is dead, retreats or whatever. True combat is a repetitive series of blocks and misses, mostly blocks; this is where a fighter that is skilled with a shield can really shine.
And when it comes to armor, it is treated like equipment; there is no ability to use it. I have worn it and I can tell you that there is no real skill to it; it just becomes a part of you, an extension.
In almost every case if a shield is being used, or even a buckler, they are the first thing that takes the damage, this includes slashing, blunt and projectile attacks, in truth it is actually quite hard to hit someone. And with regard to bows and crossbows, unless you're within 20 feet or so they are almost a wigget/useless against most armor types, including stiff types of leather armors. Bows/crossbows should definitely do move damage at close range, this a common mistake most games make. Surprisingly, blunt force trauma is the mostly common cause of injury and death in any melee fight.
Aiming/marksmanship: my take on this is, unless you are highly skilled with the weapon you are using, you usually miss anyway, especially at any sort of distance. I have used both a bow and a crossbow before, and consider myself skilled in real life and its still a struggle at times to be accurate consistently, maybe a developer can take this into account, and the idea of aiming/marksmanship doing more damage is just plain silly, what it should do is increase the chance to hit and nothing more or less. And the idea of being more vulnerable when performing these acts is wrong in my opinion, just try using this option, if your concentration is broken, the aim, mark fails, or the chance is reduced. The reality is, is that most common aiming attempts are not taken in the heat of combat, even at distances, they are set up in advance and usually taken under calm situation, like lying in wait for an ambush. This is why great skill is needed to be a Legolos...
I use this basic system
AMAD
Attribute + Modifiers + ability + 1d20 rolled
Target numbers; meet or beat the DC
Action rolls – select action – Attribute No. + Modifiers + Ability/Skill (rank 1 to infinity) + 1D20 = Total<DC failed, Total> success
Combat Attack vs Attack = winner deals damage
Attack 2d10+skill+attribut+mod= hit AMAD attribute + mod + ability +1d20 = hit
Damage Damage 1d20 + weapon + surplus + Str. = dmg
AMAD and over all damage.
Attribute + Modifiers + ability + 1d20 rolled = damage
Str + Mod: surplus + weapon damage (1-20 like ability) = damage
Excess attack value adds to damage.
Resist 2d10+skill(shield)+armor+endurance= resist
2 rolls for each combatant each time a hit is 1st attempted then hit
1) Deal damage: to-hit attempt
2) Resist damage: resist
Resist: Resistance is the ability to move shield and body in such a way as to dissipate or redirect the force of an attack, this can have the result of totally avoiding damage from a hit. This can be seen as a glancing blow or a soft hit. Your resist already has your armor ranking in the AMAD when stopping damage.
Each hit taken either does some portion of damage to your shield or armor or both. Each peace of armor has a set durability rank reflected in a total point value, such as plate mail say having 300 durability points before being destroyed. Your shield always takes the damage inflicted first.
Armor: If the dice value exceeds the armor value then the armor degrades by X amount of durability, this works the same for weapons also.
I hope that some of this information and my real world practical knowledge help's someone. It has helped me in my games and once you get used to it, it is a very easy and fast system.
this is just my take on the subject.
Brannos
Brannos,
Thanks for the input. I am a WMA practitioner so understand from a similar point and hence my long term desire to get more "realism#" in game combat
My original question was was it possible to do something new with game combat. In that I meant breaking away from versions of the long established standrds. things in line with TROS or the Swashbuckler systems.
No offence but your system is along the lines of the norma; thing we fond in games. What you add is your experience from the SCA.
Since asking the question I have come to belive that it is largely irrelevent, In as much that there are only certain wasy of comeing at something like combat and it seems that most have those have been covered somewhere, ofcourse somthing else might come up but they all fall in to adaptations of the generall broad basic types.
It also doesn't really matter as as long as the system focuses on what we want from the situation and the players like it, soesn't really matter what it is.
JW