Interruptions and Order (IIEE)

[Jasper]

I suppose I should announce that this is my first topic, though I've been lurking for a bit.  Bravo to everyone here, it really is a great place.  On with it though:

Putting new and interesting ideas about very "out-there" directoral mechanisms and so on aside, I decided to revitalize what is probably the most successful of the several systems I've made and tested with local people.  It is not cutting edge in any sense, but it was quick and fun, and seemed to promote a lot of real acting when we used it (not Actor stance, acting).  So it seems a good task.  

I won't bore with the sundry and numerous details, since all I really want to bring up is the basic mechanic and how it applies to a certain kind of situation.  All characters have six (pretty standard) attributes which are rolled against on a d20, low roll succeeding, and with a Margin (of success or failure) always taken.  No skills come into play here -- they only allow certain actions or provide bonuses.

Now, in a combat situation, the attack and dodge sequence is common.  The whole system emphasizes individual, short actions described in detail by the player.  So combat is not abstracted, and handled in the same universal way, as you would expect.  A problem arrises with the parry though, in that there are three main ways to handle this kind of situation.


Option I, Interrupted Resolution: The attacker first makes his attack check (which is not influenced by defense in any way).  If successful, the attack would theoretically hit -- BUT, the resolutionis interrupted and a chance at defense is given to the defender.  He uses the margin of success of the attacker as a penalty to his roll.

Option II, Dominant Action Resolution: As soon as the attack is declared, the defender gets to declare his own action.  Because the defense is reasoned to be somehow less active, it is resolved first (because it is an independant "variable" and should be resolved so that the dependant thing, the attack, can work off of it).  The margin of success serves as a penalty to the attack, which is resolved secondly.

Option III, Simultaneous Opposed Resolution: Because they occur at the some time and interact with one another, the two actions (attack and defend) and deemed to be opposed tests.  Each is rolled separately, theoretically with dice falling at the same time.  The margins of success for each roll are then compared, with the higher being victorious.


Now, I know that the immediate reaction of most of you will probably be III (opposed action), but the reason I'm raising this question at all is to get an idea of how this mechanic will affect the perceived "flow" of the game -- meaning the aesthetic of the mechanics, aside from probability and whatnot (though probability is not of no concern to me).  Just so you can all have some sense of what it is I'm trying to maintain here in terms of flow, I should describe a little bit of actual play and how it might go:

With a simple resolution mechanic, the specifics of an action must always be proposed by the player.  No "I attack"s permisable: you have to go for "I thrust my dagger at his gut like this" -- preferably with a demonstration of the plunging.  Flee-wheeling, off the cuff ideas are more important to me than decisions about how rules might affect things, so there also isn't any kind of fixed initiative, and modifiers come up left and right but almost anything can be attempted.  I don't know if this still seems vague, so I'll finally relent and tell you that although this version of the rules is intended to be a little broader, the original game was a gritty but still survivable teen-age super-hero game (powers manifest at pubirty).  Nothing overly powerful like big fireballs geneally, but gritty such that even minor powers were amazing.  I hope that gives something of an idea of the play-style.


Now, the first option for resolution upholds the general spirit of the original game's action-by-action, free-wheeling, responsive resolution.  The defense is really an immediate response to the attack.  Option I promotes the idea that no action is unalterable.

The second option has a nice feel to it in terms of IIEE because it allows for a very structured set-up of declaration and resolution.  But is it otherwise clunky or counter-intuitive?  I've been looking at it for so long, I'm not sure I can tell.  I'm also currently in a different country, so I can't ask any local gamers about it.  The controlled feel of this might not jibe wit a fast system, requiring a bit more organization.

The third option is the most straightforward and simple fix to the dilemna, but is no without problems of is own.  There aren't a whole lot of other situations where opposed tests are really required, so why here?  Unless the evens occur at exactly the same time, and are utterly linked, they could be separated into unique actions.  

Maybe this is a no-brainer, but it's hard to predict how other people will feel about "flow" and such when you ourself have been staring at the rules for a long time: they all seem either equally good or equally awkward :)  Maintaining the original feel exactly is not the ultimate goal per se, but I want something that is smooth and fast.  Thanks in advance for any insight.

[Ring Kichard]

First of all, unless I cross-post with someone else who beats me to it, Welcome to the forge! Ron Edwards usually greats people, and I'm sure he'll send you a private message or something, but it looks like tonight is my turn.

This is actually my favorite type of problem; flow and aesthetics are often over-looked considerations in many games.

Let's see if I have the system down: the math is mostly addition or subtraction because of skill and difficulty, and test is to see how much you succeed by. Ok.

I think, first of all, that you're a bit too concerned with interruptions and the resolution of them because they're "less active". Unless you're basing this design off of Magic the Gathering In my opinion you shouldn't really have to worry about the stack or any of that. Just go with what gets your gut going.

Option I, Interrupted Resolution:

This is, in my experience, the most common method. The benefit to handling time is obvious, you only have to roll the parry if the attack would hit. Otherwise a declared parry can be assumed to be successful. This shrinks the required number of dice and the number of rolls.

Option II, Dominant Action Resolution:

This seems to be kind of backwards, and problematic in terms of the phases of action (initiation etc.) You have the attacker reacting to the defender, when it should be the other way around if the die roll represents the action (which it sounds like it does, with the acting and all).

Option III, Simultaneous Opposed Resolution:

Much to the contrary, I don't think simultaneous rolls are popular around here. Even if they were I dislike them intensely. They're awkward. You have to look at your own die and your opponent's. The dice never roll at the same speed, and often one falls off of the table or the two get jumbled together and you can't tell which die goes with which character.

From a statistical perspective I think it's well that you don't care which option you chose, because I'm reasonably certain that the order the dice is rolled in makes no difference when you're just adding and subtracting them like this.

I think it should be written as option #1. What will probably happen in practice is that players will just roll whenever they feel like it, but at least you'll have written it elegantly.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Any of your suggestions WORK, but some issues to be raised:

1. Some players might not like to get into details, so why force them to say anything more than "I attack"?

2. Please consider using a single roll against a static difficulty instead of double rolls. I didn't fully appreciate how quick combat could be until I tried it (and I don't mean the AD&D style of resisted static defense... I mean a system where if you have 30% chance of hitting your opponent he will have 70% chance of hitting you)

3. Consider analysing things in terms of IIEE. There is more to combat than just attacks and parries.

Check out these recent threads to see some examples: http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2585 and http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2544

[Jasper]

Thanks for the greeting, Richard (and the response, Pale Fire).

Two confusions which I think I should clear up first: I don't actually have enormous concern for interruptions in general, but in the second options, they will become a real issue, and there will have to be actual timing rules involving interrupting others' actions.  Or maybe you meant something other than the option II stuff, Richard?  Secondly: I think I might have over-stated the imporance of simultaneous rolling in option III.  You certainly could roll at the same time, but neither do you have to.  The important aspect of O3 (option 3) is that it's the Margins being compared, rather than defense or attack being used as a modifier.  I hope that makes things clearer.

So, as far as O2 being awkward, I suppose that's true.  It offers an easy way to integrate a lot of structure, but that's not necessarily a good thing.  What about O3 compared to O1 in terms of handling time though?

2. Please consider using a single roll against a static difficulty instead of double rolls. I didn't fully appreciate how quick combat could be until I tried it (and I don't mean the AD&D style of resisted static defense... I mean a system where if you have 30% chance of hitting your opponent he will have 70% chance of hitting you)

So your advocating against O3?  I don't see how the 70%-30% ratio is particularly static.  Your chance to hit will vary with whomever you're fighting right?  That also combines attack and defense which, although more realistic, makes combat too quick -- I want players to get chances to save themselves.

I don't see how IIEE exactly relates to the use of attacks and parries either, could you elaborate?  In my rules, I do actually break the combat phase down into steps that basically mirror IIEE; I just didn't go into them here because combat is all that's at issue -- though maybe I should have.  If you're referring to the realism of attacks and parries... I'm also aware of that.  Like the good Jake Norwood, I also practice Western Martial arts, so I'm not unfamiliar with how it should really go :)  And when I said parries, that was just shorthand for "any kind of defense."  This isn't principally a game about medieval combat though, but about heroics.  (I hope I don't sound defensive here, because I'm not -- just trying to be clear.)

[Christoffer Lernö]

So your advocating against O3?  I don't see how the 70%-30% ratio is particularly static.  Your chance to hit will vary with whomever you're fighting right?  That also combines attack and defense which, although more realistic, makes combat too quick -- I want players to get chances to save themselves.

It eats into your system of course. In it's basic form you can think it like this:

A has skill rating x
B has skill rating y

A attacks B and succeeds if x-y+Dz roll is higher than z/2.

For example in the D20 case we have x-y+D20 higher or equal to 11.

This can be shaped up a little by creating a defense target number which is z/2+y+1 (11+y in the D20 case) for each character. This is the number the opponent needs to achieve to hit. This makes defense implicit rather than explicit. Which, of course, is an abstraction. But this abstraction makes it more true to the real condition than attack roll against parry roll as this would seem to imply there is exactly 1 attack and 1 defense every round. This creates the temptation to make rules for ripostes and similar things. It might seem like a good way to do it, but it ends up being a whole lot less realistic than it would seem.

If you go with your attack/parry system, then don't introduce advanced maneuvres or you'll end up with a lot more problems than you bargained for.

You might also take a hint from Palladium if you go with the a/p approach.

Palladium grants automatic parries to all combat trained persons. Others have to forfeit attacks to parry.

I don't see how IIEE exactly relates to the use of attacks and parries either, could you elaborate?  In my rules, I do actually break the combat phase down into steps that basically mirror IIEE; I just didn't go into them here because combat is all that's at issue -- though maybe I should have.

IIEE is Intention, Initiation, Execution, Effect, right? (how many version of this acronym is there?)

Option I:
Attacker declares Intention, Initiates action, resolves roll, a chance might now be be given to the defender to state the Intention of a defending action. Otherwise the game enters Execution and then Effect phase for this particular action. If defender gets to state Intention, this defense is considered Initiated. The defender's defense is rolled and Execution and Effect for the joint action is determined.

Option II: Attacker declares Intention, Initiates action. Defender now states Intention and Initiates action. The Defender's action enters Execution and Effect, whereupon the Attacker's action is resolved and then enters Execution and Effect phase.

You can do the same trick for Option III.

Let's recap (A=attacker, D=defender, I1=Intention, I2=Initiation, E1=execution, E2=effect):

Option I is
A-I1 -> A-I2 -> A Roll -> in some cases D-I1 -> D-I2 -> D Roll -> D-E1 -> D-E2 -> A-E1 -> A-E2

Option II is
A-I1 -> A-I2 -> D-I1 -> D-I2 -> D Roll -> D-E1 -> D-E2 -> A Roll -> A-E1 -> A-E2

And this is only the case of attack/parry scenario.

I don't know how the flow is in say a multiple attacker scenario or where you're doing a "drive by attack" or stuff like that. I didn't get the nuances of this problem until I started analyzing it in terms of IIEE myself.

All I'm saying. Look into it a little more before you decide this is the way to go. :)

[damion]

1 Question) Option three, say the attacker hits with a margin of 3 and the defender parrys with a margin of 2. Thus the attacker hits, but do they have a margin of 1 or 3?

In the first case(margin 1), all your methods are probabalisticly the
same. (Is that what you were going for). In the second, method 3 gives different results.  These comments all assume you use the first method, so we don't have to take into account the different resolutions.


This depends on a couple things:
Case 1)Assumung you can attempt to parry every attack in a round, I'd go with 3, with 1 a close second.

Reasoning:In 3 you can parallize the rolling. Everyone just rolls their defence at the start of a round and it's ready when needed, and they can roll another one then, just in case. Shortest search and handeling time.

Method 1 works because you don't have to do a defence if the attack misses. Search and handeling time is slighly longer though, because you'll have to defend sometime.

Case 2)You can only parry a limited amount per round and get to decide when to use it. I'd use method one in this case.

Reason:Well, the not having to defend misses comes to mind, so sortest handeling time again.

Caveat:You may find it unrealist that people don't waste their defence on missed attacks. Either method 1 or 3 would work here, as they are pretty much the same. Method 1 is a bit more intuitive. From experiance, I'd say the search/handeling times are close, despite the fact that 3 seems faster. People seldom roll at the same time anyway. Richard explained this pretty well.  
(Do we both roll and then compare or do you roll and give me a target number?)

Just some thoughts

[Mike Holmes]

I understand your timing concern completely in terms of narration. I think that the simultaneous roll option (#3) is the way to go personally if you are looking for this esthetic. Which I'm sure seems counter-intuitive. But having just played TROS with Jake at Origins I think I have a good perspective on this. Essentially, you want only one person narrating and taking into account what happened. They should look at the roll and describe what happened in a dramatically flowing fashion. For example, Jake at one point described how Ralph's character used his sword to bind a horsemans spear out of the line of attack, and then continued to circle the blade around to chop off the horsemans arm as he proceeded by. Two rolls, but both "opposed". Very cool, very real, very descriptive, and made complete sense with the rolls as made. This was repeated ad nauseum. Maybe the coolest combats I've ever seen.

The real solution is to get out of the static exchange rounds of most combat systems. Once that happens then the subject of "interrrupts" becomes moot. Things just happen in the order they happen. What Jake refers to as real time combat (and he doesn't even have to drop combat rounds to get it interestingly).

Mike

[Jasper]

Thanks a lot for that analysis, Pale Fire.  I wasn't sure quite what you meant by analysis.  That certainly spells it all out clearly.

And to address your concern that "advanced maneuvers" would interfere with any of the systems: don't worry, there are no specific actions of any kind, much less advanced one.  It's all up to the circumstance.


Damion, your assumption is correct: the victor's Margin is reduced by his opponent's, so an attack of 3 against a dodge of 1 results in an attack of 2.  I should have pointed that out.

I also should have decribed the actual use of parries as well.  While the original version of my game, modelled after a freeware supers RPG, had rounds with a limited number of actions (called attacks of course), we gradually stopped using that, and dropped any concept of rounds at all (so we'd already taken your advice, Mike).  Sometimes rounds do help facilitate the resolution of really complex scenes, but it's generally much easier to do without.  So, that's a round-about way of saying "no, I don't have rounds," but neither do characters get to react to every attack necessarily -- only within reason, and then with penalties.  So in any case, it's the second of Damion's cases: the player will get to choose when to parry.

I do, however, not like the idea of not "wasting" parries on unsuccessful attacks -- so either O1 or O3, would work it seems.  I'm not sure they're exactly equivelant either.  While the probabilities work out to be the same, in O1, there's no Margin for the attack (since the original Margin turns into a penalty, and I can't use the defense Margin in the same way).  That could be a problem, depending on how imporant Margin should be.  I was planning on using the attack Margin for the wound severity....

I think I'll take Mike's advice and go with O3.  I define things like defenses as "degrading" or "opposing" actions, which work to directly undermine someone else's action (generally at the same time and place).  They can still be rolled after the primary action, though declared first.  If the primary one is a failure itself, no further roll required.

Thanks for the help, everyone.  Although I certainly don't mean this cut off further discussion here, I consider my problem solved.  Once I hack out a few more things, maybe I'll solicit opinions on the whole deal.  

Cheers!