Taking names

[Krippler]

My inspiration for this game comes from both The Mountain Witch (which I gm'd last friday using my own bastardized rules derived from reviews), the hype around D&D4 (never actually played D&D but I'm a huge fan of Baldur's Gate 2, I've been increasingly interesting in tactical gamism after years of playing the simulationist swedish fantasy game Eon) and finally concept art from Starcraft 2 of a dark templar wearing armor made from zerg skulls.

The only thing I'm sure of is it's about kicking ass and taking names in the sense of trophies. The players compete for trophies of fallen enemies and they give in game advantages in the forms of increased courage, status, battle prowess ect. ect. Instead of a slippery slope with one character coming out on top with the most skulls it should create intrigue, drama and tension as the players with less skulls would be more willing to cooperate with one another and maybe leave the one in the lead without support in times of need making his winning streak fade.

What I'm in two minds about is how to present the actual kicking ass part. Should it be a simulation of a conflict, moving around on a board or should the conflict resolution be more abstract and general letting the players themselves narrate success and aid? Or a mix?

The advantage of an abstract resolution is, imo, the ability to change settings smoothly, letting it be about nailing as many college girls as possible replacing the battlefields with frat parties. How expansive should the tools for trophy creating be? Having each trophy give it's own unique effect or just a simple +1?

And finally, is it hard creatig a tactical combat game that is fun?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  I think the key to a good combat game is having the rolls inform the narration. A classic dnd example is a natural 20 for the to hit roll combined with a 1 for the dmg roll. There is no real way to narrate that effectively. The idea of loosening up the the combat rules a little so that the players can agree that roll X would  equate to a sered limb etc should be appealing.
  As to funness, I am of the opinion that mechanically balanced rules that does not favor one style of combat over another is fun because it breeds diversity.
  Ultimately, I think the best advice anyone can give you is to design the game you would love to play, you know? Good luck man!

[joepub]

And finally, is it hard creatig a tactical combat game that is fun?

In my opinion, yes. But I think creating any game is hard. Rewarding, but hard.
Krippler, do you have a real name? Mine's Joe McDonald. Calling you Krippler seems a bit silly, y'know?

Can you tell me a bit about which tactical RPGs you've played in the past, and what you've liked about the better ones? What game best captures the experience you're hoping for?

I'd personally recommend Agon, because it's a game about Greek warriors who are on the one hand adventuring together, and on the other hand competing with one another for the most glory. Have you read Agon yet?

[Krippler]

My name is Wilmer Dahl. Now I realise Agon's concept is alot like mine but I hope this project will go in another direction.

The problem is I haven't played many tactial games (apart from normal board games and computer games). I did have an idea (still in the inspired state) combining two of the funnest combat games, chess and Ninja Gaiden. They're both about preforming moves and knowing what piece has what attack and move options. Also, I guess a biological approach to game balance would be letting the players design their own moves/attacks since that would encourage them to come up with ways of fragstealing. Also that might make the game deep without having to write dozens of abilities and spells.

The scetch is something like:

Spend x points to create a combat move (each character would start with one or two moves and then as they take names they'd get to design another move making the character more versitile as opposed to more powerful).
Movename
Priority XD6
Damage X
Movement 2X squares/hexs
Direction (forward, left, right, back)

And then special things about the moves that cost or give points like:
Decapitation -1 point (if you kill with this move you take the trophy this turn as opposed to having to wrestle for it if you shared the kill with someone else)
Late blow +2 ponts (only hits in the direction after all the movement is done, since everything happens at the same time in a turn this could lead to attacking an empty space)
Additional attack direction -2 points
Long -2 (reach two squares)

Now each players would get his own set of moves making him more like a chesspiece. If you attack in a direction to a square an enemy has crossed during its move you deal damage. If the enemy too attacks in your direction you roll for priority and the one with highest priority deals damage. So now you have at least three important choices for your move, damage, sure hit or clever move that might hit several enemies and let you gain battlefield advantage.

A newbie warrior could have
Rushing spear thrust
Move two steps forward (1 point)
Attack forward with reach 2 (2 points)
Priority 2D6
Damage 3

and

Tripping sidestep with swift dagger followup
Move one step sideways and attack to the right
Priority 5D6
Damage 1
Decapitation (1 point)

Now this needs playtesting to show if these choices are meaningful. Thank you for the advice this far!

[joepub]

Hey Wilmer,
Based on what you just described, the actual mechanics and gameplay focus is NOTHING like Agon. It sounds like you'll definitely be taking it in a different direction.

This reminds me very much of a game called Super Force Seven. It's a tactical wargame/RPG that's been talked about on this forum quite a bit. Mratomek would be the username of its creator. A thread talking about it here.

There are also some awesome (and free) tactical wargame/RPG games on 1km1kt.net, which is a free PDF hosting site for roleplaying games. If you're looking for more resources and reading, that'd be a good place to jump in.

That's the last link I'm going to give for a while. Hopefully you've now got some directions to read into, and you can see how others have done stuff. The Forge asks that people posting in First Thoughts come with specific problems/questions, instead of broad polls and loose general descriptions. I think your original query could use some tightening, and focus.

What I'd suggest is playtesting what you've got, reading the stuff I've linked to you, and thinking about how this could come together. Then, if you have some specific system questions, or need some eyeballs on an innovative system mechanic, post about it here. Post the parts of the system that matter, and the question in very specific terms. Or... if you are playtesting it and something is either really working (and you want to support it better!) or not working (and you need some solutions to the problem!), post to the Playtesting forum.

Hope to hear more from you then!

[opsneakie]

With a game about kicking ass, I think you need to have a combat system that moves very quickly, and is without a lot of rules to complicate it.You can have a badass in D&D, but somewhere in three hours of rolling you tend to lose that sense of cool combat. So I have a suggestion, ripped from a side project I'm working on.

Have a single die roll be a clash, difference in rolls deals damage, done. Maybe you'll have some modifiers for special moves/weapons and so on, but you've got all that on your character sheet, so there's almost no calculation in the actual fight. I roll, add my modifier, my opponent rolls, adds his modifier, and boom, we have a clash. Tied in with this, I'd make the health (of the enemies at least) fairly low, if you're going for kicking ass in the cinematic sense, where you can cleave through legions of your enemies.

As you can probably tell, I'm a fan of the more abstracty method, which I think lends itself towards very cinematic gameplay, as opposed to super tactical play. That's just what I like, if you want the more tactical, the chess-like structure you outlined does sound pretty cool, I'd give the thumbs up to that.