Restricting/controlling choices for combat

[Black Iris Dancer]

(I am not actually Black Iris Dancer, but a friend of hers and co-creator of the Logos system)

I would suggest perhaps allowing each player to choose a set of combat maneuvers in which his or her character is trained.  Then the player could prioritize these maneuvers in terms of his character's familiarity with them.  In combat the player would roll for panic, perhaps with some modifier based on the character's training level.  The result of this roll would determine the number of maneuvers the player can choose from, in descending order of priority.  Alternatively, each maneuver could have a maximum panic rating at which the maneuver can be executed.

[Valamir]

Before reinventing the wheel, check out Swashbuckler! by Jolly Roger Games.

It does exactly what you're talking about.

There are a number of maneuvers.  You and your opponent each choose 1.  Certain combinations are better or worse.  Each maneuver has a limit on which maneuvers you can play next.  i.e. playing a "ready" maneuver now is pretty weak but opens up the entire range of maneuvers.  Playing a "Lunge" is very strong but greatly limits what you can do next (making it easy for your opponent to predict what you will do next and choose a maneuver that will crush you).

Obviously the more maneuvers you know the wider range of possibilities you have.  Beginning fighters know only a few maneuvers making their progression between them pretty predictable and easy to defeat.  Skilled fighters know alot of maneuvers making them far more able to know the right one to use to skewer their opponent with.

[M. J. Young]

Let me offer something entirely abstract which could be made concrete according to your situations.

Create six "categories" for maneuvers. They make the most sense if they're divided situationally--maneuvers that can be used when in close, when far away, when partly impeded, when in the weak position, when in the strong position (well, that's five, anyway).

Each maneuver includes the numbers of the categories in which it can be useful. More ordinary less powerful maneuvers can be used in far more situations than more powerful less ordinary ones.

When it's time for the player to act, a d6 is rolled, and the result determines the situation at that moment. Thus no matter what he was planning, if the roll is 3 the character is partly impeded (there's a beam in the way, or an obstacle, or something has grabbed your sleeve) and he can only use maneuvers that fit within category 3.

This will change the maneuvers available to him randomly during play while generally keeping the simplest ones there. It will also create advantages and disadvantages, as no character is likely to have top skill in top maneuvers in all six categories.

Approached a different way, you could have the player declare his intended maneuver, and instead of having a chance of success roll use the category roll to determine whether it worked in this situation. Thus if he chooses a maneuver that does not work if he is impeded and a three is rolled, he failed. (Skill ratings would then shift to the effectiveness of a success, the randomness being factored into the probability that the maneuver would work at all in this situation.) A player then would take a risk in attempting to use a powerful but unlikely maneuver, hoping to get the one or two chances in six that it works for critical results, or could fall back on the maneuvers that have five chances in six of working.

Anyway, those are some thoughts on the subject.

--M. J. Young

[Justin Marx]

To throw in another idea, the system that I was working on for this was to have Initiative (in the old-school sense of the term) as a Skill. A veteran soldier doesn't panic as much as the bookworm academic when the shit starts flying, so combat experience is directly factored into the character sheet, which is then modified by strategic advantages (e.g. ambush, higher ground etc.).

Depending on the result, the character accrues an integer of Advantage. Maneuvers have variable advantage costs, so the good ones (which require short-lead in maneuvers anyhow), are usually beyond the possibility of inexperienced fighters unless they have a large strategic advantage. Manuevers are played simultaenously, and advantage can also be spent to push oneself up the initiative tree. Trade off between speed and cool (powerful) maneuvers, and the calls are made double-blind. Can spend a lot of advantage to change the maneuver after the call, or defend and hold onto ones advantage until the opponent has exhausted all of theirs.

Anyway, my 2 jiao. Synthesise as you like. Although Steves post is extremely relevant - what exactly do you want to get out of combat?

[Hereward The Wake]

All interesting replies, I've not had time to read them properly to give back any thoughts as I have got a rush job on, (putting a series of fight interpretations on at The Tower of London 8'))
I'll hopefully get the chance in the next couple of days.

JW

[M. J. Young]

Reading over my post, it occurs to me that I can add another tweak to my idea that might be interesting. A character could have defensive maneuvers that worked in much the same way as the die roll: creating a situation which has to be overcome to attack successfully. Thus what I'm thinking is a maneuver such as "clinch" creates "in close" (#1) as a limitation. The attacker now knows that he can't use any maneuver that doesn't work in situation 1, and he can't use any maneuver that won't work in whatever situation appears on the die roll.

I would limit all defenses to a single number and permit only one defense to be in place, unless I could find a way to penalize them (giving up attacks, taking extra damage if hit, giving up damage). I think it might also make sense to suggest that if a character is using a particular defense against his opponent, it counts against him as well, so that if the character uses some means of inserting an impediment he can't use attacks that don't work in #3 either. Thus his choice of defenses would be focused on eliminating his adversary's better attacks while leaving himself a wide field of options.

Anyway, I think it's a clever idea, and almost wish I were working on a game in which I could use it.

--M. J. Young

[Hereward The Wake]

Thanks for all the views and replies. Having been reading them and with my own thoughts and re looking at actual combat some points have back int o my thoughts about combat in RPGs.
One thing that I have mentione in previous threads on combat that I am looking at again is the idea of deviding each action/readtion in to parts curentyl difeined as timing/commitment, the combat score would divide amoungst these. The fighter with better timing would not generally need to have so much commitment in the attack, though of course if the use of timing was not good then the opponents greater commiment would probably carry the action.

Obviously one could make the decision to allot dice/points/cards etc between the T/C scores as part of the, but one could add the that advantges to each added by types of weapon, ie a rapier is better on with timing attacks, where as a poll axe would add to commitment, weapons woudl also give modifiers when using specific attacks, see next note. Certain type of action woudl give bonuses, ie a straight attack such as thrust would give an advantage when using timing, where as a downward strike would add to commitment.

The actual application would be through target numbers and opposed rolls. D6s could be used. The fighters for example roll a number d6s, for example = to their skill, the number of success' are then compared to the number of success' the opponent achieved, the higher number gaining the advantage.

The advantage from specific parts of an action and actions themselves have a nock on/carry over affect to subsquent parts. From the previous example the winner of the timing segment would gain a significant advantage and the fighter who had applied greater commitment would lkely now find that more of a hindrance than an advantage.

Now all I have to do is make something that I can play test 8')

Thoughts?

[Hereward The Wake]

The restriction of choices will come from the fact that certain actions will be preferable for certain characters, and with the addition of the knock on affects of success and failure then the choices will become limited OR ehanced throughout an exchange.
JW

[Hereward The Wake]

My problem with cards is that it becomes to randomised and can also end up with loads of decks fo cards! 8')
JW

Card are a fairly obvious way to give players a restricted set of options to choose from - more skillfull characters get more cards, perhaps with different fighting styles giving cards from different decks. In martial arts you might have a deck of throws, a deck of blocks, a deck of holds, a deck of strikes, etc.

[Hereward The Wake]

I think that from my point of view this has some merit to what I want from a game. I will think it over, Cheers
8')
JW

Reading over my post, it occurs to me that I can add another tweak to my idea that might be interesting. A character could have defensive maneuvers that worked in much the same way as the die roll: creating a situation which has to be overcome to attack successfully. Thus what I'm thinking is a maneuver such as "clinch" creates "in close" (#1) as a limitation. The attacker now knows that he can't use any maneuver that doesn't work in situation 1, and he can't use any maneuver that won't work in whatever situation appears on the die roll.

I would limit all defenses to a single number and permit only one defense to be in place, unless I could find a way to penalize them (giving up attacks, taking extra damage if hit, giving up damage). I think it might also make sense to suggest that if a character is using a particular defense against his opponent, it counts against him as well, so that if the character uses some means of inserting an impediment he can't use attacks that don't work in #3 either. Thus his choice of defenses would be focused on eliminating his adversary's better attacks while leaving himself a wide field of options.
--M. J. Young