An illusion of combat flexibility?

[Christoffer Lernö]

However, the crpg sounds like it'll be an incompatible comparison with the FitM rpg.  If that's okay then go for it, we're all watching.

Why you feel they are incompatible?

Simple, the FitM system has improvisation doesn't it?  The only way I know to improvise in a computer game is to alter the programming.  In the more sophisticated graphic interfaces, that requires months of development.

Ok, maybe some clarification is needed here. I use "improvisation" as in "you get to chose what you want, you don't need to use the move you originally declared".

I don't mean "do anything you could possibly think of"

Because that is already allowed by the "advantage move"

The advantage move is anything that isn't a standard general attack. It might be pulling down the opponent's pants or tickle him, or just try to cut off an ear.

"improvise move" gives you the possibility to change your move AFTER the dice have been rolled.

Advantage & Standard move = decide first, if roll is high enough it happens

BUT if you roll high enough you get to replace your move with a different move. This is called "improvised move" and is FitM.

But the most common result will still me FitE.

However, I've been thinking about this a little back and forth and found that some things are a bit hard to simulate that way, but in the end it might still be for the best.

Let's look at a few examples:

#1 A attacks B with an axe and misses
#2 A attacks B with an axe and hits
#3 A attacks B with an axe, misses so badly B has a free chance to attack
#4 A tries to throw B and succeeds
#5 A tries to throw B but fails because B keeps his balance
#6 A tries to throw B but B manage to hit A as he is closing in
#7 A throws B to the ground but B manages to fall softly and then proceeds to use his legs to trip A
#8 A throws B to the ground and make it so that B lands head first on the ground.

#1 A declares a standard move, the roll fails.

#2 A declares a standard move, the roll succeeds.

#3 A declares a standard move, fails enough to grant the opponent a free action (or if freely chosen concessions are used, the player declares he fails and puts himself in the range of the opponents weapon. He could also declare different things, like accidentally impaling himself on his weapon or something, but it has to be bad)

#4 A declares an advantage move (throw) the roll succeeds+3

#5 A declares an advantage move and the roll fails

#6 A declares an advantage move and the roll fails enough to grant the opponent a free action (see #3), B chooses a standard attack with his dagger which succeeds.

#7 This can only be used with full concession play or done in several rounds.
Version 1 (no concessions): A does an advantage move, but damage is low. B attacks with an advantage move from the ground which succeeds+3.
Version 2 (concessions): A declare an advantage move (damaging throw). It fails, so A makes the concession that B falls down but doesn't take damage and can attack back. B attacks with an advantage move from the ground which succeeds+3.

#8 A declares a throw and succeeds +9, so A can add an advantage or totally changing his move to something else. A chooses to choose the advantage that B lands on his head for additional damage.

Any clearer?

[Le Joueur]

However, the crpg sounds like it'll be an incompatible comparison with the FitM rpg.  If that's okay then go for it, we're all watching.

Why you feel they are incompatible?

Simple, the FitM system has improvisation doesn't it?  The only way I know to improvise in a computer game is to alter the programming.  In the more sophisticated graphic interfaces, that requires months of development.

Ok, maybe some clarification is needed here. I use "improvisation" as in "you get to chose what you want, you don't need to use the move you originally declared".

I don't mean "do anything you could possibly think of"

Because that is already allowed by the "advantage move"

The advantage move is anything that isn't a standard general attack. It might be pulling down the opponent's pants or tickle him, or just try to cut off an ear.

Examples aren't really needed.  I believe you got my point.  A computer role-playing game would need a combersomely large 'list of moves' if it were going to allow "pulling down the opponent's pants or tickle him, or just try to cut off an ear" and other such things.  Simply put, a crpg won't have this detail.  That's why I said the 'improvisation' (what you have defined as an "Advantage Move") possible in a table top is incompatible with in comparison with a crpg.  That's all. Sorry if I confused.

Fang Langford

[Christoffer Lernö]

Actually my list was also intended as check for myself to see if the system could handle these situations.

Can you help me come up with situations that ought to be covered by the system but which might not be covered.

And what concessions vs no concessions in combat? I feel without concessions is easier to handle, but doesn't provide as much flexibility. Since simplicity is important I'm a little unsure of what way is the better one. I'd like to hear your opinions before I make up my mind about that.

[Le Joueur]

Actually my list was also intended as check for myself to see if the system could handle these situations.

Can you help me come up with situations that ought to be covered by the system but which might not be covered.

Well, probably not without seeing the list already covered by your system (and best, I think in Private Message; see the button below).

And what concessions vs no concessions in combat? I feel without concessions it is easier to handle, but doesn't provide as much flexibility. Since simplicity is important I'm a little unsure of what way is the better one. I'd like to hear your opinions before I make up my mind about that.

You seem to have most of it.  Consessions without a list is the simplest system I could think of and the most flexible.  It's why Scattershot went FitM so long ago.  One thing I did try to do with the mechanix was to set it up so that 'practical' in-game consequences (those needing to be reinforced by 'da rules') could be clearly 'teased out' of whatever consession the person comes up with (that's how we handled your "easier to handle" problem).

That's my opinion, but I don't think it will have much bearing on what you sound like you've already decide.  (I was never trying to convince you one way was better than another; I'm just illustrating our design choices in a similar situation.)  Whatever you decide, I think yours will still be distinctly different from Scattershot and I'm glad of that.

Fang Langford

[Christoffer Lernö]

Maybe I should really start a new thread. I dunno.

Anyway, I still don't have it quite fleshed out yet. I keep considering details which in the end will have a lot of impact on the actual play.

For example, I'm using a D12. That means if I use +3/advantage There are effectively 4 levels of increasing difficulty. With the last few being pretty much useless.

+3 to hit translates to a -25% chance to hit, right? At equal skill levels, you'd start out with a 50% chance to hit your opponent.

This leaves you with a 25% to land an advantage move if you try it, and a 1/12 chance to get an improvise move (due to flattening of the curve at the ends of the scale).

A double advantage move would also only have a 1 in 12 chance and so on.

Of course if you'd usually beat up your opponent without thinking about it, let's say you start with an 75% chance to hit or something like that, advantage moves go to a 50% chance and improvisation moves are at 25% to occur.

Still, this strikes me as a bit boring. I was considering letting the modifier be +2 to target value instead, but this introduces a lot of detail which might be difficult to work out.

The advantage is that you can make it like this:
Single advantage +2
Double advantage +4
Single improvise +4
Triple advantage +6
Double improvise +6
Quad advantage +8
Triple improvise +8
n-multiple advantage + 2 x n
n-multiple improvise + 2 x n +2

In theory you could beat up a really weak foe and get a +10 in difference which would translate to a 5 advantage move or a 4 improvise move.

This seems to have advantages as well as disadvantages. The immediate disadvantage is that it is harder to fit into a table. Instead of providing three levels (0,+3,+6) one is talking about at least 5 (0,+2,+4,+6,+8)

In addition there is suddenly introduced the element of calculating the advantage. What is a +2 advantage move, when does it become a +4.
An obvious move would be to introduce even finer granularity with +1 modifiers.

But all this is something I really want to get away from. I don't want the players to get bogged down by game mechanical distractions.

Now, some people argued that tables are a BAD THING, but my experience is that instead of calculating if 1D12+6>=13 it's nicer to just check the table which says I need a 7+ roll to hit. It's clear and it can't be mistaken, and it's really really quick.

Providing three numbers (for example 4+/7+/10+) works but it's getting a bit painful already. At the +1 granularity tables suck. The best thing would still be to have a single simple table.

Those issues aside, let's look at the problem with advantage effects. I haven't developed any system for it, so whatever I think up will be a little ad hoc. I still like my system of diminishing dice as you have more disadvantages (one disadvantage and you're down to rolling D10 instead of D12, two disadvantages and it's D8 and so on), if I'd go for the +2/advantage system this really fits right in. Otherwise a -3 disadvantage "one size fits all" seems to be a problem because -3 is such a huge difference on a D12.

Another thing I'm thinking about is that I don't want all advantages created equal. I don't really want a "I do a +2 advantage move, which automatically translates to the opponent getting a -2 disadvantage" system. It screws up the whole reason for me introducing advantage moves and improvise moves to begin with.

Maybe advantage move is a misnomer, I think of it more as a "special" move. Kind of a "everything that isn't a standard move" thing. I don't want "balance". Balance screws up a good story every time! ;)

What I'm thinking about is that some moves "I pull down his pants" might be very useful sometimes (If my opponent's clothes are bound to interfere with his actions a lot) or pretty useless at others. What I want is the GM to arbiter these events and maybe even add a seperate task resolution for the effects.

For example consider two cases:
A) I try to grab the ogre's wrist to wrestle his sword away
B) I try to grab the little girl's wrist to wrestle her dagger away

Now you could do this by setting the difficulty of doing A higher than B (might be problematic if the modifiers start at +3 though, at finer granularity it's easier), but that's not really telling the story, is it?

Consider the case where the actual grab would be equally difficult.

In case A) you might grab the wrist but GOOD LUCK in wrestling it away since he's about 10 times your weight to being with. With B) you could probably just squeeze a little to get the girl to drop the dagger.

Naturally we can call on the GM to decide on all this, but it would be neat to have some Karma or Fortune mechanism for it instead of relying on drama.

If you're not convinced about +x advantage move gives a +x advantage might be a bad thing, consider the situation where you are fighting someone near the edge of a cliff. You want to do a trip to land the opponent on the ground at a -3 disadvantage. But in this case if you succeed you'll send him falling 300 feet or something. So the disadvantage is really much bigger than that. Can you only throw the opponent to the ground (and not off the cliff) for +3 advantage? Or do we screw up the balance by making one advantage actually more of an advantage than "paid for"?

I think it's obvious the +x advantage becomes a -3 disadvantage is not a useful thing, not even as a guide.

Sorry I'm not presenting a full system yet, but I still have a lot of things I feel I'm undecided about.

(I might seem like I have everything nailed down and I'm not listening to advice, but the truth is I do listen and consider everything you write me, just so you know ;) )

[Valamir]

For simplicities sake you might want to scrap altogether the difference between Advantaged Move and Improvise Move.

In this way you have a target number, makeing the target number gives basic success.  Each X increment above the target number is an "effect level".  That effect is improvised between the player and the GM based on how many effect levels were actually rolled.

A concession is then easy to define.  It is a + to the die roll equal to how ever many points are necessary to reach the next effect level.  The severity of the concession is improvised between the player and the GM based on how many +s were actually necessary.

In fact, after this thread, I'm tempted to steal the idea myself :-)

[Christoffer Lernö]

For simplicities sake you might want to scrap altogether the difference between Advantaged Move and Improvise Move.

In this way you have a target number, makeing the target number gives basic success.  Each X increment above the target number is an "effect level".  That effect is improvised between the player and the GM based on how many effect levels were actually rolled.

The problem I have with this system, although very feasible, is that it relies on mathematical operations. Sure, compared to rolemaster this is nothing, but I want to reduce any calculations to a minimum. And it's not only because I want speed game resultion, but also because I don't want the feel counting successes here and there gives to a game.

If possible I want to give names to things rather than numbers, I want to use different dice before altering the target numbers and so on.

Basically all I want the players to see are what they need to roll on the dice to succeed. Now if the GM has to take care of other numbers then that's ok, but any bartering visible to the player is something I feel is distracting. This is a personal opinion of course, but nonetheless something important to me.

Now if there was a way to get both without introducing effect level counting...

[Andrew Martin]

For example consider two cases:
A) I try to grab the ogre's wrist to wrestle his sword away
B) I try to grab the little girl's wrist to wrestle her dagger away

Now you could do this by setting the difficulty of doing A higher than B (might be problematic if the modifiers start at +3 though, at finer granularity it's easier), but that's not really telling the story, is it?

Consider the case where the actual grab would be equally difficult.

In case A) you might grab the wrist but GOOD LUCK in wrestling it away since he's about 10 times your weight to being with. With B) you could probably just squeeze a little to get the girl to drop the dagger.

Naturally we can call on the GM to decide on all this, but it would be neat to have some Karma or Fortune mechanism for it instead of relying on drama.

Why not simply resolve the situation with two contests? The first contest of skill versus skill is to grab the wrist of the ogre or child, the second contest is strength vs strength to take control of the weapon.

I hope that helps!

[Andrew Martin]

Now if there was a way to get both without introducing effect level counting...

Why not use a roll-under system? That way, the number on the dice is equal to the number of concessions the character gets. For example, if using a D10 and the TN is 7, and the D10 roll results in 6, the player gets 6 concessions, or good things to alter in their favour for the PC.

If the D10 roll is higher than the TN, then the difference between the TN and the D10 is the number of complications the PC must endure to just get minimal success.

I hope that helps!

[Christoffer Lernö]

Yes, Andrew, I was thinking of some contest thing, but the question is if this doesn't become an infinite loop, because it could be argued that the same improv rules should apply to this test... :)

Also this the contest rule should be written with care. It's something I need to think a little about.

The roll-under system you describe is neat, but it relies on the target number being adjusted to the roll. Basically if I take my scale and simply reverse it (12->1, 11->2) I get that, so I'm still stuck with a table although in this case it's only one. The rather counter-intuitive but clever mechanism of "being close to the target number is good" is required and this also makes me a little wary. As have been argued elsewhere, roll under is simple but not intuitive.

I don't really know about this one. It's clever and would work, but something tells me I would have made it clever but not easier to understand. So, I'm gonna have to think about it a little.