Ygg in combat (trying to get comments) + initiative thoughts

[Christoffer Lernö]

Now this is essentially the same stuff I already posted in the Theory forum. I guess I still naively hope someone will take a look at it and trash it.

Notice that I really don't have any proper concessions. :-/ I still haven't worked out how to add with the proper feeling in contested rolls.

Basics

There would be a table like this on every character sheet (this one is for a character with weapon skill 8)

Code Select Expand


          1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12
Normal     2  2  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11
Special    3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 12 12
Improvise  6  7  8  9 10 11 12  -  -  -  -  -


Basically it's a "roll higher or equal to opponent's skill-own skill+7 to hit".
Then two additional levels are introduced, special move and improvised move.

Rolling enough for normal gives a basic hit in the system resolved according to the basic damage mechanics.

Rolling high enough for a special move does nothing unless a special move has been declared.

A special move is an attempt at a special kind of [a single] attack. It could be tripping someone or aiming for the groin, or try to make a one-shot sucker punch.

IF a special move is declared AND the roll is enough to be a special move, it is considered that the special move occurs. If not, there are two possibilities: either the roll would have been high enough for a special move or it wouldn't. If it would then the player can default to a normal attack ("I didn't see a chance for doing the x move, so I did a regular attack instead"), but only if the special move allows it. A declared attack like "I run past him try to hit him with my sword as I speed past" doesn't allow for a normal attack for example as the normal attack generally requires a drawn out battle situation. Of course, the player may choose to say his character did stay and fight, but would then not be allowed to move past the opponent. On the other hand, if the player accepted the miss his/her character would now be well on his/her way on whatever place it was running to.

Finally the improvise move, which is only possible if a normal move has been declared. Essentially rolling high enough for an improvise move lets a player change the declared "normal attack" into any type of advantage attack which suits his/her fancy. It's still limited to being a single attack however, it is not possible to delare multiple attacks.

On the subject of special moves

The special moves have to be regulated in some fashion obviously. The most obvious limitation is that it's only a single move which is performed, although that move can involve a combination of actions like "I ride my horse towards him and slash him with my sword as I gallop by", you can't combine a series of actions: "I pull down his pants and run him through with my sword" (in this example you'd have to do each move in sequence).

Secondly, many special moves might be contested. This essentially means that despite your move "succeeding", the actual outcome isn't necessarily a successful one. Maybe you try to pull down someone's pants and they're tied up so good you can't get em down. Or you try to grab that ogre who is about 4 times as strong as you are.

So we have things like:

Grab: contest str vs str
Throw: contest str vs str/dex(?)
Pull down pants: contest str or dex vs how loose the pants are.

And now I suggest to not do these contests by rolling a dice, but to use Karma resolution. So unless you're as strong as or stronger than your opponent it doesn't matter if you grab your opponent, he'll rip lose of your grip.

Obviously skills might affect this, for example if the character is trained at judo or aikido instead of succeedding on your str>=opponent str, success might appear already on str>=opponent str-2 or something like that. Similar judgements depending on situation can also be left to the GM to work out. (I should mention that the granularity of the stats in YGG is pretty big, so there's really a BIG step between say Str 5 and Str 6, just to put numbers into proper perspective)

Quick recap

So, two ways of attacking: either you state your intentions before combat (declaring advantage move) or afterwards (declaring a standard move, only getting to dictate the results if the result is an improvise move, otherwise GM narrates the result)
A successful result only means that the appropriate move has been successful, it does not determine the result. Instead the result is resolved by karma or through a damage roll (in other words, you might get your hands on the pants and try to pull them down, but you don't automatically succeed just because you roll high on the attack roll, instead it is determined by just how strong are you anyway and how loose are the pants).

Advantage moves can be retraced back to a standard move if the description of the advantage move allows.

And finally theres a rule that both advantage moves and improvised moves are limited to a single action or combined action.

(On the other hand there is nothing saying you can't do an attacking combo, it's just that it requires more than one roll)

Random thoughts on initiative

Since Fang suggested removing initiative I've been thinking about how to do just that. I still haven't figured it out, but some observations:

* Usually I (as a GM) only use initiative as a convenience for sequencing actions... or rather simply deciding which of the feverently shouting players get to roll the dice first.

* Beyond the first round, initiative has very little meaning, especially when playing games which only allows for 1 attack roll/turn.

* If one removes the initiative and round sequencing, that opens up the possibilities for free flowing combat scenarios. So maybe that standard attack always takes 10 seconds, but if Bob the Ogreslayer just wants a quick stab at the troll in the back then running away to help Poyblopp the mage who is caught up fighting a midget elf, then maybe that first quick stab doesn't need to take 10 seconds. It might take 10 seconds if Bob doesn't succeed with the backstab and then decides to convert the attack into a standard attack (taking 10 seconds) to get that hit in, but usually it's 1 second and then off running to help Poyblopp. Of course some games solve this by tracking stuff even more carefully, down to seconds even, but I'd rather have an anal probe by aliens than putting something like that in the game. Anyway, I pretty much tweak stuff to work like the above example in any case. The initiative system is usually the the inertia you have to work against to get it to flow nicely.

* There has to be some system about who goes first in a battle though, as the "first to get a chance to hit" might be decisive. Here one could simply insert a karma resolution thing: longest weapon starts, or highest movement stat goes first in an exchange. Again you don't really need an universal initiative here, just a general feeling of who gets to hit first. Of course it could be treated by simultaneous rolls as well.

Ok, that's it. For now.

[Le Joueur]

Random thoughts on initiative
Since Fang suggested removing initiative I've been thinking about how to do just that. I still haven't figured it out, but some observations:

[*]There has to be some system about who goes first in a battle though, as the "first to get a chance to hit" might be decisive. Here one could simply insert a karma resolution thing: longest weapon starts, or highest movement stat goes first in an exchange. Again you don't really need an universal initiative here, just a general feeling of who gets to hit first. Of course it could be treated by simultaneous rolls as well.[/list:u]Ok, that's it. For now.

Y'see the problem was, for me, breaking out of the idea that the first blow (or attempted blow) was the beginning of combat.  The only battles I have seen where this is true in movies, film, or real life, were ambushes.  (And it should be obvious who has initiative in an ambush.)  Otherwise there is something that happens between 'characters minding their own business' and 'someone takes a swing.'  Often a lot of something.

The real challenge is figuring out a system of where in the midst of the something to call the start of 'combat.'  In every fight I have been in there's this interplay where the potential combatants try to 'maneuver' the circumstances to improve their chances in case they make it a fight, like pre-fight posturing or something.  (Don't you think that the characters might take "first to get a chance to hit" being "decisive" into account?  Let them.)  In Scattershot, we decided to take that into account.  Since people intending to battle do this anyway, we let whomever feels they have 'reached that point' to call the start of battle. Calling for the start themselves.  (We let the potential participants pick who 'starts it' through role-playing.)

Sure, at first the playtesters' characters did this a lot.  But after awhile they started to feel they were being just a little 'trigger happy' and backed down.  I know it seems counter-intuitive after years of having initiative systems, but all I can say is 'ya gotta try it.'

I mean, unless you can think of a telling example (real or fictitious) where at least one person didn't, in fact, place the narrative on a one-way path to battle by their own choosing, I'd have to say having their player¹ 'call it' is about the best mechanic I've come up with or seen.

C'mon, just try it a few times.

Fang Langford

¹ Imagining of course, that the people or characters in the example were metaphorical 'player characters' and that there was a player, out there, controlling their actions.  (Often how I try to imagine ideal game play.)

[Christoffer Lernö]

The real challenge is figuring out a system of where in the midst of the something to call the start of 'combat.'

Aww man, of course I knew this, I don't know why the hell I didn't write it.

Or at least I THINK I know what you mean. Let me have a try at it:

A says "I want to attack B" BAM! A just intitiated combat with B. So A rolls first, no fuss. Right?

Or in the case of A wanting to attack B where B has a longer weapon, A says "I try to move into range for combat", at this point B can declare he's gonna attack A before A gets into range. So actually A is kind of declaring an intent to attack later (or A can only say he moves closer to B, doesn't need to be a stated attack) and B says he attacks. Now this time, although A formally starts the exchange it's B who really initiates the combat and thus gets to roll first.

If A would have said "I attack B", the GM ought to say, "well you have to get closer first" (at least in case B is ready to defend himself against A's attack). So A instead talks about charging in and B can say he attacks A as A is charging in. Case closed, everyone happy.

In case of ambushes it's simple, the ambushing players go first if they succeed. Am I right on track Fang?

[Le Joueur]

The real challenge is figuring out a system of where in the midst of the something to call the start of 'combat.'

Or at least I THINK I know what you mean. Let me have a try at it:

A says "I want to attack B" BAM! A just intitiated combat with B. So A rolls first, no fuss. Right?

Am I right on the track Fang?

Argh, no.¹

Try this:

Alfred says, "I order another drink from the cute bar maid to wash down the trail dust."

The gamemaster says, "Black Bob parts the saloon gate, a dusty wind introducing his stench into the room."

A: "I down the shot and turn slowly, giving Bob the 'evil eye' from out under the rim of my ten-gallon."

G as B: "I hear there's some mangy polecat what thinks he's bigger than me.  I aim to take his britches in a notch er two."  G: "Bob's angry snarl sweeps the room, stopping on you."

A: "Now where'd ya get a stupid idear like that, Bob?"

G as B: "Ya took down my brother's poster at the Sheriff's.  He's wanted dead or alive and there ain't no one in the jail."

A: "I call for combat."

G: "Okay, you start."

A: "I tip my hat back, showing the ladies my best smile and push off the bar, walking over to about six feet from Bob.  Y'all wanna take this outside?"

G: "Okay, that's your two actions.²"  G as B: "Hell NO!"  G: "Bob hauls off and takes a swing at you."

A: "Uh, uh, uh...

six feet."

G: "Right, Bob takes a running jump at you."

A: "I Forfeit my next Action³ and dodge to the side.  Since Bob's next Action is probably to fall like a sacka potatoes, it looks like it's my sidekick's turn."

G: "You're right, Quiet Charlie turns and empties his sarsaparilla mug into Bob's face.  Charlie holds his next Action, waiting to avoid any attack by Bob.  Your Turn; remember, you have already used one Action."

And so on.[/list:u]You see Alfred thought he had a good position so he initiated combat, not expecting Black Bob to 'go for it.'  Bob did anyway and you see the result.  Now the gamemaster could have just as easily called it the instant Black Bob entered the saloon, but he felt that Bob didn't know, for sure, that Alfred's character had done 'it.'  Likewise, there are a number of other things that Alfred could have done to avoid battle that shouldn't really be carried out in combat turns.  They should only come up when someone decides that their character won't settle for less than physical combat.

I'm sorry, this is a really weak example.  Honestly, I don't know how else to explain it (can I get a little help here?).  Save for space, the part between when Alfred called for battle and when Bob (or Alfred) actually took an aggressive action could have stretched out for quite a while (like it does in Errol Flynn movies).  I'm not sure if I'm getting this point across; there are a lot of other actions that can be taken during combat other than attacks and defenses.

Sigh, I wish I were better at expressing myself.

Fang Langford

¹ This "argh" is a humorous one like those Ron uses on me.

² In Scattershot each character gets two Actions each Round.

³ And they can Forfeit one or both before the beginning of their Turn.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Hmm... I can't really see your point Fang. What's the advantage in the system of calling for combat? Ok, it makes transitions explicit, something you're big on, but it feels like we suddenly left Real Life (tm) and entered into the Combat Engine (tm) with that call.

I misunderstood how you did it in Scattershot, but maybe my misinterpreted version actually is interesting in itself.

See, I did not only eliminate initiative in my description, but also actions and combat rounds.

So the "combat" call is only to lock the two participants into a contest roll. After the contest roll is performed (one or two), the participants are again free to choose new actions. The time spent doing the contest will be determined by the GM.
(Obviously a rule is needed to cover the situation of others interrupting such a contest in progress)

But back to your example... you seem to call combat to enter the combat system explicitly, right? There doesn't seem to be any reasons to have the combat call so early otherwise. Basically the combat call initiates sequenced play, am I right? And this sequenced play goes around the table starting with the person calling combat. Just like a card game (which I know can't be a coincidence :) ).

But if there is no sequenced play, is there a need for any combat call. I know this puts a lot in the hands of the GM, but heck it tends to work that way anyway. The initiative thing only prevents the GM from forgetting about a player.

Hmm... this would almost suggest kind of an action pool. Everyone gets like 4 markers or something they keep. Whenever they want to do something they spend a marker (or several). When everyone are out of markers everyone gets new markers and get to act again. The rule is that the one with the most markers get to go first. And if they have the same amount they can go at the same time (simultaneous result).

If you have a lot of markers but want to wait you still can do so, no problem, you don't have to act until you decide to. More markers just lets you call an action before everyone else with less markers.

Mmm.. probably not a good idea, but it just popped into my head right now.

[Le Joueur]

Hmm... I can't really see your point Fang. What's the advantage in the system of calling for combat? Ok, it makes transitions explicit, something you're big on, but it feels like we suddenly left Real Life (tm) and entered into the Combat Engine (tm) with that call.

You seem to have it, I think you just don't realize it.  Scattershot is designed to seem superficially like 'old style games' like you would've played back in the 80s.  So of course it has "the Combat Engine (tm)."  The problem is "the Combat Engine" does not have to leave "Real Life (tm)" so much (a lot of people are hallowing The Riddle of Steal for doing exactly that).

Besides, letting 'Realism (tm)' into the discussion will only obfuscate matters.  This isn't about being "Real (tm)," its about the feeling.¹  To me, the time 'eaten up' by those sophisticated initiative systems in the past 'took away' from what I felt was a need for breathless anticipation and suspense.  I'm a bit of an epicure and I note that 'all that extra work' (for the sake of 'Realism (tm)') doesn't result 'as much improvement' in the results.

Now, in order to have "the Combat Engine (tm)" without all the 'wasted effort' of a complicated initiative system, I thought about "Real life (tm)" and "the Combat Engine (tm)" simultaneously.  If I toss complicated turn ordering, what do I lose?  Like you pointed out, there is a strategic advantage sometimes in who 'hits first;' I can't argue with that.  But are there any other ways to abstract (more than just) that strategic advantage?  I came up with this one.

Then what about 'the very first hit?'  Well, to be honest, the only ways I'd seen this handled were A) randomly or B) by 'speed' (or permutations thereof).  Since I work from movies before "Real Life (tm)" I had to note that neither did it seem truly random nor a function of speed.  I saw a lot of posturing that either resulted in combat or not.  It all seemed to boil down to someone making the decision that they would accept nothing less.  Then you get a lot of 1) extremely closely attended posturing (watching for that 'telltale twitch'), 2) people doing non-combative actions to improve 'position' (like diving behind cover in a gun battle), 3) the old 'circling and feinting, looking for an opening,' or 4) straight-out avoidance behaviors (running away, which results in 'chase scenes' that Scattershot also uses its "Combat Engine (tm)" to work out).  Everything else I could think of seems able to be 'fit' under these.  Where is the 'first hit' in any of these?

2, 3, and 4 all involve 'non-combative' maneuvers that should also be handled by a game's combat system.  The 'itchy trigger-finger' stuff in 1 can't be handled in 'the usual maneuvers' (other than sequencial 'Hold' maneuvers) on the other hand, I always felt that 'taking turns' for it was crucial.  Even more, I thought that leaving 1 up to A) randomness or B) speed defeated the tension of even going into 1.

So ultimately the players decide if they are using 1, 2, 3, or 4, by how and when they "call for combat."  Having the luxury of such a choice is the 'improvement' over A and B that I was seeking that is completely lacking in any other "Combat Engine (tm)" game I've seen.

I misunderstood how you did it in Scattershot, but maybe my misinterpreted version actually is interesting in itself.

See, I did not only eliminate initiative in my description, but also actions and combat rounds.

That is very intriguing.  You aren't working with "the Combat Engine (tm)" like I am; so, you're right.

So the "combat" call is only to lock the two participants into a contest roll. After the contest roll is performed (one or two), the participants are again free to choose new actions. The time spent doing the contest will be determined by the GM.  (Obviously a rule is needed to cover the situation of others interrupting such a contest in progress)

But back to your example... you seem to call combat to enter the combat system explicitly, right? There doesn't seem to be any reasons to have the combat call so early otherwise. Basically the combat call initiates sequenced play, am I right? And this sequenced play goes around the table starting with the person calling combat. Just like a card game (which I know can't be a coincidence :) ).

That's right.  Scattershot has a modular collectible card game that can be simply used in place of "the Combat Engine (tm)."  With the introduction of the Combat Advantage system, the strategic advantages that most "Combat Engines (tm)" use turn-ordering or initiative rules for, are not absent but replaced.  (And like "Real Life (tm)," people who would be at a disadvantage because of speed or luck 'maneuver' things to their benefit and then 'thing get ugly.')

But if there is no sequenced play, is there a need for any combat call. I know this puts a lot in the hands of the GM, but heck it tends to work that way anyway. The initiative thing only prevents the GM from forgetting about a player.

Ah, but this was one of the alterations necessary for Scattershot to have the card game module, the gamemaster is unneeded during "the Combat Engine (tm)."  It sounds like you're working more towards a conflict resolution system rather than an action resolution system (the standard "Combat Engine (tm)"), better heads than mine will have to express what that is.

Although I'd like to caution you to be careful.  Make sure your eventual system doesn't afford the gamemaster the ability to 'forget about a player' unless the player so desires.  (I am a bit worried that you might be unconsciously thinking in the player vs. the gamemaster fashion, but I'm sure you're on top of it.)

Hmm... this would almost suggest kind of an action pool. Everyone gets like 4 markers or something they keep. Whenever they want to do something they spend a marker (or several). When everyone are out of markers everyone gets new markers and get to act again. The rule is that the one with the most markers get to go first. And if they have the same amount they can go at the same time (simultaneous result).

If you have a lot of markers but want to wait you still can do so, no problem, you don't have to act until you decide to. More markers just lets you call an action before everyone else with less markers.

Mmm.. probably not a good idea, but it just popped into my head right now.

Oooh, a bidding system, that sounds really intriguing.  At least give it a try before abandoning the idea.

I'm sorry that I can't help you more, most of my work has been involved in modifying and expanding traditional "Combat Engine (tm)" types of games.  Your conflict resolution bidding system sounds really neat, I hope to see more of it as you give it some thought.

Fang Langford

¹ And 'the feeling' we're going for with Scattershot is that 'breathless suspense' feeling of cinematic battles (even when they aren't 'over the top' like in more cinematic games).  Thus we want to avoid turning combat into a tactical or mechanical exercise and yet somehow assimilate lots of detail without having lots of 'look-ups.'

[Christoffer Lernö]

Scattershot is designed to seem superficially like 'old style games' like you would've played back in the 80s.  So of course it has "the Combat Engine (tm)."

Well in the old style you wouldn't have sequenced the lead-in stuff of course. Maybe that's what bothered me about your example. We've all played the old style stuff and at least I learned to ignore it mostly. But when it suddenly entering the picture even earlier than usual it's a little unsettling.

Besides, letting 'Realism (tm)' into the discussion will only obfuscate matters.  This isn't about being "Real (tm)," its about the feeling.

Quite so. My "Real Life (tm)" was more about resolving with soliloquy than indicating any attempts to simulate situations realistically.

simultaneously.  If I toss complicated turn ordering, what do I lose?  Like you pointed out, there is a strategic advantage sometimes in who 'hits first;' I can't argue with that.  But are there any other ways to abstract (more than just) that strategic advantage?  I came up with this one.

Then you get a lot of 1) extremely closely attended posturing (watching for that 'telltale twitch'), 2) people doing non-combative actions to improve 'position' (like diving behind cover in a gun battle), 3) the old 'circling and feinting, looking for an opening,' or 4) straight-out avoidance behaviors (running away, which results in 'chase scenes' that Scattershot also uses its "Combat Engine (tm)" to work out).  Everything else I could think of seems able to be 'fit' under these.  Where is the 'first hit' in any of these?

The interpretation in my game might explain the diffrences in solutions we came up with.

Especially noting that 2 and 3 are both assumed to be covered by the random factor of the combat roll.

To explain that a little (although it might be clear enough), my philosophy is that minor strategic decisions should be left to the skill rating and not to the players to decide. "Is it more tactically sound to feint then lunge or maybe parry and then do a riposte?" In reality, there might be very few telltales. Sure, some gamesystems have the GM giving the player hinds, but those are not very realistic, no matter how intricate they are. So, what I did was to lump all of that, including the defensive posturing into the combat roll.
No matter how careful you describe a situation, the moment you let the players make tactical decisions in more than very broad terms you're actually moving away rather than approaching a simulation of How It Would Work In Real Life (tm).

So anyway, I can cover up a lot of complexity simply by pointing to the dice and pretend the dice covered it. Very convenient.

See, I did not only eliminate initiative in my description, but also actions and combat rounds.

That is very intriguing.  You aren't working with "the Combat Engine (tm)" like I am; so, you're right.

But isn't it workable if you think of the Combat Engine (tm) as as equipped with an on and off switch. After all plenty of board games have stuff like "movement phase" and "combat phase", effectively insulating tactical movement from the actual die rolls.
So, I don't feel I'm totally abandoning the people who are able to think outside of the Combat Engine (tm) box. They can simply ignore the fine tuning stuff which the mechanic allows for the GM and sequence the actions simplistically with everyone being granted one action (kind of recreating the combat round).

Ah, but this was one of the alterations necessary for Scattershot to have the card game module, the gamemaster is unneeded during "the Combat Engine (tm)."  It sounds like you're working more towards a conflict resolution system rather than an action resolution system (the standard "Combat Engine (tm)"), better heads than mine will have to express what that is.

I'm not very clear about the conflict resolution either. Someone help us here? In any case it doesn't seem like I'm working in pure conflict resolution does it, even though I might be incorporating some elements of it.

Make sure your eventual system doesn't afford the gamemaster the ability to 'forget about a player' unless the player so desires.  (I am a bit worried that you might be unconsciously thinking in the player vs. the gamemaster fashion, but I'm sure you're on top of it.)

I'm just thinking about the situation where there's a lot of players getting caught up in what they want to do shout very loudly and the GM forgets about the one sitting silent in one corner patiently waiting for his/her turn to go.

Hmm... this would almost suggest kind of an action pool.

I moved this stuff to the "Bid on my initiative!" thread I started in RPG Theory.

Hopefully someone will have a look at it and offer comments.