An illusion of combat flexibility?

[Le Joueur]

Let me see if I can piece together what we've got so far.  I'm heavily editing the terminology and grammar, but not the phrasing.

Whooa. You're right. It's fortune-in-the-middle... I didn't see how things connected until you wrote it down Fang.

Actually, 'found' poetry is a hobby of mine, so this wasn't much of a stretch.  All that happened is I thought I saw the whole resolution mechanic scattered across several posts.

Now please all of you don't hate me for stating this, but it seems to work nicely because you can take the system and institute some fixed "advantage moves" and voila! People could play it as a Fortune-at-the-End (FatE) game, you could even put it into a computer game, it could be that mechanical. And that, I think, is exactly what I was looking for.

That was one of the draws it had for us to put it into Scattershot.  Scattershot leans on giving 'laundry lists' of just about everything (not that they restrict choice, rather functioning as examples).  I like the flexibility in application, it goes beyond just combat; you can use it for skill tests, conflict resolution (as opposed to 'move resolution'), we even us it to resolve 'Scenic Actions' (actions that take an entire scene or more, that doesn't get actively played out) like foraging or seige warfare (imagine resolving an entire war with only a few contested die rolls).

And don't be so surprised that we're using it in a computer game (not that we expect the Xbox to be around long enough to 'release' it).

Fang Langford

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Christoffer (Pale Fire),

It looks as if the thread has helped you generate what you wanted. Is that true? If so, that's excellent.

When you get the system written out in a usable way (-end or -middle, either way), let us know.

Best,
Ron

[Christoffer Lernö]

Just let me see if I'm really getting what Fang is saying with his example and if everyone agrees with this approach.

You start out choosing your action, either general ("I try to jump to the other side") or specific ("I kick him in the groin").

If the action is advantageous to the player, add +3 to the (or "one advantage"), if it's brutally advantageous, add +6 ("two advantages") or even further +9 ("three advantages"). You can also start out making concessions for -3 (for example "I aim for a round") or -6 ("I let him impale me on his dagger and then hold on to it so that he loses his hold on his weapon")

If the die roll is enough 1D12+skill+modification as per above>target number, the stated action occurs, general or specific.

In opposed rolls with active participants (two fighters for example) you can't make concessions after the roll (this wouldn't make sense.. if the opponent tries to hit me but fails his roll but can make concessions to hit me anyway,  then I should be able to make concessions to prevent him from hitting me too, even though it is his roll - do people understand what I mean? Opposed rolls are treated as rolls against a static target number but is actually a simplified version of a system where both defender and attacker rolls. Anyway, the logical thing seems to do away with concessions in this situation... I'm talking about concessions made after the roll is made).

In other rolls (say jumping over that broken bridge), you can make concessions after the roll, to prevent total failure (the "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa *splat*" thing), for example spraining one's ankle when landing badly or just chickening out (if the orc horde is coming and the jump has to be done now or never).

If the result is a success you count by how much. If it's a success by +6 or more above target number ("two advantages") you get to add one free advantage. If it's by +9 or more ("three advantages") you get to add two free advantages after the roll.
(If target number for a normal move was 2, and you did an advantage move (+3) for a target number of 5, you'd have to roll 11 or more to get your advantage more PLUS a free advantage)

(Advantage=special effect)

The only difference I worked out would be to eliminate concessions in opposed rolls.

Am I getting it or am I playing on the wrong soccer field again?

[Valamir]

I think you're on to it PF!  The only two things I'd raise would be:

1) don't dismiss concessions to opposed rolls just yet.  You may find that the back and forth "I missed, but I make a concession to hit you, then you make a concession to make me miss again, then I make another concession to be back to hitting you" to actually be desireable.  You could resolve a whole fight scene as a single roll with each party makeing back and forth concession.

Me:  "I try to stab him with my spear"
GM:  You missed.  He hopped back out of reach (just color but I'll use that to power my concession)
Me:  "ok, I'll make a concession that I continued with the thrust, extending my reach so that I can still hit him, but leaving me leaning way forward and off balance (a penelty to the future).
GM:  Ok you hit
Opponent:  Alright, I'll make a concession that I dropped my sword (the concession) but grabbed the shaft of his spear as it was driving towards my belly allowing me to twist it out of the way so it misses me by inches.
GM:  Ok, its back to missing.

You may decide not to go with that after all, but give it some thought, it might allow some really dramatic "moves" without having any rules more difficult than shifting a roll back and forth from success to failure.


2) In the examples I gave on raises, one required you to call for the raises in advance (i.e. rack up all of the special effects you want and raise the difficulty one increment for each), and if you fail the new higher difficulty you fail period.  In the second you roll first, and after seeing the roll (if its high enough) can begin adding however many raises will "fit".

This provides two very different effects on game play, so be sure to choose which one you'd want to go with.  I personally like the second one better because its faster in play...less time spent agonizing over whether to take the risk of increasing the difficulty.  Instead you just roll, and if you roll high enough to get an "Advantage Move" than make one up at that point, if you didn't, then don't.


I definitely think the ideas you have in this direction will promote the sense of dramatic fighting you wanted from novels and movies.  You'll note that alot of the dramatic effects will come from the players themselves adding and inventing things on their own that the other players and the GM didn't know was coming (i.e. using their imagination rather than lists of moves).  Unlike say, with D&D3E Feats where after seeing the "Power Cleave" combo move several times, all of the other players already know whats coming next.

One of the things you'll have to do in the game rules is to encourage play groups to set the level of "over-the-top-ness" they want in their game.  When players are making up "Advantage" and "Improv" moves, should they strive to make those moves realistic (like something out of Riddle of Steel), should they adhere to the "realism" of sword and sorcery like moves out of Conan or The Scorpion King, or can they go completely outrageous like Xena and Hercules.  You can give some guidance on this as far as how you the designer percieved the world, but ultimately each group can set its own happy level.

Greatly looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

[Christoffer Lernö]

1) don't dismiss concessions to opposed rolls just yet.  You may find that the back and forth "I missed, but I make a concession to hit you, then you make a concession to make me miss again, then I make another concession to be back to hitting you" to actually be desireable. You could resolve a whole fight scene as a single roll with each party makeing back and forth concession.

True, but in the spirit of having the rules reducable to fortune-in-the-end, this might be a problem. Also I'm thinking it can quickly get out of hand ;) It's fun though, I agree with that. :)
So, ok, I'll think about it a little, but odds are I don't allow it.

2) In the examples I gave on raises, one required you to call for the raises in advance (i.e. rack up all of the special effects you want and raise the difficulty one increment for each), and if you fail the new higher difficulty you fail period.  In the second you roll first, and after seeing the roll (if its high enough) can begin adding however many raises will "fit".

Right now my game is a hybrid... I mean isn't the first version really about fortune-in-the-end with concessions tucked in?

I was thinking of it in terms of "actual reality" like this:

* Standard move/action: here you basically check what your best opportunity is and go with that, if you succeed high enough on your roll that means you got a good enough result (+6) to do what you want.

* Advantage move/action: here you dedicate yourself to a certain move, because you think this is a good thing to do. Or in other words, you have some specific intent. Compared to the standard move it's a little harder to succeed with (+3 required), but it's easier to gain advantage with. It's also harder to get to improvise (+9 compared to the original target number) because you're kind of set on a specific course of action.

Or do I misunderstand your point?

One of the things you'll have to do in the game rules is to encourage play groups to set the level of "over-the-top-ness" they want in their game.

Ah, good point, I'll try to keep that in mind.

[Valamir]

1) don't dismiss concessions to opposed rolls just yet.  You may find that the back and forth "I missed, but I make a concession to hit you, then you make a concession to make me miss again, then I make another concession to be back to hitting you" to actually be desireable. You could resolve a whole fight scene as a single roll with each party makeing back and forth concession.

True, but in the spirit of having the rules reducable to fortune-in-the-end, this might be a problem. Also I'm thinking it can quickly get out of hand ;) It's fun though, I agree with that. :)
So, ok, I'll think about it a little, but odds are I don't allow it.

Hmmm, interesting puzzle.  Could the idea of concessions be made to work with a fortune at the end system...

I think perhaps it could, if you were to couch them in terms of "Improvised Moves".  From what I've read, even in the FatE reduction you mentioned you are still planning on allowing Improvised Moves with a high enough roll.  By there nature this would indicate waiting until *after* the roll to see if you rolled high enough, and if you did inventing the move you actually do, or the opportunity that presented itself, or some special effect that resulted.

If you define a concession as a way to "buy" an Improvised Move you might be able to make it fit even in the FatE version.  If it appeals to you to do so.

As for getting out of hand...it could...hense my last comment which you notices.  Since it would be up to the GM to decide whether a concession was significant enough to warrant the effect desired, and whether the effect desired was suitable to the tone of the game...I think it would be controllable...as long as the expectations were set up front.

Right now my game is a hybrid... I mean isn't the first version really about fortune-in-the-end with concessions tucked in?

Actually the first version was more like an "Advantage Move" system where you declare the effect you want, bumb the difficulty up accordinly and then succeed or fail based on the new difficulty.  The second version was more like an "Improvised Move" system where you wait to see what the roll is and then choose an effect if you rolled high enough (although in Brave New World, the effect was from a list and not actually improvised).

I see where you're going with the hybrid.  You have the first version with the Advantaged move *and* the second in the Improvised move.

[Le Joueur]

In the spirit of having the rules reducable to fortune-in-the-end, this might be a problem. Also I'm thinking it can quickly get out of hand ;) It's fun though, I agree with that. :)
So, ok, I'll think about it a little, but odds are I don't allow it.

I was thinking of it in terms of "actual reality" like this:

[*]Standard move/action: here you basically check what your best opportunity is and go with that, if you succeed high enough on your roll that means you got a good enough result (+6) to do what you want.

[*]Advantage move/action: here you dedicate yourself to a certain move, because you think this is a good thing to do. Or in other words, you have some specific intent. Compared to the standard move it's a little harder to succeed with (+3 required), but it's easier to gain advantage with. It's also harder to get to improvise (+9 compared to the original target number) because you're kind of set on a specific course of action.[/list:u]Or do I misunderstand your point?

One of the things you'll have to do in the game rules is to encourage play groups to set the level of "over-the-top-ness" they want in their game.

Ah, good point, I'll try to keep that in mind.

What I am hearing here it that one states the extreme of what they'd like to do, rolls the dice and then it gets 'chipped away' down to 'as much as they can afford' based on the roll.  Is that right?

Something like "I strike at his midsection (standard), forcing the blade hard so that it goes all the way through him (+3) and so the force of the blow knocks him down (+3 more)."  You roll barely over the target number.  "You hit him in middle, nothing more."

The problem is that even though that may sound like FatE, because the results are altered after the die roll, it becomes FitM.  FitM 'with teeth' is when the numbers are changed.  ("I succeeded by that much?  Let me spend 3 of those to make it 'knock him down' instead of it all going into damage.")

What I don't understand is how you can have an apparent list of Advantage moves (you said, "check...your best opportunity") so that the game can be so 'mechanical' as to suit CRPGs and yet you want to allow Improvised moves that, by definition, cannot come from a list.  Furthermore, I have to say that I believe that 'front-loading the die roll' to get it to be FatE will mostly eliminate that 'cinematic feel.'

I hope you can explain what you mean.  I rather curious.  (Sorry, short on time; this sounds harsher that I wanted, but I gotta go.)

Fang Langford

[Valamir]

Interesting question Fang, because thats not how I read it at all.  I read it as a player having 2 options

1) "I'm just going to do a standard thing" that will be difficulty X.  Oh look I rolled X+6, I can actually turn my standard thing into a special "Improvised" thing.

or

2) "I'm going to select a special Advantage move like "power strike" or "trip".  that will be difficulty X+3.  Oh look, I actually rolled X+9.  I can Improvise instead.

Definitely intrigues me as an option, I'm looking forward to seeing it fleshed out.

[Le Joueur]

Interesting question Fang, because thats not how I read it at all.  I read it as a player having 2 options[list=1][*]"I'm just going to do a standard thing" that will be difficulty X.  Oh look I rolled X+6, I can actually turn my standard thing into a special "Improvised" thing.
[*]"I'm going to select a special Advantage move like "power strike" or "trip".  that will be difficulty X+3.  Oh look, I actually rolled X+9.  I can Improvise instead.[/list:o]Definitely intrigues me as an option, I'm looking forward to seeing it fleshed out.

Me too.  The problem is both of your examples at FitM.  Changing what happens after the dice are rolled is what makes it FitM.

Pale Fire keeps stressing FatE and in order to do that you'd have to 'shoot for the stars' and let the dice sort it out (although even this might be FitM, that's what I was asking).  The big problem I see is that if any improvisation can take place, in FatE it has to be done before (what happens if you don't succeed completely?) and in FitM it can be done after (arguably a 'push' towards cinematic play).  But either way, it can't come from a list (or it invalidates the concept of 'improvise moves').

'Shoot for the stars' and let the dice figure it out could be difficult to implement.  Essentially you are asking the player to arrange a whole list of possible outcomes based on their Move and then the dice pick which gets done.  This can either be very time consuming (not a 'fast combat system') or very rigid (choose from a set of lists with no variation).  Honestly, the reason Scattershot became a FitM system is because I couldn't go this way and make it work.

Really we're dealing with two issues here.  First, will the Move be customizable after the dice hit the table (for example, a high roll turning it into an Improvised Move) and not be FatE (as I described above).  The Second is if it turns out to be FitM, will there also be the potential to specify the improvisation, before the dice are rolled as well as after.  I suggest yes to both (as is supposed to be evident in Scattershot).

I gratefully await the author's words.

Fang Langford

[Walt Freitag]

What I don't understand is how you can have an apparent list of Advantage moves... and yet you want to allow Improvised moves that, by definition, cannot come from a list.

I could, though, see having a finite list of advantage effects which could be any granularity from low (e.g. "impaired" = loses next attack) to high (e.g. "vision reduced," "partial leg entanglement", "drops weapon", etc.). An advantage move would be any improvised move that would result in one of the effects.

- Walt

[Christoffer Lernö]

Pale Fire keeps stressing FatE and in order to do that you'd have to 'shoot for the stars' and let the dice sort it out (although even this might be FitM, that's what I was asking).  The big problem I see is that if any improvisation can take place, in FatE it has to be done before (what happens if you don't succeed completely?) and in FitM it can be done after (arguably a 'push' towards cinematic play).

I was thinking like this:

Standard move: You roll, if you get high enough you get to improvise. (Roll 6 more than you need). This can be seen as the pure FitM mode.

Advantage move: Here you state an advantage. If you get +3 (or +6 depending on difficulty of the move), your advantage move is executed, nothing more, nothing less. If you get +9 (or +12) you can get to cancel that advantage move and do something else instead OR simply stick with the advantage move you choose.

If we remove the improvise move it looks like this:

Standard move: roll above x to succeed.

Advantage move: roll above x+3 to succeed.

Double Advantage move: roll above x+6 to succeed.

With the addition of the improvise it becomes something like:

Standard move: roll above x to succeed, above x+6 to get a chance to change your standard move into an advantage move for free.

Advantage move: roll above x+3 to succeed. roll above x+9 to get a chance to change your advantage move into A DIFFERENT advantage move for free.

Double Advantage move: roll above x+6 to succeed. (improvised move not possible here)

Optionally one might add concessions, in that case it could work like this:

Standard move: no concessions possible

Advantage move: if roll is above x but below x+3, you have the option to drop all advantages and turn it into a standard move instead (you wanted to hit him in the kidneys, but you fail the roll, so you just go for an unspecified hit instead)

Double advantage move: if roll is above x+3 (or x?) but below x+6, you have the option to drop ALL advantages and turn it into a standard move instead.

So, you don't shoot for the stars and then reduce it bit by bit. You could do it like that of course, but it seems a little too complicated. Advantages and disadvantages of the different moves would be as follows:

Standard move: Easy to get to improvise (only needs +6)

Advantage move: Will yield an advantage early (only needs +3), harder to get to improvise (needs +9)

Double advantage move: Yields greater advantages than an improvise or a normal advantage move would give. Impossible to get to improvise (+12 needed!). You can only default to a standard move if you at least roll x+3 (maybe).

So, without the improvise move this would be FitE. The improvise move makes it FitM.

(but right now maybe it happens to rarely? One could create more levels by introducing a +2 modifier instead of +3 (or even +1), but then you get a game where you sit and count how many advantages you have back and forth and I think that's distracting)

The laundry list approach is only for people without imagination or for a crpg.

You could have the following advantage moves for example:

* Aim for weak spot
* Trip
* Disarm

Now with the standard move, you don't say anything about what you do. With the advantage move you say: "I try to trip my opponent".

Then there's the roll and if it's a standard move which is high enough to be an improvise move, you get to choose one of the advantage moves (or, of course, come up with new ones), maybe you think disarming the opponent would be neat. You then declare that you're disarming the opponent with your attack and that's what happens.

Or if you tried that advantage move and you rolled x+3 or above you managed to trip your opponent. If you rolled x+9 or above you can even change that trip into a disarm or an "aim for a weak spot" as if you had been doing a standard move and rolled x+6.

Of course in actual rpg play, it shouldn't be this mechanical, but some groups might have initial difficulties taking full advantage of the stuff.

Like:

Player: "I'm throwing myself forward and try to cut his bloody head off!!!"

(Advantage move: "aim for the throat in a chopping motion" :) )

Roll x+3:
GM: "Yes you hit him in the throat, roll for damage (and you get a lot of bonus to the damage roll), if it's enough to kill you chopped his head square off"

Roll x+9:
GM: "You can do that or change your move"

Player: "Ok haha, I cut his sword away and send it flying, then kick him hard in the groin to have him beg for mercy"

GM: "As you kick him in the groin he crumbles to a heap in front of you"

Something like that. (The GM has to decide how much a player can do with an advantage move)

What do you think?

[Valamir]

I think if you keep a common currency to the game you've got the makings of a great combat system.

By common currency I mean construct the scales such that a +3 damage or a +3 to hit or a -3 to the opponents to hit or a -3 to the opponents damage or a -3 to the opponents "saving throw/attribute check" all equate to roughly the same degree of importance.  In other words so its not ALWAYS better to take the extra to-hit than the extra damage.

It obviously can't be (and doesn't need to be) perfectly balanced, but they should be in the same ball park as each other.

That way equating improvised moves to a certain game effect to a certain difficulty (does it need a +3 or a +6 or a +9) becomes a simple excersize that doesn't require tables or alot of math.

I'm really likeing the sounds of this.

[Le Joueur]

Yes, this sounds lke a very good start.

However, the crpg sounds like it'll be an incompatible comparison with the FitM rpg.  If that's okay then go for it, we're all watching.

Fang Langford

[Christoffer Lernö]

However, the crpg sounds like it'll be an incompatible comparison with the FitM rpg.  If that's okay then go for it, we're all watching.

Although I only mention a crpg because it represents a rigid, non-improvisable system and as such the opposite of free form play (which is something the game is supposed to be able to move into), I'm interested in knowing why you think they're incompatible.

Err, that didn't come out very clear, did it? Well just answer why you feel they are incompatible and forget my explanation :)

[Le Joueur]

However, the crpg sounds like it'll be an incompatible comparison with the FitM rpg.  If that's okay then go for it, we're all watching.

Why you feel they are incompatible?

Simple, the FitM system has improvisation doesn't it?  The only way I know to improvise in a computer game is to alter the programming.  In the more sophisticated graphic interfaces, that requires months of development.

To me choosing a maneuver from a list is not improvising, by definition.  Those options are always available so you'd always be picking the best ones.  Because of the closed choices this requires a 'grid' be created ahead of time.  Often two-dimensional (each side is the maneuver list of the combatant), if you add things like terrain effects or maneuver 'modifiers' you add whole dimensions, multiplying the combinations that have to addressed before the game is even complete.  (You can see this in the more strategy-based games when this is sacrificed to an 'each party takes their turns separately' like in the middle of the Final Fantasy series of games.)

Fang Langford