Ygg Combat Mechanics

[Christoffer Lernö]

Combat

Hand-to-hand combat:
Ok, I snip this from the old thread:

1. Combat is run according to initiative order. Initiative is 1D6+Movement

2. Attacking in close combat is resolved by rolling 1D12

3. If roll+WS is above opponent WS+defensive bonus+6 the attack is a hit. A roll of 1 is always a miss 11+ is always a hit.

4. A roll of 12 means more than one hit is possible. Resolve the damage of the first attack then roll for the second attack.

5. A roll of 1 means a fumble is made. The opponent gets one free attack-roll.

The above is pretty much the mechanic I decided on, the rest is up for discussion.

I've already had the weaknesses of my rule patches to the above core rules pointed out to me, so let's start with the basics above (which is little more than deciding on a 'vs. static defense' basic philosophy.

Now my intent is to produce a combat which seamlessly floats between soliloquy mode and game theory mode.

To make that work, I need free-form actions and game-mechanic actions to agree. Fang also pointed out that I ought to make the transition explicit in the rules somehow.

I might be thinking to concretely in terms of game mechanics to solve this problem efficiently. I spent a lot of time thinking and came up with a few ideas which might work (interpolated from suggestions I got from others).

Let me first list the problematic interfaces between "free-form style play" and game theory play.
These usually boil down to specific actions not properly covered by the game-mechanics. You know: "he's grabbing my arm? Oh then I just [try to] knee him in the groin!"

A good natural response but usually very difficult to translate into game mechanics when it might be a system which encourages players to utter stuff like:

"Oh, I allocate 70% of my combat pool to offense and the rest I keep to put on defense later"

Specific problematic actions
* grabbing an opponent (to stop him from pulling that lever, or waving his magic staff the right way, or just to weigh him down trying to fight someone else)
* wrestling pins and locks
* aiming
* making one-shot attacks like sucker punches (usually GMs rev up the whole combat engine for stuff like this which is more similar to an opposed skill roll than anything else)
* aimed hits (usually not dealt with in a satisying manner even if the game has hit locations)
* knock out and stun
* disarming
* sweeps and throws

... and probably a whole lot more.

The basic mechanic presented at the top might be interpreted in the following manner:

* Each roll represents both chances to attack as well as actual attacks made.

* A failed roll thus represents either one or more misses or failure to find any openings.

* A successful roll means one successful attack was completed within the combat round (5 seconds or so)

* A critical roll means more than one opening was present and the attacker had more than one chance to hit.

* A fumble means an attack was made which left a big opening, and/or the opponent successfully evaded in a clever manner which created a significant opening.


From the above we see that the abstraction level is beyond tracking single attacks so most likely we'll run into problems with all of the above mentioned specific attacks.

So what can be done? I initially offered packet patches for each situation, ideally reducible to a normal attack roll with a modifier. Unfortunately many of these situations induced additional modifiers themselves, but then to impose on the defender when he/she later attacked or moved.

Althought it would be possible to create tweakable rules this way, it doesn't quite solve the problem, as already mentioned.

On the other hand I can't really let go of the thing and let it all be resolved with a soliloguy based rules with a little die refereeing to be thrown in for good measure as it goes against my attempt to make the combat playable WITHOUT soliloguy mode gaming. The idea is that soliloguy should enhance combat, not decide it.

If we look at the problematic interfaces, we can classify them into two groups:

Specific advantage seizing attacks (aimed, grabs, sweeps and so on) and
single blows (or "one-shots").

Of course one-shots can be specific advantage seizing attacks too.

But let's focus on what they really do and where the problem is:

seizing the advantage:
Two problems: one is balancing the advantage so that it's not always advantageous to these particular attacks rather than normal generic attacks. The other is to calculate what happens if I want to look for a specific opportunity rather than to seize whatever chance I have to attack. Both of these move them off the premise of the basic attacks.

One shots:
First where here have to deal with the element of surprise as this greatly would influence the income. The second thing is, how do we reduce the basic mechanic which works on an extended time to a single attack without upsetting the game balance. If I just did one-shots, would that me more or less efficient that using the single die roll of the generic attack?

An idea, but not the only one

One idea, which doesn't solve all the problems would be to introduce 3 different qualities of hitting.

Usually, you'd jot down something like this on your character sheet:

Code Select Expand


WS    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12
Roll  2+  2+  2+  3+  4+  5+  6+  7+  8+  9+ 10+ 11+


Now what if it looked something like this (this is not making the system easier to understand though):

Code Select Expand


WS    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9  10  11  12
Hit
Roll  2+  2+  2+  3+  4+  5+  6+  7+  8+  9+ 10+ 11+
Adv
Roll  4+  5+  6+  7+  8+  9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ 12+ 12+  -
Free
Roll  7+  8+  9+ 10+ 11+ 12+ 12+ 12+  -   -   -   -


The "Adv" or advantage roll means that if you rolled over this number you hit if you tried a special maneuver, otherwise you can decide to default for a normal hit.

The "Free" or free roll means that if you rolled this good you can actually impose any special result you like.

So let's say I want to grab an opponent with defense 5.

I say "I try to grab xxxx" roll my normal attack roll and... well if it is an 8+ I succeed with my grab. If it's less than 8 but still 4 and above, I can decide if I went for an attack instead of that grab or if I wait until next round and try to grab again.

If I just say "I attack xxxx" nothing special happens at 8+, but at 11+ - the limit for the "free" roll - I succeeded so well that I can impose any special move on the opponent I feel like. Sweeps, grabs, throws, anything is possible and I decide AFTER I do the roll. If you decide BEFORE, then you always go with that attack if you roll high enough.

This will make generic combat and specified moves very similar.

For one shots, they need to be dealt with in a similar manner. As for the advantages yielded for different moves, they need to be grouped in an easily established manner. I propose to let the GM decide the exact handicap as opposed to mechanically deciding it through the rules.

The GM would use a table like this:
* Minor restraints
* Restrained
* Severely handicapped
* Near incapacitated

In yet ANOTHER jump here to make the game less clear I would introduce different dice.

So usually you'd roll a D12, but once "slightly restrained" you'd end up with a D10, then with D8, D6 and D4. The levels are rather crude. Advantage is eliminating calculating modifiers to attack rolls.

Well just tell me if anything is on the right track. Maybe my whole analysis is off. Let me know.

[Le Joueur]

Now my intent is to produce a combat which seamlessly floats between soliloquy mode and game theory mode.

To make that work, I need free-form actions and game-mechanic actions to agree. Fang also pointed out that I ought to make the transition explicit in the rules somehow.

I think what you need is a way to effortlessly translate even the most complex of soliloquy into fairly 'large chunk' game theory elements.  A robust, yet 'crunchy,' system sounds like it is in order.

I might be thinking to concretely in terms of game mechanics to solve this problem efficiently. I spent a lot of time thinking and came up with a few ideas which might work (interpolated from suggestions I got from others).

Let me first list the problematic interfaces between "free-form style play" and game theory play.  These usually boil down to specific actions not properly covered by the game-mechanics. You know: "he's grabbing my arm? Oh then I just [try to] knee him in the groin!"

A good natural response but usually very difficult to translate into game mechanics when it might be a system which encourages players to utter stuff like:

"Oh, I allocate 70% of my combat pool to offense and the rest I keep to put on defense later"

Um, don't make a system like that?

In a 'crunchy' system, you look to generalize and 'balance' on a case-by-case basis.  "Knee him in the groin?"  Sounds like close combat, aiming at a 'vulnerable spot.'  Close combat has all kinds of interpretations, but most boil down to two things; few tools can be used and you are very 'available' for counter-strikes.  Close combat also has a fair amount of grips, holds, and pins, but these are all about having an advantage or limiting one's opponent (and they each have well-documented areas of vulnerability).  If you succeed, the 'vulnerable spot' hit will yield some extra (temporary) limitations on the subject.  (The usual 'targeted shot' tradeoff, it's a tougher but more lucrative shot; you choose.)

In the example, a referee will determine if "grabbing my arm" limits the character, whether "knee him in the groin" is at all made more difficult by the circumstances, and what that action leaves the character open to.  This could come out to a potential penalty for "grabbing," a potential penalty for position, and a residual penalty to your defense next turn.  You don't need to list these out specifically, other than to give a few examples.

Specific problematic actions

[*] grabbing an opponent (to stop him from pulling that lever, or waving his magic staff the right way, or just to weigh him down trying to fight someone else)
[*] wrestling pins and locks
[*] aiming
[*] making one-shot attacks like sucker punches (usually GMs rev up the whole combat engine for stuff like this which is more similar to an opposed skill roll than anything else)
[*] aimed hits (usually not dealt with in a satisfying manner even if the game has hit locations)
[*] knock out and stun
[*] disarming
[*] sweeps and throws[/list:u]...and probably a whole lot more.

Like I said, just make a list of examples so that people playing can go, "that's harder than a headshot, but easier than gut shot."  Things like 'aiming' and 'pins and locks' are about 'residual' bonuses and penalties; once completed, they help appropriate future actions.  'One-shots,' 'aimed hits,' 'disarming,' and 'sweeps and throws' are about player-acceptable targeting (or sophisticated action) penalties for special effects on success.  'Stun' would be similar, but it isn't clear if 'knock out,' as you list it with, is about intentional 'one-shot' knockouts or the eventuality of the loss of some resource (like a consciousness or hit point pool).

There really aren't that many 'classes' of special effects that result from any of these (and those should be easily exemplified).  You either limit a subject's movements, their ability initiate action, or their special abilities.  Categorizing these (instead of listing all of them) will help if players decide how to do some of the stranger things; would it be worthwhile to include special case rules for interfering with a dragon's wings?  Treat it the same as messing with a giant's, legs where movement is concerned ('tripping them' if you will).

The basic mechanic presented at the top might be interpreted in the following manner:

[*]Each roll represents both chances to attack as well as actual attacks made.
[*]A failed roll thus represents either one or more misses or failure to find any openings.
[*]A successful roll means one successful attack was completed within the combat round (5 seconds or so)
[*]A critical roll means more than one opening was present and the attacker had more than one chance to hit.
[*]A fumble means an attack was made which left a big opening, and/or the opponent successfully evaded in a clever manner which created a significant opening.[/list:u]From the above we see that the abstraction level is beyond tracking single attacks so most likely we'll run into problems with all of the above mentioned specific attacks.

Here you're running into the problems Ron has delineated quite clearly in his what he calls IIEE.  Simply, at what point in the activity is the players statement (or in this case, the die roll) meant to be?  Is it at the beginning, just the mere desire to perform the action?  (The die decides not only whether successful, but also if it even possible.)  Is it at the beginning of the action?  (Now committed to an action, the die roll determines how the action plays out.)  Is it at the completion of the activity?  (Having finished the action, the die roll answers; did it work?)  Or is it in the final summation, when the 'dust settles?'  (The die roll doesn't arbitrate how the action played out, but instead what the final results wind up being, after the fact.)

Aside from that you're talking about how your rules handle special effects.  That doesn't really affect what you seem to be asking here, so I can't comment directly on it.  Some people really like special effects rules in their mechanics, others hate the way it destroys the certainty of outcomes; season to taste.

[And this doesn't even touch on the differences between Fortune at the End (FatE) and Fortune in the Middle (FitM) mechanics.  I leave that to wiser heads to explain.]

On the other hand I can't really let go of the thing and let it all be resolved with soliloquy-based rules with a little die refereeing to be thrown in for good measure, as it goes against my attempt to make the combat playable WITHOUT soliloquy mode gaming. The idea is that soliloquy should enhance combat, not decide it.

Combat is an abstraction (heck, language is an abstraction; fragmentary descriptions, analogy, and implications, the worst).  What you really seem to be looking for is some mechanical way to convert linguistic (read that vague) information into an abstraction (combat).  Too many mixed metaphors.  I suggest you concentrate on a 'method of abstraction.'  This method would convert soliloquy into mechanics roughly (the only hope in abstraction, otherwise it wouldn't be abstract).  The point after which abstraction is necessary would be the 'seamless transition' point we have discussed elsewhere.

Well just tell me if anything is on the right track. Maybe my whole analysis is off. Let me know.

I can't say whether your analysis is off until we have a concrete understanding why a 'methodical abstraction' system would not suit your tastes.

I mean, the real point is that no amount of tweaking will make a combat system that ruthlessly abstracts prose the same way in every circumstance (because the combat system is about combat, not abstracting).  Focusing on the combat misses the point that you seem to be begging; 'will people playing my game be able to abstract their prose into my combat system?'  Focus on the practice of abstraction and let the combat rules flow to assert that.  Otherwise you'll have a terrific little boardgame that it takes an hour to convert a situation to.

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

I really like the direction you're going with the charts at the end.  Don't know if thats the best execution, but I think the concept is sound.  

Similiar in concept, but drastically different in execution, is the mechanic of Brave New World.  Each Super Power has some ordinary effects and some stunt like effects.  Every 5 points you beat your skill roll buy is a "Raise" (I think that's what its called, may be getting my games confused).  Each Raise lets you purchase one of the stunts.

I can't remember any real stunt effects (been awhile since I played BNW) but it would be things like if using a flame power, hitting with a raise would actually set the target on fire...hitting without a raise wouldn't.  In that way there was never any "make a saving throw to see if your clothes are on fire" or any of that.


Another option to consider would be to abstract it out even further (totally dependent on your desire to abstract).  For example a successful "hit" might result in a number of points (from any "degrees of success" type resolution).  Those points could then become what ever effect the player wants.

For instance lets say I roll and get 5 points.  For a basic swing with my weapon I could say that's +5 points of damage.  I could call it a feint and give him -5 on his next attack against me.  I could call it a trip and make him roll balance vs difficulty 5.  I could call it maneuvering for position and give myself a +5 to my next attack.  I could call it an arm lock and make him roll strength vs difficulty 3 and apply the remaining 2 points as pain damage.  I could call it a flying leg kick and apply 2 points to damage and use the other 3 points as 3 yards of leaping movement.  I could call it "spinning blades of fury" and apply 1 point of damage to each of 5 different opponents.

Of course it would take some effort to make sure the possible effects are reasonably balanced so there isn't an obvious best choice, but this would allow pretty limitless heroic descriptions of the kind found in fantasy novels (or wuxia, or Xena).

[Christoffer Lernö]

I think what you need is a way to effortlessly translate even the most complex of soliloquy into fairly 'large chunk' game theory elements.  A robust, yet 'crunchy,' system sounds like it is in order.

If I understand you right, that's what I've been trying to work towards too.

In a 'crunchy' system, you look to generalize and 'balance' on a case-by-case basis.  "Knee him in the groin?"  Sounds like close combat, aiming at a 'vulnerable spot.'  Close combat has all kinds of interpretations, but most boil down to two things; few tools can be used and you are very 'available' for counter-strikes.  Close combat also has a fair amount of grips, holds, and pins, but these are all about having an advantage or limiting one's opponent (and they each have well-documented areas of vulnerability).  If you succeed, the 'vulnerable spot' hit will yield some extra (temporary) limitations on the subject.  (The usual 'targeted shot' tradeoff, it's a tougher but more lucrative shot; you choose.)

I was thinking about the "knee him in the groin" situation. How would that ideally be played out?

I reached the conclusion that it wasn't really desirable to put it into the main game mechanics. Just like resolving "I sneak up on the guard and cut his throat" (for a messy example) shouldn't be resolved on using the combat system either.

In both those cases it's more useful to view these actions as conventional skill resolution rather than implement them in some form within the combat system (all of this is fairly obvious but bear with me).

What is the true abstraction of the combat system (especially the close combat part)?

Well, it abstracts several single uses of combat skills (individual attacks as well as creating and finding opportunities to attack) into a convenient single roll package. The initiative mechanism is integrated into the whole thing by determining which one is the first to have a solid chance to attack within the round.

So actually one should properly view combat as an extended skill test derived from several individual skill tests. The roll isn't the general thing, but a specialized form for dealing with longer segments of combat.

If we're looking at it this way, the rules for transition between soliloquy and game theory becomes clearer.

I did some thinking earlier and came up with three situations where either soliloquy could replace game theory within combat situations or where the transition worked smoothly.

1) The player is put in a situation where prolonged combat is impossible, the possible actions would be resolved by skills rather than general combat, in addition the outcome of any skill test is fairly obvious.
For example, the bad guy puts a gun to your head and says: "Surrender".
The results can be carried out in soliloquy in most types of genres (exceptions would superhero genres and stuff). If the character moves there is little doubt there will be a BOOM and time to dig out some blank character sheets.

2) The players are in game theory play, but the remainder of the outcome is both unimportant and of little threat to the players. The GM can now switch to soliloquy "After beating the big monster you catch the remaining fleeing hobgoblins". Again the outcome isn't in doubt and prolonged combat would not yield any significant effects (now the players can still insist they want to do something special, in that case the GM should remain in game theory mode)

3) The player(s) are in soliloquy mode and oblivious to danger. The GM can then use a "one-shot" attack (not resolved within the generalized game context) as a lead-in to conventional combat.

GM: "You pick up the phone and you hear a voice saying: 'Death is waiting behind you'"

Player: "Hello?! Who is this??"

GM: BAAAM someone shoots you in the back (GM rolls for damage)

I guess they all have in common that the outcome is (fairly) certain and agreeing with what the full system (applying the proper modifiers) would (or should) have yielded anyway.

We then have the matter of using soliloquy as a bridge between improvised moves and basic (abstract) combat.

In general, almost all tweaks I know of to deal with improvised situations (or specific actions like aiming) tried to use the basic mechanic (depending on mechanic that worked better or worse) to establish a level of success. The GM then decided if that level of success was sufficient or not to achieve the desired action.

This kind of tweak is fairly straightforward and does seem quite reasonable in many times.

It might run into some problems though, especially with the "oh I knee him in the groin" type of moves. I don't know how many times I've dealt with it, but most time I used the attack roll tweak, that yielded unsatisfactory results if the attack missed.

GM: "He grabs you"
Player: "I try to knee him in the groin"
GM: "He parries"
Player: "What do you mean 'he parries'??"
(comment: possible, but rather unlikely all surprise shots should fail with the same chance as basic combat. And what about if the character is weak at fighting, shouldn't a knee to the groin - if quite unexpected - have a good chance of hitting?)

Especially in the case of one shots, the naive implementation tends to break down and it would even have been preferable to deal with it in pure soliloquy mode.

Although I can narrow it down to a only a few alternatives, I find it frustrating to work with.

I was sketching on rules which involved determining if the attacked was surprised or not by the attack, and depending on the level of surprise the attacker would have different levels of defense.

However, I feel that such a solution eventually leads to an amount of patches which eventually will confuse an originally quite simple and clear system.

I know, I'm thinking out loud here and not offering any real solutions.

But, one thing though. Even boardgames with their pure game-theory mode of play, contains situations where results are determined rather than rolled.

So saying "oh, you knee him in the groin, no need to roll" might not upset the balance at all, as long as such results have clearly detailed prerequisites (the opponent shouldn't see it coming, you shouldn't need to make any extra movement to get in position and stuff like that).

In those cases, the rules should state that soliloquy is enough to determine the outcome (or at least you skip the to-hit roll and go straight over to determining damage. Incidentally, not coupling the to-hit roll with the damage has the added advantage of allowing the GM to jump over certain steps and dealing with them in a soliloquy fashion. This is where tightly coupled rules like SR (where the hit roll helps determining the extent of the damage) create huge problems for the GM)

It has to be fleshed out of course, but doesn't this seem like a viable path?

There really aren't that many 'classes' of special effects that result from any of these (and those should be easily exemplified).  You either limit a subject's movements, their ability initiate action, or their special abilities.  Categorizing these (instead of listing all of them) will help if players decide how to do some of the stranger things; would it be worthwhile to include special case rules for interfering with a dragon's wings?

Yes you're right, that's pretty much the only way to go.

Here you're running into the problems Ron has delineated quite clearly in his what he calls IIEE.  Simply, at what point in the activity is the players statement (or in this case, the die roll) meant to be?

Ok, because of the way I interpret the roll, the die roll confirms the initial declaration of the player and determines the result. The player does not commit to his action until the dice is rolled, so it can be changed retroactively (let's say I'm badly hit by the ogre, so instead of attacking him - which I originally stated - I say I try to flee when it's my turn to go). I find that makes for a better story anyway. I understand the distinction but frankly to me anything that makes the better scene is ok. Still, my basic interpretation is as detailed above.

Some people really like special effects rules in their mechanics, others hate the way it destroys the certainty of outcomes; season to taste.

I'm worried it would force people to learn more of the system to be able to play it. In general, anything which forces the players to juggle abstract numbers in combat is a BAD THING (tm) in my opinion. Of course some abstract stuff you can't get rid of. I'm thinking more of the "70% offense 30% defense thing that could have been ripped out of a typical RM game"

Well just tell me if anything is on the right track. Maybe my whole analysis is off. Let me know.

I can't say whether your analysis is off until we have a concrete understanding why a 'methodical abstraction' system would not suit your tastes.

What do you mean by a 'methodical abstraction' system ?

[Christoffer Lernö]

I could call it a flying leg kick and apply 2 points to damage and use the other 3 points as 3 yards of leaping movement.  I could call it "spinning blades of fury" and apply 1 point of damage to each of 5 different opponents.

Of course it would take some effort to make sure the possible effects are reasonably balanced so there isn't an obvious best choice, but this would allow pretty limitless heroic descriptions of the kind found in fantasy novels (or wuxia, or Xena).

Having more wuxia in it is appealing, but I don't see any straightforward way of doing it unless one uses points the way you do.
The disadvantage of the point system is that it requires the players learn the combat system (and how to max it?) before they can play well.

I'd like to have some system which supports cool, cinematic stunts (like a few of the games out there) without the need for the players to get involved in the game mechanics at all. The ones I seen all rely on either specific moves combined in certain ways or like your example above, some point based modifiers to describe the advantages of specific attacks.

Although it is acceptable for the advanced players, it doesn't work with that I'm setting out to do (something playable by 10 year olds as well as pros)

But it would be extremely neat if it could be introduced somehow. :)

[Ron Edwards]

PF,

I am having the same problem I mentioned on the other thread. Absolutely none of your actual system corresponds, in any way, to your stated goals.

I will put it to you bluntly: your resolution system in general, and your combat system in particular, represent the very least degree of usable quality in role-playing design.

"What is the true abstraction of the combat system (especially the close combat part)?
"Well, it abstracts several single uses of combat skills (individual attacks as well as creating and finding opportunities to attack) into a convenient single roll package. The initiative mechanism is integrated into the whole thing by determining which one is the first to have a solid chance to attack within the round."

You have not presented a convenient single roll package. This is a freeze-frame, stilted, entirely typical late-80s nightmare.

PF, what role-playing games have you truly, actually played? I suggest doing some research. If cost is a concern, then check out some of the free games in the Forge Resource Library, like Soap and Dust Devils. Read all of the games at Memento-Mori.  See the Apprentice at the Sorcerer website. See Fang's writeup of Scattershot in his forum, and check out The Pool (see the Random Order Creations forum). See the combat demo at the Riddle of Steel website. For setting materials, see Tales of the Carnelian Coast (also on the Resource Library), or most importantly, the Hero Wars website.

Again and again, you present a generalization (like the one I've quoted above) that I agree with. Then the mechanics or setting material you provide is agonizingly, appallingly inconsistent with the stated goal. I have concluded that what's missing from your viewpoint is the range of possibility among RPG designs, both actual and potential. I don't ask that you read my essay, although if you did and spent some time asking about it in the appropriate forum, then I think we'd have more shared understanding. However, I know that I've about reached my mental limits with the inconsistency that I've described. Please take some time to use the materials available at the Forge, specifically the range and quality of existing games, so that your ambitions can be realized instead of remaining mired in a limited range of options.

Best,
Ron

[Le Joueur]

In a 'crunchy' system, you look to generalize and 'balance' on a case-by-case basis.  "Knee him in the groin?"  Sounds like close combat, aiming at a 'vulnerable spot.'  Close combat has all kinds of interpretations, but most boil down to two things; few tools can be used and you are very 'available' for counter-strikes.  Close combat also has a fair amount of grips, holds, and pins, but these are all about having an advantage or limiting one's opponent (and they each have well-documented areas of vulnerability).  If you succeed, the 'vulnerable spot' hit will yield some extra (temporary) limitations on the subject.  (The usual 'targeted shot' tradeoff, it's a tougher but more lucrative shot; you choose.)

I was thinking about the "knee him in the groin" situation. How would that ideally be played out?

I reached the conclusion that it wasn't really desirable to put it into the main game mechanics. Just like resolving "I sneak up on the guard and cut his throat" (for a messy example) shouldn't be resolved on using the combat system either.

In both those cases it's more useful to view these actions as conventional skill resolution rather than implement them in some form within the combat system (all of this is fairly obvious but bear with me).

Then you're going to have a problem creating a rule system that is easy, simple, clean, or whatever for ages 10 to infinity.

You have different rules for combat and skill resolution.

That means whoever is learning your game will actually be learning two games.  And having to learn how to differentiate between the two.  (Are you going to include rules on how to tell which to use or, similar to those hotly-contested 'seamless transition' rules, do you expect people to 'just get it' because your other rules are so clear?)

In Scattershot we have only one resolution system.  It is designed to work for actions as specific as a sword swing roll and as complicated (and long) and hunting roll.  What Scattershot does is differentiate the scope of these two actions.  Your 'cutthroat' example is what Advanced Dungeons & Dragons used to collapse into a single 'assassination' roll (the whole thing, sneaking, cutting, and all the details).  We never saw this as a problem in a skill-based system, except it was a radically different scope than a sword skill roll to cause damage.

We have techniques that discuss how to use the 'change the scope' mechanics of a roll based on the pacing of the game.  If it will turn into a tedious play of events based on a single character's actions, then you'd 'up-pace' and change the series of rolls (to sneak, to surprise, to engage, to cut the throat, to hide the evidence, and et cetera) into a single roll.  (These mechanics talk about conceding what notable skills should impact favorably and how time and secrecy requirements impact negatively on making an 'up-paced' stealth roll – which is functioning as an assassination roll.)

The same goes for the 'knee to the groin' example, if it isn't going to lead to melee.  When we made this design 'leap' (having skill resolution 'move up and down' scope) we saw the same thing at work differentiating combat from 'normal' resolution.  (In fact, the Strategy skill is used to determine the outcome of whole battles which are composed of skirmishes, which are composed of melees, which are composed of flurries of actions, which are composed of individual skill resolutions on the scope of a single blow; whew!)  Turn sequencing (I believe I mentioned Scattershot's 'counter-clockwise around the table' rule in another thread) grew out of an abstraction of the normal 'play bounces informally around the group' normally implicit in most role-playing games.

What is the true abstraction of the combat system (especially the close combat part)?

Well, it abstracts several single uses of combat skills (individual attacks, as well as creating and finding opportunities to attack) into a convenient single roll package. The initiative mechanism is integrated into the whole thing by determining which one is the first to have a solid chance to attack within the round.

So actually one should properly view combat as an extended skill test derived from several individual skill tests. The roll isn't the general thing, but a specialized form for dealing with longer segments of combat.

If we're looking at it this way, the rules for transition between soliloquy and game theory becomes clearer.

I did some thinking earlier and came up with three situations where either soliloquy could replace game theory within combat situations or where the transition worked smoothly.[list=1][*]The player is put in a situation where prolonged combat is impossible, the possible actions would be resolved by skills rather than general combat, in addition the outcome of any skill test is fairly obvious.

For example, the bad guy puts a gun to your head and says: "Surrender".
The results can be carried out in soliloquy in most types of genres (exceptions would superhero genres and stuff). If the character moves there is little doubt there will be a BOOM and time to dig out some blank character sheets.

[*]The players are in game theory play, but the remainder of the outcome is both unimportant and of little threat to the players. The GM can now switch to soliloquy "After beating the big monster you catch the remaining fleeing hobgoblins". Again the outcome isn't in doubt and prolonged combat would not yield any significant effects (now the players can still insist they want to do something special, in that case the GM should remain in game theory mode)

[*]The player(s) are in soliloquy mode and oblivious to danger. The GM can then use a "one-shot" attack (not resolved within the generalized game context) as a lead-in to conventional combat.

GM: "You pick up the phone and you hear a voice saying: 'Death is waiting behind you'"

Player: "Hello?! Who is this??"

GM: BAAAM someone shoots you in the back (GM rolls for damage)[/list:o]I guess they all have in common that the outcome is (fairly) certain and agreeing with what the full system (applying the proper modifiers) would (or should) have yielded anyway.

???  #1 isn't even a skill resolution situation.  #3 shouldn't be either.  (The players are going to accuse the gamemaster of cheating anyway, why roll?)

In #2 you are noting the need for a 'cut to the chase' rule.  Nothing in the combat system you have presented even touches on this need.  I know I am beginning to harp on this, but everything here has absolutely nothing to do with combat!  Using Scattershot terminology, #1 and #3 are about the transition between General and Specific play.  The upcoming 'techniques' material for Scattershot talks a lot about being careful to not 'surprise' the players with these shifts.  (The point being when these transitions drop out of nowhere, it gives that 'deus ex machina' feeling that completely robs the players of the feeling of consistency.)  If the situation that worked up to this was in soliloquy mode, #1 makes that transition clearly and obviously, but I'm at a loss to see what skill would be employed; I would simply say that play would shift to Specific play, just in case someone brings a skill to bear on the situation in the near future (to 'put them on alert' that mechanics may be employed soon).

#3 plays the other side of 'seamless transition' rules, which are no less important, ending combat.  'Cutting to the chase' is as important (if not moreso) in ending a combat where the relevant gross detail is already manifest.  Again, without explicit rules, having the combat end like that will leave the players as likely to 'feel cheated' as not, because it jarringly reveals inconsistency.  With explicit 'seamless transition' rules, a gamemaster could invoke 'cut to the chase' regarding further battle and the players could give their feedback so that the ending would be negotiated rather than imposed.  Without them, it's just luck (or habit) when it works.

the naive implementation tends to break down and it would even have been preferable to deal with it in pure soliloquy mode.

I couldn't think of a better argument in favor of explicit 'seamless transition' rules.  Being explicit, they either a) indicate that no transition should take place (effectively overriding naiveté) or b) handle the 'blip' into and out of combat (for that one knee-to-the-groin shot) quickly and cleanly (no experience necessary).

In those cases, the rules should state that soliloquy is enough to determine the outcome (or at least you skip the to-hit roll and go straight over to determining damage. Incidentally, not coupling the to-hit roll with the damage has the added advantage of allowing the GM to jump over certain steps and dealing with them in a soliloquy fashion. This is where tightly coupled rules like SR (where the hit roll helps determining the extent of the damage) create huge problems for the GM)

It has to be fleshed out of course, but doesn't this seem like a viable path?

Sigh.  That's because these are the 'seamless transition' rules I have been talking about.  Any 'seamless transition' rule must, by their nature, call attention to when a transition is possible, needed, or available.  Where did I fail to explain that this is what I have been asking for!

Some people really like special effects rules in their mechanics, others hate the way it destroys the certainty of outcomes; season to taste.

I'm worried it would force people to learn more of the system to be able to play it. In general, anything which forces the players to juggle abstract numbers in combat is a BAD THING (tm) in my opinion. Of course some abstract stuff you can't get rid of. I'm thinking more of the "70% offense 30% defense thing that could have been ripped out of a typical RM game"

Where exactly do you imagine numbers coming into "rules should state that soliloquy is enough to determine the outcome?"

Y'know, it's this prevarication (arguing about things you don't like, that have no bearing on what we are discussing) that is really beginning to tax my patience.  Also, get off using games that are bad examples in your thinking.  All that avoiding being bad will do is make your game mediocre.  Instead of thinking about what not to do, think of what an ideal session of this uncreated game would be like and write the rules that those imaginary players would be using.

Set a lofty goal if you want to achieve greatness; seek to rise above the dreadful and you will only achieve in mediocrity.  (The only time it is fruitful to think about bad games is in comparison to your finished game; if parallels can be drawn, it's back to the drawing board.  Piecemeal comparison would only work if poor quality were homogenous throughout a bad game, which is impossible.)

Well just tell me if anything is on the right track. Maybe my whole analysis is off. Let me know.

I can't say whether your analysis is off until we have a concrete understanding why a 'methodical abstraction' system would not suit your tastes.

What do you mean by a 'methodical abstraction' system ?

Um, 'the systemic method by which things get abstracted?'  Like I mentioned in another post to you, pictures are an abstraction of reality, words can be an abstraction of pictures (as in '...worth a thousand...'), and combat is an abstraction of soliloquy.

When you find yourself thinking, "Well, a knee to the groin would be close combat," you are abstracting soliloquy ("knee to the groin") into combat ("close combat").  The point at which you find yourself beginning to consider this, is the 'point of transition' I've been so earnestly trying to get you to consider making rules to cover.  Rules that help you decide whether "a knee to the groin" would lead to "close combat" or not, are precisely what I am discussing.

And rather than make another go around quoting anything I have written here, please, stop.  Take a couple of minutes to think about it and put anything you want to say to me in the response to my final question in this thread.  Talk especially about "rules [that] should state that soliloquy is enough" if you want, because I think that might be a part of the answer.  See you there.

Fang Langford