Alternative Combat Rounds

[Jason Lee]

This isn't really the thread for this discussion.  But there are entire schools of defense dedicated to counterstriking.  The Germans even have specific words for that style of fighting.  So one cannot successfully argue against the idea that "counterstriking is often more effective" both in real life and in TRoS.

Ok, I agree.  This goes down a path of martial arts theory riddled with differing opinions (even after you get past defining exactly what counter attacking is) - it would not lead to a conclusive discussion.  Though, even having a few years of experience in arts devoted primarily to counter attacking (and loving such techniques dearly), I would still argue against it.

As far as relevance to the topic, I think its important to consider that ascribing realism to "counter attacking being often more effective" might be a faulty assumption to base the details in a combat system on.

But then again, maybe I'm missing the point and quibbling over unimportant details.

EDIT:  Part of the reason I like Initiative is it allows you to partially use both points of view about counter attacking.  Attacking first because Initiative is higher reflects the speed advantage of aggression, and the ability to effectively counter attack is reflected by holding your Initiative over until your opponent attacks.

[Mike Holmes]

But you can represent both POVs just as easily without Initiative. Easier, in fact.

This,"Fair" that you speak of ??? What's unfair about everybody rolling at the same time against each other? If we were doing a contest of skills for Ping Pong, would you have us roll for initiative (or just give it to the guy who had the serve)? What's disorganized about that. How does it entail anyone but the GM talking and saying, "Everyone, roll!"

Have you looked at Zenobia? Tell me what's wrong with that system, and then I'll understand what's unfair or confusing about the much simpler and more dramatic method of simple resolution.

Further, TROS might not be right, but it lets you examine just such questions about counterstriking. If you feel that it's not realistic, a small tweak could be made to show your opinion. In most sysems it will come down to the simple preference of the narrator. In TROS, you can actually make statements about the outcomes, mechanically.

Mike

[zaal]

I think you didn't take the right pill.

lol!  Well, I didn't realize that is what you meant.  I'm actually familiar with a combat system like that - simultaneous combat in Fudge.  However, I never thought about simultaneous combat in quite these terms before.  

If Joe is not surprised, then combat is just that Punching contest. In this case, Joe rolls higher than Bob. The Gm looking at the result says, "Bob swings at Joe, but misses, swinging wide. Joe counterpunches, and smacks Bob right in the jaw, landing him on his ass."

What Initiative problem?

I guess your right.  I wanted to model each action in the fight as an individual event to be responded to, but contested rolls would make things much more manageable.

[Jason Lee]

But you can represent both POVs just as easily without Initiative. Easier, in fact.

This,"Fair" that you speak of ??? What's unfair about everybody rolling at the same time against each other? If we were doing a contest of skills for Ping Pong, would you have us roll for initiative (or just give it to the guy who had the serve)? What's disorganized about that. How does it entail anyone but the GM talking and saying, "Everyone, roll!"

Have you looked at Zenobia? Tell me what's wrong with that system, and then I'll understand what's unfair or confusing about the much simpler and more dramatic method of simple resolution.

The "fair" I speak of is not true fairness, just fair chance to play as perceived by the players - no arguements about who gets to go first.  Initiative decides who has the serve or who gets to be white in chess.  

No, I hadn't read Zenobia...so I did, now I have.  Nothing is wrong with the system, it serves the purpose it defines well - It's just lacking in detail and flexibility I enjoy.

I only have two comments on the technical merits of the system:  being unable to roll to defend against missle attacks can frustate the player, and I think needing damage/manuever tables for combat increases handling time.

All other comments on using a simultaneous resolution system like the one presented in Zenobia are just a matter of preference.  Combining defense, attack, and damage rolls into a single contested roll is fine - it just sacrifices detail to reduce handling time (six rolls become two).  Having to defend from what you are attacking and vice versa is too limitting for my tastes.  I also don't like the implication that damage and maiming are the only available results of combat.  Simultaneous resolution also tends to break down with scale differences (super speed vs super strength vs a giant robot, and so on), sacrificing the elegance of their "damage produced from attack roll" system by depending upon complicated tables once the human vs human link is broken, and/or scale based bonus and penalties screwing up the probabilities to the point of rolling being pointless.

There's another simple difference of opinion that we are tripping up on - I don't like actions defined post-roll.  Either the GM describes the results of your roll (which is too much like watching TV for my taste), or you let each player describe in more detail what happened post roll (in which case you're right back were you started with rounds of combat, except now you've added a second phase to resolution).

For a long time I declared: "combat takes too long, that makes it boring, how can I make it shorter?".  But I discovered I don't actually like short combat, I just don't like high handling times and: "I hit it, I dodge, I hit it, I block, etc".  Give me a three hour combat where the players enjoy describing their actions in vivid detail, speckled with relevance to plot and character dialog.

I like watching kung fu movies, not because I want to get to the point and find out who defeats who, but because I want to watch the action unfold in unexpected ways.  So, from my point of view, I find that fifteen minute or less combats actually detract from drama, not enhance it.

[Mike Holmes]

Not only simultaneous. Just to be clear, I've described the resolution in complete detail above. That is, if Joe makes his roll, the GM just decides what happens. No damage rolls, no hit points, no nothing other than the GM says, "Hmm. A successful use of Punch skill, we'll, I'll describe it as xyz."

Just like picking a lock. GM sees a successful roll, he says, "OK, you fiddle with the lack for a bit, and it pops open allowing you entrance." I'm suggesting resolving combat identically. GM looks at successful roll, he says, "OK, you both take several swings at each other, and finally, you land a good one on his lower jaw sending him sprawling."

As I've said, this seems so radical to RPG players that they just don't get it the first time I describe it (often they just assume that I'm skipping steps). I'm just reiterating to be sure that people can see what I'm getting at.


Here's a better question. Why do you want to detail each separate action (what we refer to around here as Task Resolution)? What's the game about, and why is such detail important? Note, that in the resoluton system I've detailed you can be as detailed as you like in your description. You just role for the combat as a whole, or at least for whole chunks at a time. What about the game you're creating makes it focused on combat to the extent that you need the sort of detail that you are looking for?

Mike

[Mike Holmes]

The "fair" I speak of is not true fairness, just fair chance to play as perceived by the players - no arguements about who gets to go first.  Initiative decides who has the serve or who gets to be white in chess.  

Which is only important if you assume a turn based system. This is a circular argument )You need initiative to determine who goes first because it's turn based. And if you take turns you need to know who goes first. )

Just don't do turns.

It's just lacking in detail and flexibility I enjoy.

I can't speak to your preferrences, but I find such systems are far more flexible than round based systems. As for detail, yes, if puts that in the hands of the players moreso than allowing the system to determine it. Which makes for more "realistic" and dramatic combat every single time, garunteed.

Having to defend from what you are attacking and vice versa is too limitting for my tastes.

That's easily fixed, actually, and just something that's not spoken to in Zenobia. The point being that it doesn't have to be a factor in a Simultaneous rolling system. For example, Hero Wars handles this by putting all forces on sides, and allowing whomever to be described as attacking whomever in combat.

Simultaneous resolution also tends to break down with scale differences (super speed vs super strength vs a giant robot, and so on), sacrificing the elegance of their "damage produced from attack roll" system by depending upon complicated tables once the human vs human link is broken, and/or scale based bonus and penalties screwing up the probabilities to the point of rolling being pointless.

That's a system specific critique (as are many of yours). What about a simultaneous system makes things fall apart due to scale? That doesn't happen in any other system? Again, Hero Wars would handle this fine.

There's another simple difference of opinion that we are tripping up on - I don't like actions defined post-roll.  Either the GM describes the results of your roll (which is too much like watching TV for my taste), or you let each player describe in more detail what happened post roll (in which case you're right back were you started with rounds of combat, except now you've added a second phase to resolution).

Many people here are quite fond of the Player describes option. How is this problematic? Two participants roll. One wins, he gets to describe what happened. How is that problematic? Believe me, having played that way a lot, it's much more effective than round based.

We refer to this "post-roll" description as Fortune in the Middle herabouts. What games have you played using this method, and what were your problems with it?

For a long time I declared: "combat takes too long, that makes it boring, how can I make it shorter?".  But I discovered I don't actually like short combat, I just don't like high handling times and: "I hit it, I dodge, I hit it, I block, etc".  Give me a three hour combat where the players enjoy describing their actions in vivid detail, speckled with relevance to plot and character dialog.

Absolutelty. That's a principle around here that most agree with. The point is that things like Initiative, and rounds, and all that jazz are exactly the sort of extra handling time that you don't like. The sorts of resolution that I'm describing tend to produce exactly the sort of play that you seem to be clamoring for.

The only people who really get into detail for detail sake, are actually more interested in the combat for the combat's sake. Not even really the combat's sake, but the competition involved in it, or the verisimilitude of it, maybe. That's fine. But I don't sense it's what Zaal's looking for. Nor you, if I may be so bold.

I like watching kung fu movies, not because I want to get to the point and find out who defeats who, but because I want to watch the action unfold in unexpected ways.  So, from my point of view, I find that fifteen minute or less combats actually detract from drama, not enhance it.

Of course. Who would disagree? So, I guess I'll watch my next Blackbelt Theatre flick looking for the initiative rolls, and combat rounds?

OK, that's snarky. But players are infinitely better than systems at creating dramtic action.

Mike

[damion]

Here's an idea, based on Mikes concept & a bit of ScatterShot:

Lemme know if you've heard this before:

What I don't like about Mike's idea is that  there is no duration.  Bob can punch Rick and end it by knocking him on floor with one roll, or the GM can narrate it so multiple rolls are required.

How about where combat lasts as long as the players think it should?
This would require a 'accumulated advantage system', like scattershot, TROS or Hero Wars.  
There are two types of 'accumulated advantage', permenant(PA) and temporary(TA).
Temorary advantatge is gained during combat in a system similar to
TROS or Hero Wars. Basicly, it goes up and down and is gained and lost.
Permenant comes in two types, positive(PA+) and negative(PA-). Every time your accumulated temporary advantage changes, the difference is added to the appropriate type of permanent advantage. If your TA goes up, the increase is added to PA+.
Permanent advantage represents the 'stakes' of the combat.

The combat sequence is like this:
Rolls are made, temporary advantage is determined.
At any time, any one, GM OR other players, can end the combat.


Also, any side in combat can 'give up' some temporary advantage to prevent the combat from ending.  There is a genra specific number of times the 'end can be postponed'. (Scattershot's Epic index is a great exaple here).

When a combat finishes, one looks at permanant advantage. PA+ is good things you got out the combat, PA- is bad things. Each player narrates their own PA+ their opponents PA-.  This isn't strictly necessary, the GM could do all narration in a more standard system.
Basicly, the longer combat goes on, the more PA+ you get, but you get more PA- also.  The 'yield' limit is to prevent one from building up large amounts of advantage vs a weak opponent. Also, other players can call a boring fight.

This is more of a system framework, but the idea was the that combat goes on as long as you people find it interesting. It also allows for bittersweet victories (You could win, but have more PA- than PA+).

Just an idea.

[Jason Lee]

Which is only important if you assume a turn based system. This is a circular argument )You need initiative to determine who goes first because it's turn based. And if you take turns you need to know who goes first. )

Agreed, you are right it is circular.

That's a system specific critique (as are many of yours). What about a simultaneous system makes things fall apart due to scale? That doesn't happen in any other system? Again, Hero Wars would handle this fine.

I'll check out this Hero Wars, as you are suggesting many of my problems with simulanteous resolution may be addressed in it.

Many people here are quite fond of the Player describes option. How is this problematic? Two participants roll. One wins, he gets to describe what happened. How is that problematic? Believe me, having played that way a lot, it's much more effective than round based.

We refer to this "post-roll" description as Fortune in the Middle herabouts. What games have you played using this method, and what were your problems with it?

We've experimented with it in our own game design.  We've found it excellent at resolving unimportant combat events (sparring, simple bar fights, and so on).  

Once you get into a combat you want more detail in it seems to...lack, and become more arbitrary.  It just doesn't provide enough detail in the system if you want to having differing levels of skill in attack and defense or if you want to seperate the speed of mental actions, physical actions and defensive actions (and have those speeds vary from character to character) - which you might want to do to add things like supernatural defensive abilities (spend mana for minor automatically dodging teleport) or additional actions.  

It also seems to not reinforce spontaneous flow of actions from character to character - like cooperative defense of another player whose gonna get stepped on because he wiffed his combat roll.  After its all said and done, you might end up with a more dramatic description of a scene - but their was no tension or excitement in building the scene in a dynamic way - you resolved the actions for your character and his opponent(s) in a lump, with a die roll or two, seperate from the rest of the players.  

Now given, this can all be solved with vivid and accurate description - but I don't think the system promotes it.  If it does, I would imagine its often in a rather bland feeling bonus/penalty to the combat roll.

The only people who really get into detail for detail sake, are actually more interested in the combat for the combat's sake. Not even really the combat's sake, but the competition involved in it, or the verisimilitude of it, maybe. That's fine. But I don't sense it's what Zaal's looking for. Nor you, if I may be so bold.

I'd actually wager I'm one of those people...it doesn't dominate my game play but I find the actual process of combat enjoyable (else why are you bothering with it).

Of course. Who would disagree? So, I guess I'll watch my next Blackbelt Theatre flick looking for the initiative rolls, and combat rounds?

Heh, bet you didn't think I'd disagree with this point did you?  I suprised myself by actually observing turns in action movie combat.  For example, the fight in the Mines of Moria in the Fellowship movie (theatrical version).  Sure, it's not perfect turns, but the elf goes first, then the ranger, then Sam (of all people), and the dwarf goes last...the action cuts from one character to another in the same general order until the combat is over.  I know this is not particularly important to the discussion - but it amused the hell out of me.

This 'Fortune in the Middle' (why name it that?) thing you speak of...seems quite old fashioned.  Rolling on hit location tables enforce this kind of behavior on the GM (description post roll - it is not implicitly specified by the system, but the end result is the same).  Not a criticism (old things are good...I like cheese), just an observation.

[zaal]

As I've said, this seems so radical to RPG players that they just don't get it the first time I describe it (often they just assume that I'm skipping steps). I'm just reiterating to be sure that people can see what I'm getting at.

I'm familiar with that style of play from Fudge (in Fudge you could just roll once for the entire combat, you don't even need to worry about damage if you don't want to), but for whatever reason I just never put two and two together when I was trying to model my "string of events."

While I'm familier with it, I've never played with simultaneous combat in Fudge.  I guess the idea of the "standard" combat round was so strongly ingrained in my head that I failed to consider it.  Simultaneous combat is kind of a misnomer, really - it's just two (or more) people who are trying to affect each other, and as such it's just a resisted roll.  I'll give it a try.  

What about the game you're creating makes it focused on combat to the extent that you need the sort of detail that you are looking for?

I'm giving up on that idea actually - I don't think it's very playable and I've started thinking that it's an unnecessary concern.  Simultaneous "combat"  in Fudge is pretty much what I'm looking for.

[M. J. Young]

One function of initiative seems to have been overlooked in all this; it's probably the essential function of the mechanic in most games which use it: it permits the possibility that one character's attack will disable the other such that the other cannot respond. This might be because the first attack was fatal, or because it was disarming or paralyzing or otherwise disabling.

If you have simultaneous rolls which indicate both were successful, but one attacker intended his attack to remove the ability of the other to attack, then both cannot be truly successful. Either the one failed to prevent the other's attack, or the other failed to attack successfully. Initiative resolves this smoothly.

I'm not saying it can't be resolved some other way. In Multiverser, conflicting magic is frequently adjudicated by the higher successful roll. If your system is that whoever rolls higher attacks successfully and whoever rolls lower fails in his attack (and all ties mean both sides failed) you eliminate this problem (although in my estimation you create new ones). I wouldn't discount initiative as a viable solution.

--M. J. Young

[Andrew Martin]

(and all ties mean both sides failed)

Note that some settings (Samurai Japan) may require that ties mean that both sides succeeded! And so produce a "mutual kill", where both sides succeed and die. :)

[Jason Lee]

(and all ties mean both sides failed)

Note that some settings (Samurai Japan) may require that ties mean that both sides succeeded! And so produce a "mutual kill", where both sides succeed and die. :)

Ah yes...you should always strive for atleast ai-uchi...Japan is wierd.

Anyway,  Zaal, now that you seem to have the answer you were looking for (simultaneous resolution, ala Fudge) I guess I can safely return to being on topic ;).

Maybe consider using basically the same mechanic found in Risk (with skills and other de-randomizing agents):
Each party rolls two dice, one white and one red.
Red is attack, white is defense - add the appropriate skill to the appropriate die.  
Now compare red to white - this gives you four options:  simultaneous block, simultaneous cut, and victory for either side.  You could do something with ties, but I'd skip it and just always give ties to the red or white die (dependent upon whether you want killing or defending to have the advantage, and the die size will have a big impact on how much advantage to give).
You can then "Zenobia/Immortal" your damage (base off numerical success difference), roll it the "normal" way, have it fixed, ignore it and deal penalties, or whatever.

This is also basically the same as Fudge, but it lets you differentiate offensive and defensive skills, as well as adding ai-uchi - ridding you of some of the restrictions I dislike about most simultaneous resolution.

I'm sure this has been used in an actual RPG somewhere in greater detail - I can't point you to a source though.

[Walt Freitag]

I've considered a resolution system for opposed actions such as combat that's the opposite approach to making opposed rolls for combat and considering initiative retroatively as part of the outcome. Consider it an all-initiative system. That's right, lots of initiative rolls and no success rolls.

The idea is that what combattants are mostly doing during the exchange of blows in a fight is looking for opportunities to make effective attacks.

The system kicks in as soon as a character announces an intent that affects another character. A chance of the character finding an opportunity to perform that action (per "pulse" of action) is arrived at. The chance is usually a low probability. The system could be as crunchy as you want, with the chance being adjusted for situational factors including the character's skill (higher skill is able to perceive opportunities that a lesser skill would miss), the opponent's defense, the fundamental difficulty of the intended action (for example, you'd be less likely to find an opening to slice someone's head off than to find an opening to force them backward), and the suitability of the weapon or attack style for the action being attempted.

Each pulse of action, everyone rolls their already established chances. At any time, any character can change their intentions, which changes their chances. Since all the chances are generally low, it might take several rolls in succession before anyone gets an opportunity. This should be fast, because the chances for the rolls (target numbers or whatever) usually aren't changing. If well balanced, this could create a lot of suspense. And there's really no whiff factor, since the rolls that "fail" (which are the great majority of all rolls) simply mean that an opportunity to perform the intended action hasn't occurred yet.

A success on the roll means that the intended effect happens. No further success determination is needed; it's assumed that once an opportunity occurs, the character exploits that opportunity (to injure, kill, disarm, throw, sting, bind, or whatever intention was chosen) without error.

There you go, a resolution system that preserves the idea of initiative without separate initiative rolls (because in a sense, every roll is an initiative roll). It also has a very clear IIEE focus; everything is pure intention until a successful roll is made. It needs a lot of work in other areas, but I don't see any deal-killer problems with it. And it's novel as far as I'm aware of, though it seems unlikely that someone hasn't done it before somehere.

- Walt

[Mike Holmes]

Everyone interested in this sort of thing should definitely check out Hero Wars.

Interestingly, it sorta does have an initiative system. But it only determines who gets to decide the current wager. Either side can "damage" the other on every exchange of every round. So, I can combat you, and you can damage me. Then you can combat Bob, and damage him. Then Bob can combat me, and I can damage him. Then next round the order changes to reflect each side's possition. It's very nifty that way.

One of the really cool things is how you can handle large numbers of participants by just aglomerating them into sides. So, those 30 goblins reqire only one roll instead of 30. And you can still keep track of indivisual losses. Which is especially important if somebody changes sides mid-battle.

And eveything you can think of can be handled mechanically. That's another great thing. If you want some detail to be handled mechanically, you can. If youwant to ignore it, that works too. The more I play, the more I adore the system.

The point is that it goves all the advantages of this new style of resolution, without loosing much, if anything of the old style.

I'd actually wager I'm one of those people...it doesn't dominate my game play but I find the actual process of combat enjoyable (else why are you bothering with it).

What I was referring to was the sort of people that play RPGs solely for the combat. The ones who would be just as happy playing a wargame. The point, again, is that you can have a lot of your simulative action, but get it in a more "story enhancing" manner. To whit, I've even had one of my wargamer friends (ranked in numerous systems) say that these systems are more tactically accurate a form of simulation than the older RPG systems. And I agree. We're working on a miniatures adaptation currently.

I suprised myself by actually observing turns in action movie combat.  For example, the fight in the Mines of Moria in the Fellowship movie (theatrical version).  Sure, it's not perfect turns, but the elf goes first, then the ranger, then Sam (of all people), and the dwarf goes last...the action cuts from one character to another in the same general order until the combat is over.  I know this is not particularly important to the discussion - but it amused the hell out of me.

Well, one of the advantages, and drawbacks, of the movie media is the visual nature of it. A collaboratively narrative media has different requirements in certain circumstances. That is, the narrative form seems to be much more engrossing when it avoids that sort of scene in Moria, and goes more for the Run Out the Guns style where you follow first one character and then another.

In how many books that you've read does the author bounce back and forth between characters on every single action? Somene has probably done it, but the usual method (and one that seems to work well) is to describe one series of action from one main character, and then the same from another, etc. I think the methods you see best used in literature are the ones that one should employ in RPGs. And, as such, the sorts of systems I've described seem to produce exactly that sort of effect, IME.

All this said, yes, these are just preferences. And each is valid. I'm only suggesting that people consider these other methods instead of just relying on traditional methods for tradition's sake. You may find, as I have that these methods work better for many (or most) audiences.

This 'Fortune in the Middle' (why name it that?) thing you speak of...seems quite old fashioned.  Rolling on hit location tables enforce this kind of behavior on the GM (description post roll - it is not implicitly specified by the system, but the end result is the same).

What you describe is quite old-school, and not at all what I'm talking about. Do a search for "Fortune in the Middle" or FitM on the site for some in-depth discussions.

Actually, FitM has probably been used by some GMs for a while. But only in the last couple of years have we identified it here in such a way as to make it describable, and therefore something one can suggest as a design element.

It's called FitM because every action in an RPG has certain elements which can be ordered differently. The most common method is Fortune ast the End (FatE). In that method, the player initiates an action, the action is descibed to the extent it can be (since success has not been determined yet), and then the roll is made which determines the mechanical outcome.

Thus you get:
"I want to kill him"
"I swing at him"
Dice are rolled (fortune) indicating a hit.
"I hit"

In FitM, the description awaits the roll first. Thus the fortune occurs in the middle and not at the end.

"I want to kill him"
Dice are rolled indicating a hit.
"I swing at him and hit"

If I had to roll on a hit loacation chart that would definitely be putting another fortune step at the end of the process, which takes the description further out of any participant's hands, and into the systems.

Now, looking at the above examples, it's hard to see why one is superior to the other. I've used neutral examples to elucidate. But how about the following example of FitM?

"I want to Kill him."
Dice are rolled indicating a miss.
"I stall, looking for an advantage."

Can't do that with FatE.

"I want to kill him"
"I swing at him"
Dice are rolled indicating a miss.
"I stall, looking for an advantage."
Player 2: "Hey, didn't you jsut waay you were swinging at him; you whiffed!"

FitM is simply reserving some of the defintion of the nature of the action (in our example, specifically what the character is doing to kill the opponent), inorder that we be allowed to describe the result in the most entertaining manner.

In large part FitM has been described so as to avoid the "Whiff Factor". Specifically, combat in which lot's of boring misses occur. Or, really closer to the heart of it, combat with no suspense. For example, an easy fix would be to just make everyone hit a lot more often. But this is revealed as problematic as soon as you get going, and combats are over before they begin. What we really want is drawn out combats (drawn out in the sense of having substantial duration, not as in dragged on with uninteresting detail) that rise in tension til a sudden and and final climax. One can easily see how a system like Zenobia handles this. Most rounds are the tension building back and forth of combat with modifiers being piled on. Til someone gets a big final roll, and puts the pponent away. Very cinematic, very dramatic.

As such, FitM is used very much as I've done in the example above to avoid the "whiff syndrome". It also fixes other problems. Like when playing a James Bondesque character, and failing a seduction roll. If the player has already said that the character is asking the girl to his room, then a failure means she shoots him down. If the actin has not been declared, a failure can be determined to be circumstances making it so that an opening does not occur. Thus, the cool Spy doesn't look like a schmuck. Which he should not; his skill is too high. It must be circumstance. So theis system allows for such to be described this way.

Further, there are several other nifty techniques that FitM allows.

OK, I'm just regurgitating what others have said here. But the point is that it's cool stuff. For those who've not tried it, I can only wholeheartedly suggest giving it a try.

Mike

[M. J. Young]

(and all ties mean both sides failed)

Note that some settings (Samurai Japan) may require that ties mean that both sides succeeded! And so produce a "mutual kill", where both sides succeed and die. :)

I had recognized this possibility and, in the current context, discounted it.

If we're both trying to kill each other, and a tie is rolled, it is certainly interesting to decide whether we both succeeded or both failed. However, the contests described are more interesting than that.

If you are attempting to wound me with a weapon and I am attempting to immobilize your weapon, and we tie, what would it mean for both of us to succeed? Does it mean that I stopped your weapon, but as soon as I let it go you will wound me, even if before that I kill you? Does it mean that you wounded me, but then I stopped your weapon so you cannot wound me again, even if that wound is or is nearly fatal or disabling? The point was that in some cases you cannot have both sides succeed without having a way of determining who succeeded first. It would be very important to me as a player to know whether my character stopped your blade before or after it struck me; it cannot have done both. In this situation, only one of us can truly be successful.

Thus I specified that for this system to work, all ties would have to be twin failures.

I've considered a resolution system for opposed actions such as combat that's the opposite approach to making opposed rolls for combat and considering initiative retroatively as part of the outcome. Consider it an all-initiative system. That's right, lots of initiative rolls and no success rolls.

I think that's pretty much what I just suggested above (early Friday morning by time stamp here) with a roll that chooses which side is the actor and which the reactor. It would move a bit faster, because there would be a greater probability of an action "now". To explicate part that wasn't perhaps clear there, it might go something like this:

As combat starts, Tom has a 70 and Bob a 50. They roll, and Tom rolls 45, Bob 32. Tom is the actor.
Because Tom just acted, he gets +10, giving him 80; Bob is still at 50.  Tom rolls 60, Bob rolls 40, so again Tom is the actor.
Because Tom was actor twice in a row, he still gets the +10, but also a -2, so he's at 78. He rolls 80; that means his roll cannot count as taking the action. But Bob rolls 60, so he doesn't take action, either.
Now neither was actor last time, so we're back to 70/50. Tom rolls 34, but Bob rolls 47, so now Bob is the actor.
Bob now gets the +10, putting him at 60; but he rolls 73, and Tom rolls 03, so Tom becomes the actor.

As I say, it needs some tweaking, but it has potential. In each "round" one or the other, or neither, will act. It lets one side hit several times in a row; it actually tends to encourage the side that attacked last to attack again, but at the same time has a limiter to how many such attacks will be made before that advantage is lost.

In how many books that you've read does the author bounce back and forth between characters on every single action? Somene has probably done it, but the usual method (and one that seems to work well) is to describe one series of action from one main character, and then the same from another, etc. I think the methods you see best used in literature are the ones that one should employ in RPGs. And, as such, the sorts of systems I've described seem to produce exactly that sort of effect, IME.

In my writing, I'm a bit old school on perspective. I will describe the entire battle in real sequence from the perspective of one character. That is, we will follow Lauren as she fights, and she will be dimly aware of what Bethany is doing at any moment; Bethany's actions are never described in full, but more in fragments which tell us whether she is at this moment winning or losing, who she is fighting, and what each seems to be doing at this moment.


I could translate that to Multiverser play if I were 1) in a situation with one PC working together with some number of NPC's and I considered the outcome of the NPC combat neither important enough nor in enough doubt that it required mechanical determination. That is, if I know that the player character is going to die and so never know what happened in this battle, and that the NPC's are going to be too occupied to prevent that, I could run the combat this way (oh, come on--sometimes you do know that the player has tackled Leviathan and is not going to come out alive); or if I know that the NPC can't possibly do more than hold his opponent at bay until the PC can come to his aid, but will not be injured significantly in the process, I could do it. But if I've got two player characters, how can one of them be the focus from which the story is told?

Again, in the books I am very strict about perspective. This battle will be told from one person's view; or else, the beginning of the battle will be told from that viewpoint, and then in the midst of the battle I'll switch to another character--but it's a clean switch, and once it's done, anything more the first character does is only described from the view of the second. The new character could sketch what he's already done, putting a bit clearer definition on what the other character saw him doing; the other character might end with an idea of what he is going to do next, the success or failure of which we see through the eyes of his companion. But even if I run through each character several times in the course of a long fight (almost never have fights long enough for that) I"m always seeing it from the perspective of one of them.

I think that even with the single PC with NPC support moments, you have something of this perspective, because the player generally suggests what the others should do and thus as it were sees the battle from his own perspective (this approaches a wargame idea, in that the player controls not just his general but his troops as well). But I'm not sure I see how to mimic this literary approach in a game (despite the fact that to a significant degree the literary approach is mimicking the game).

--M. J. Young