[Tell Your Tale] Breakthrough on Range Combat Concepts

[Bill Cook]

This is just a shout out kind of post. I've been working on completing a playtest draft of an RPG I've written. It's about what happens between "Once upon a time," and "They all lived happily everafter."

My gaming group will be starting a Traveller campaign this week, and I need to make my job and health higher priorities, anyway, so I doubt I'll be able to do any actual play before the holidays, though I've spent many late nights playtesting with markers and dice; it's just not the same thing:) I plan to post the latest version of the playtest draft on its own website within the next couple of weeks.

I had set out to provide some structure for tactics in ranged combat; mainly because the system is not specific to any one genre, and anything outside fantasy tends to use guns. But I had no idea that it would flower so nicely. Here's a copy of an e-mail I sent to a friend who's tinkering with plugging in a post-apocylptic world based on the video game, Fallout. That's not something I ever would have planned! But it's been a good stretch and has highlighted the need for rules to handle an ambush.

Great news! I just finished adding concealment, stealth and acquisition. This gives better context to constraints for snapshots (formerly popping out). Also, there's some verbage for flanking, which along with snapshots, was previously sketched in formative versions, but now is cleanly, powerfully expressed.

So for example, in our playtest, the Boss and the second gunman would have had to pass Perception checks to acquire Wade before they could utilize range access. (Also, Wade breaking position could have effected acquisition.) Potentially, you could have a few rounds go by where the characters know that someone's firing on them, the Heavy knows it's Wade, but he can't declare an attack because the characters can't figure out where Wade is. Sweet:)

I think the real breakthrough that makes it work is making Acquire (Aq) a non-costing action, timing it as instantaneous and sequencing it as an assumed pre-requisite to access--the basis of all attack progressions.

I also wanted to share my delight in learning to do what is for me some advanced layout in Word. I've now got: distinct headers/footers, two pages to a sheet with a stretch-to-fit length, a procedure for duplex printing and an auto-generated TOC and index.

Another aside: I'm quite enjoying the freedom of entertaining whatever kind of game world is on the minds of the people I've shown it to. Getting a top five list of details, jotting down cribs and rolling into action lets me demonstrate mechanics quickly, in their terms.

Other cool things about the game:

[*]All weapons do the same amount of damage. (Ah, the freedom . . . makes me dizzy . . .)
[*]Solid rules support for third-party attitude.
[*]Movement and defense that costs; provides variety of matching.
[*]A matrix of opposition; features the striking of declarations.
[*]Super tight margins.
[*]Thumbnail stats.
[*]A lethal baseline for combat, with rules for principals to cheat.
[*]Non-GM players tell the story. Non-arbiter GM controls principal antagonists.
[/list:u]

[Sydney Freedberg]

.... in our playtest, the Boss and the second gunman would have had to pass Perception checks to acquire Wade before they could utilize range access. ... Potentially, you could have a few rounds go by where the characters know that someone's firing on them, the Heavy knows it's Wade, but he can't declare an attack because the characters can't figure out where Wade is. Sweet:... I think the real breakthrough that makes it work is making Acquire (Aq) a non-costing action, timing it as instantaneous and sequencing it as an assumed pre-requisite to access--the basis of all attack progressions.

This whole issue of situational awareness, or most combatants' lack thereof, is critical to modern combat and strangely missing from many RPG combat systems. (See the thread I started on Fear & Confusion and its offsplit.) I'd be very curious to hear more about your mechanics for portraying it.

[Bill Cook]

Hi, Sydney.

There's some pretty heavy stuff in those threads. My game does not aspire to the spiritual or method focus that Dauntless and Tomas HVM describe. I tend to limit player choices based on established combat conditions. It's something a lot of games do, though typically, in a less explicit manner; I use it as my principle means to shape the SIS.

Most constraints are based on the progression of attack: accessed, dodged, blocked/parried, hit, wounded. By keying off these states, I can capture all manner of weapon color in a way that rating damage as d6 vs. 2d4 + 2 falls short.

In terms of emotion, I use a pain effect based on total wound count. Nothing mind-blowing there:) There are instances of Perception limiting defense (e.g. Dodge vs. thrown knives). Perception (PCT) and Persuasion (PER) are the sensory and emotional attributes.

I've got a short list of emotional checks to tag onto any situation that arises. It's got surprise, terror and rage. I've tested them a bit, and they work about how I want them to. Basically, they go like this: surprise - PCT limits defense; terror - PER limits attacks; rage - PER limits defense and acts as a bonus to attacks.

Attribute scores range from one to five, average being three. I should explain: limiting implies an attribute roll that caps another attribute for its roll. So if I try to punch you, but I'm scared, I roll PER for two and may only roll two of my three Strength (STR) dice.

Since I've added support for concealment and stealth via necessitating a roll to Acquire (Aq), it kind of makes surprise redundant, so I've got mixed feelings about it at this point. I now envision emotion checks as being triggered by Powers rather than as spice that gets sprinkled onto combat by the GM.

There's also a constraint called a snapshot: whenever the prior round defender Maximizes Cover (MxC) and then attacks, acquisition becomes actionable, but remains non-costing. It's like a hiccup of perceptive challenge.

What I'm excited about, and to get back to your interest in situational awareness, is that by sequencing acquisition prior to access in the progression of attack, you suddenly get support for concealed attacks that require perception to make an offensive response. It's not so much that the rules say you can't shoot as it is that concealment requires acquisition, which must precede access, etc. Personally, I find this satisfying in a way that "wizards can't use swords" isn't (IMO).

Range combat is starting to mature. I'm less comfortable with it than melee, but it's really starting to find its legs and just be fun. Recognizing that range assumes access and requiring that its staple defensive offerings operate from a basis of cover has been the guiding principle around which all other concepts like flanking and snapshots have grown.

** ** **

I also would like to draw your attention to the support my system provides for third party attitude. I've been disatisfied with what most systems I've played have to offer in this regard. Making access an actionable starting point gives rise to all manner of matching variety: chains, many-to-one, free agents, etc. Focusing on roll strength assessment and calling for action by target promotes tactical play: falling on swords, striking to defend, trading blows, varying defensive function by combat state (e.g. dodge your match mate and evade his buddy, maneuvering to access).  And my pride and joy, unopposed attacks striking their target's non-defensive action.

** ** **

Just had the thought: I'm pretty sure I could actually script a backstab with these rules.

[*]P: I sneak into the compound.
[*]F: Roll Agility (AGL) against one for Stealth
[*]P: (Rolls a margin of two.) I'm in.
[*]H: I comb the courtyard, looking for thieves.
[*]F: Roll to Acquire (Aq). What's your Stealth's strength?
[*]P: Two.
[*]F: Against two.
[*]H: (Rolls no margin.) I find nothing.
[*]P: I sneak up behind a certain nosey guard and slit his throat. (Rolls AGL to Maneuver to Access (MtA) for two.) Two to access.
[*]F: That's another opportunity to Acquire (Aq).
[*]H: (Rolls no margin.) No luck.
[*]P: (Rolls STR and stacks madly for four.) Four for the knife!
[*]H: Can I defend?
[*]F: First Acquire (Aq).
[*]H: (Ties. Re-rolls no margin.) Nothing.
[*]F: Opposed by one die. (Rolls.) For one. Your margin applies a Slay effect.
[/list:u]

[Sydney Freedberg]

Cool.

Most constraints are based on the progression of attack: accessed, dodged, blocked/parried, hit, wounded....by sequencing acquisition prior to access in the progression of attack, you suddenly get support for concealed attacks that require perception to make an offensive response.

Okay, I almost understand this. But I'd love it if you'd lay out explicitly what these sentences mean, especially what "access" means in this context.

[Bill Cook]

Surely.

A constraint is a limiting of player choices. Since the conditions that warrant these limitations are generally established in the prior round, I call them Prior Round Constraints (PRC's). My concept of initiative, for example, is composed of two PRC's:

[*]If an attacker hits or wounds, he may declare action first.
[*]If a defender blocks or parries, he may declare action first.
[/list:u]

The progression of attack is a sequence of combat states used as conditions for PRC's. The order is: acquired, accessed, missed/dodged, blocked/parried, hit and wounded. Each successive state is a progression beyond the previous. Definitions follow:

[*]Acquired: a target's position is established.
[*]Accessed: a target is within proximity required to attack.
[*]Missed/Dodged: an attack was opposed by defensive maneuvering or otherwise missed.
[*]Blocked/Parried: an attack connected with and was opposed by active, personal defense or cover.
[*]Hit: an attack bypassed/overcame active, personal defense or cover but connected with and was opposed by passive, personal defense.
[*]Wounded: an attack bypassed/overcame all defense and damaged the target.
[/list:u]

What I learned from playtesting with my friend, Kevin, is to make treatment of the state of acquisiton and that it is based on Perception (PCT). I also realized that I was assuming this state as accomplished and that under special circumstances (i.e. Concealment and Stealth effects), it becomes actionable.

Accept the following PRC: if concealed, an attacker is not assumed to be acquired. This implies two key points: (1) by virtue of attack progression, a target must be acquired before an attack may advance, and (2) acquisition must be declared and rolled.

** ** **

There are a couple of related issues.

Combat operates under two modes: melee and ranged. I take these definitions to be understood but do note that unlike melee, range assumes access. (Again note that both modes assume acquisition.)

Combat is composed primarily of prescribed actions whose function and interoperability are well-defined. Though similiar in name in some cases, they are distinct of combat states. A principal sample, focused on range mode, follows:

[*]Acquire (Aq)

Allows utilization of access. Roll Perception (PCT).

[*]Take Cover (TkC)

Prerequisite to cover-based defense. Roll Agility (AGL).

[*]Shoot (Sh)

Range attack. Roll Agility (AGL).

[*]Maximize Cover (MxC)

Cover-based defense. Roll Agility (AGL).
[/list:u]

During our playtest, I created a scene in which a PC, Wade, concealed himself in a building overlooking a main street and Ge'an, another PC, hid behind a dumpster. A patrol ATV came up the road, carrying an officer and two Brotherhood of Steel (BoS) regulars.

DECLARATION LOG
============
ROUND ONE
========
Wade shot the driver. He tried to take cover.
-Wd Sh Rg1
-Rg1 TkC

Ge'an shot the engine block. The sargent and the second regular opened their car door and took a knee.
-Ge Sh Eng
-Sg, Rg2 TkC

RESULTS
-The driver died. The car was rendered un-driveable.

ROUND TWO
========
The sargent shot at Ge'an who dove back behind the dumpster.
-Sg Sh Ge
-Ge TkC

The remaining regular also took a shot at Ge'an.
-Rg Sh Ge.

Wade shot at the regular.
-Wd Sh Rg.

RESULTS
-The sargent clipped Ge'an. Wade winged the regular.

ROUND THREE
=========
The sargent peered about, trying to ascertain the sniper (Wade's) position. Wade shot at the sargent . . .
-Sg Aq Wd
-Wd Sh Sg

. . . who struck his action to angle his body into the vehicle.
-Sg Aq Wd X
-Sg MxC

The regular scanned for the sniper. Ge'an popped up and fired.
-Rg Aq Wd
-Ge Sh Rg

RESULTS
-The regular took another hit but located Wade.

** ** **

BTW, if you have an interest, PM me your address and I'll snail mail you a very hip playtest draft.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Aha. Think I got it.

....if concealed, an attacker is not assumed to be acquired.

One point:
In a modern firefight -- either an actual military battle or two guys having it out with Saturday Night Specials in a convenience store -- concealment of some kind is probably going to be a given. That is, the default should be "target is concealed, acquisition must be rolled."

One question:
Is every single step of your progression going to require a separate roll? This might get laborious.

[Bill Cook]

Well, I don't entirely agree. I make a distinction between concealment and cover. If two guys whip out rifles and get after it in a convenience store, I could see them rounding the aisles, taking a shot and diving back behind the end cap. (I'm reminded of Gross Pointe Blank.) But I don't see any context for concealment.

Contrast that with the climax scene at the end of Full Metal Jacket. Guys would advance into the city and their chests would erupt with a blood geyser, as though they'd been stabbed by the invisible man.

Concealment may not be the best choice of terms; I limit the concept to shooting from a hiding place. Once you're spotted (or you break position), access may be utilized and you will have to maximize cover to block return fire, same as anyone else. It's a fresh development, and I haven't committed to a mechanic for establishing this effect. But it will be an exception, not the standard.

As for roll requirements, you have to roll for every action you declare, unless it is actionable but not assumed . . . And I just read your question more closely. No, every step of the progression of attack does not require a roll.

Consider a standard range attack: begin from a point of access, since acquisition and access are assumed; roll AGL to Shoot (Sh); your target Takes Cover (TkC), rolling AGL; having a margin, you achieve the state of Hit; rolling armor against your excess of hit, you establish a margin for damage and achieve a state of Wounded. That's three rolls for all sides, which is typical by my playtest.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I make a distinction between concealment and cover. If two guys whip out rifles and get after it in a convenience store, I could see them rounding the aisles, taking a shot and diving back behind the end cap. (I'm reminded of Gross Pointe Blank.) But I don't see any context for concealment.

That's a great scene (the Gross Pointe Blank one), and your cover/concealment distinction is a reasonable one. Nevertheless (as I step on my soapbox here), even in the convenience store shootout, it's tremendously likely that you not only can't see the other guy clearly, but that you lose track of where he is altogether. Which can get your ass capped very, very fast.