Restricting/controlling choices for combat

[Hereward The Wake]

This comes from many of the discussions of desiging combat systems.
Working under the stress of life or death combat, much of what the combatant does happens instinctivley, if one stops to 'think' you will probably die. The point of training is to develop the range of the options that one will perform instinctively and also to allow some form of thinking to take place, which does not cause you to freeze. However the basic premise is that you do what you do almost with out choosing to do it. Bruce Lee for example said that when he fought, he didn't do the fighting, it just happened. The problem with that of course is that it would give the players little to do.

Also ones ability to act will be determined by how much you know and have trained, but ultimately one may not always choose the best option even though it may still work.
My problem,
A way to control the options avaiable to the fighters, so that they don't have the option to always choose the best action, while allowing at least something to be done regardless. What would also really be needed would be a way to witc choices in certain situations, if skill ful enough.

I know that there are other combat systems out thre that do something similar, TROS etc. but I am interested in a flexible way to control choices beyond combat pools which an be to artificial or cards which seems to become too random.

Best
Hereward

[LogicaLunatic]

Throw a single variable into the mix.

It could be anything but lets assume we're dealing with melee.  You could throw in a variable called Range and allow the range to be altered as combat progresses.  Make a character choose whether he's better at close, medium or far.  Then create attacks/weapons/abilities that work great at one range but not so great (or not at all) at others.

****
Combat Round 7
Range increased to 7 (Far on a 1-10 scale)
Character 1 is specialized in close combat but his close combat abilities are now reduced to a point that his weaker abilities actually do better damage or have a better chance to hit.
****

Just a thought.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I'm a little confused by your post.  Are you wanting to limited a player's choice in general or the player's ability to choose what is optimum in each circumstance?

Peace,

-Troy

[Hereward The Wake]

I perhaps should have said that I am planning on using range as an area of combat, or at least using it as a factor/phase of combat, as being able to control range and line, are two of the most important aspects of close combat.
JW

It could be anything but lets assume we're dealing with melee.  You could throw in a variable called Range and allow the range to be altered as combat progresses.  Make a character choose whether he's better at close, medium or far.  Then create attacks/weapons/abilities that work great at one range but not so great (or not at all) at others.

****
Combat Round 7
Range increased to 7 (Far on a 1-10 scale)
Character 1 is specialized in close combat but his close combat abilities are now reduced to a point that his weaker abilities actually do better damage or have a better chance to hit.
****

Just a thought.

[Hereward The Wake]

I am trying to restrict players choice in general. From a gamist point of view the player will start to choose the optimal action, one then would have to restrict this with modifers etc. I would rather do the restricting as prt of the choice/decision phase, to attempt to simplify things or at least reduce the number of stages that have to be negotiated. Any help?

JW

Heya,
I'm a little confused by your post.  Are you wanting to limited a player's choice in general or the player's ability to choose what is optimum in each circumstance?
Peace,
-Troy

[LogicaLunatic]

I perhaps should have said that I am planning on using range as an area of combat, or at least using it as a factor/phase of combat, as being able to control range and line, are two of the most important aspects of close combat.
JW

I'm not suggesting you use range as the variable, it was just a thought of mine.  You could throw any variable in that you wanted.  Excitement, Panic, Fatigue.

[Hereward The Wake]

Yes something along the lines of fatigue that reduces the options available. I've also thought of Panic, with the standard reaction to be scared sh**less and do nothing, one would have to test against that to be able to do things in some incremental form.

JW

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I am trying to restrict players choice in general. From a gamist point of view the player will start to choose the optimal action, one then would have to restrict this with modifers etc.

Ok.  And the reason you want to do this is to make combat run more quickly?  Or is it some other reason?  I'm not yet sure I completely understand why you want to do this.

Peace,

-Troy

[Hereward The Wake]

I am trying to make combat come closer to what it actually represents. So that while I realise that some abstraction has to be there, I am trying to reflect the realities of manuevering and controling distance and line, and areas such as the actaualities of attacks and reactions. What I am trying to work out is ways that will allow players to have realistic choices but at the same time restrict them or at least randomise the options that are available at anyone time.
I realise that this will not make a 'quick' system but niether do I want to get bogged down in th much detail.

[Bill Cook]

Hereward:

It sounds like you want some mechanic to commit the players where they are working with limited information. In other words, to some degree, capture the confusion and "instinctive reaction" quality of combat, IRL. Using a script is one method of creating this effect. There are two games that would be good references to peruse: FASA's Crimson Skies Boardgame (1998) and Luke Crane's Burning Wheel RPG.

With a script, you try to predict what your opponent will do. If you fail to choose the optimal tactic, or worse, you play right into your enemy's hands, too bad; you have to stick with what you wrote. (Actually, in BW, there's some limited way of changing your mind, but it comes at a price.)

[Nogusielkt]

I think you could have a variety of moves that land characters into different "positions".  From each position, only certain actions can be taken.  So, Player X could do a 'Savage Swing' with his Axe, and it could throw him off balance.  Instead of just forcing him to balance next turn, give him a couple options, some leading him back to his 'balanced' or 'perfect' position and others leading down a path that ends with him falling down.  It could work with numbers easily.  You could start with a position of 10, swing at a cost of 7 and be left with 3.  Position would greatly affect defense.

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you want to avoid players from using the same thing over and over again, round after round, much like you would use the spell Ultima in FF3/6j every round for the easy win.  Using a position status you can limit characters combat options, introduce strategy to the game by allowing certain combat options to affect other combatants position, and make sense of the reduced effectiveness.

If, however, you meant that you wanted the players to be unable to control what they do in battle (ie: I punched him in the face when I really wanted to kick him in the sack)... that's a different thing entirely.  I don't think I've ever been in a fight, tournament or otherwise, where I was unable to take the actions I wanted to.

[Callan S.]

I am trying to make combat come closer to what it actually represents.

Are your players trying to do this too? Trying to make combat come closer to what it actually represents? Are they interested in really portraying combat, like you are?

The problem might not be so much that the option is there, but that they don't share the same goal of play as you do. I mean, if they play for a different purpose than to 'realistically portray combat', even if you clear up this problem and portray a really realistic combat, will they even care about that?

[simon_hibbs]

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

The actual resolution mechanic could be a more complex version of rock-paper-scisors.

Simon Hibbs

[drnuncheon]

One thing to consider: the more you move from the abstract to the detailed, the more people are going to want to apply their own real-world "knowledge" (whether it's accurate or not) to the combat.  You might perform a 'mighty swing' with your axe which leaves you off balance and can be followed up my maneuvers Y and Z, and you'll get someone swearing up and down that he knows someone that can follow it up with maneuver Q as well.  Also, the more detailed your combat representation is, the more the places where you are abstracting things out will stand out.

One method you might consider is this: rather than having certain moves being allowed or prohibited, give bonuses or penalties.  Your mighty axe swing might give a bonus to a followup mighty swing (as you use the momentum to bring the weapon around and strike again) but a penalty to the shield hook or disarm maneuvers (as you need to stop the momentum and get the axe in position for something with a little more finesse.)  Maneuvers might also give your opponent bonuses and penalties (they get a bonus to knock you down, say, because the mighty swing left you unbalanced) which would mean that the 'optimum move' was a product of the specific conditions of the battle: the terrain/environment and the previous actions of both you and your opponent.

To get a little into broader theory, I prefer the carrot/stick method of bonuses and penalties because I hate outright prohibitions.  As soon as a rulebook or setting says "you can't do this" I (and many other people I know) start looking for the exception.  To use an old-school AD&D example: "Whaddaya mean, wizards can't use swords? What was Glamdring, a baloney sandwich?"

[GB Steve]

I think if it helps to identify what you want from your combat system.

What is the purpose of combat in the game? Is it the only or a privileged form of conflict resolution (D&D, Dying Earth), one form of conflict resolution amongst many (HQ), a method of demonstrating a style of interaction (octaNe), part of an escalation of forms of conflict resolution (Dogs in the Vineyard) or narrative intrepretation (My Life with Master)?

Do you want to resolve the minutiae of each blow, the ebb and flow of advantage or perhaps just the narrative of the conflict?

How long in real time do you want subjective fights to last?

Do you want tactical choices to have a clear influence over the combat?

Do you want randomness to play a large part?

To what extent are you interested in simulating real combat and including variables such as position, fatigue, experience, injury, weapon readiness or environment?

Is the outcome of the combat influenced by variables such as commitment to what's at stake, desperation or other emotional states?

Do you want combat to be deadly or merely disabling?