Is there such a things as "a new method for combat?"

[Hereward The Wake]

Based upon recent threads and my own musings on combat systems, is there such a thing as a new way of dealing with combat? I'm not so sure.
I know that many of the ideas i've seen are inversions of conventional methods and I know that the combat system should serve the dirve of the system it is part of, but what do people think? What would make an inovative approach to combat?

My take is that it has to do with what I call Timing, the who goes when aspect of the system , this is more that initiative in the conventional sense, as rather in real fighting its less about who starts first, but rather who can act when they want and also who gets to do more in the same amount of time. But this is my take.
What do others think is important?

Best
JW

[SpazMan]

Personally I think that emulating combat is a very hard task for role playing games.
On the one hand you a want of a balance issue, where you want things to be fair.
On the other hand you have the idea that a fight is never really fair "in real life".
I have not been in many scrapes to know how true this is; however this complaint "This isn't realistic" or "Real fights don't work like this." are things I hear every now and then from players who comment on whatever combat system were playing at the time. This is a complaint I have heard of all the systems I have played.

So I guess a "new method" of combat would be one that does not treat fighting as a fair even, but would be "gritty and real" if such a thing can be done by any form of system.

How you would get this effect baffles me, but I think that would probably be new.

[Ryutensai]

The main hitch to combat is that in real life, fighting is a rush. A single hit, and, potentially, you're out for good. If you're talking fantasy, one hit with a sword spells death. With shooters, you're a single hit, and you're dead, or at least not in a position to fight back.

But when playing games, you don't get that rush. So a combat that mimics this is very boring. In a fight, time almost slows. In RPG combat, time continues at full speed.

When you give damage, you're taking away the essence of combat. If you're leading others to fight, it's different, because, hey! If one guy gets hit, at least you've got others. But, generally, and at least when I think of RPGs, you're ONE PERSON, fighting ONE other PERSON (If you're fighting multiple people, it's only one person at a time). So, when we give damage to draw out combat, yeah, we're making it more fun, but you lose that authenticity.

I believe there are new combat styles to be discovered. One option is using real world physics, where if you get hit in the head, you're dead, but if you get hit in the arm, you might not be dead, but your performance is greatly diminished.

The point is, you have to get as close as you can to original fighting. Creepy shots, vision blocking blood and debris, and loud, suspenseful music will get the adrenaline pumping, and after that, it doesn't matter how authentic it is. No one will have time to analyze it, and those who DO, are completely missing the point of the RPG: Playing out your wildest dreams as though you were experiencing it first hand.

Hope that helps.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

My take is that it has to do with what I call Timing, the who goes when aspect of the system , this is more that initiative in the conventional sense, as rather in real fighting its less about who starts first, but rather who can act when they want and also who gets to do more in the same amount of time. But this is my take.

One problem is that, the moment you start worrying about the order people begin actions in, you get questions of how exact do you really have to be with a system.  In general, the more precision you introduce, the worse the system gets bogged down in the numbers.  And who is to say anything is balanced or precise enough to bother after a certain point?

Order of actions exists for one primary reason: because it's a game, and in most of these games, the players take turns.

This certainly isn't a necessary facet of a game, and certain games do just fine without it.  There is some realistic justification for doing away with it as well.  In real situations of competition, many actors are doing things at the same time.

-Jason T.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

This may belong in a new thread, but...

I did a quick search on the forums for this, didn't find anything.  Has anyone thought of perhaps programming a side-scroller fighting game (a la Street Fighter) as a combat resolution system?  Different sets of stats and stuff would remain relevant (if programmed in well), while adding in the factor of player skill with a controller?

Rather than just using a computer to generate random numbers, keep track of maps, and online game-by-post; and of course rather than going the whole way and creating an MMO, has anyone tried integrating combat with a computer in this manner?

Quick and exciting method of resolution.  With a good design idea, and a few weeks of coding in your free time (art optional; use stick figures!) you could replace those slow dice and human-based calculations.

-Jason T.

[Callan S.]

Instead of making more numbers and variables, one way is to simplify things is to ask what the combatants are fighting for. Once you know what their fighting for, you only work on a combat system that determines whether they get it.

On the other hand in another thread a poster just about scolded me for the idea, saying who cares why the fight started, we should just design to resolve the fight. But I think that will greatly detract for the roleplaying reasons for begining the fight, once play occurs.

[Sydney Freedberg]

I asked this same question in the first thread I started on the Forge -- http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=10977.0 -- which produced a LOT of interesting answers.

If you haven't already checked out Jake Norwood's The Riddle of Steel and Luke Crane's Burning Wheel, you definitely should. They're both complex choose-your-maneuver systems in which timing is critically important, but they handle these elements in very different ways.

[mothlos]

On the other hand in another thread a poster just about scolded me for the idea, saying who cares why the fight started, we should just design to resolve the fight. But I think that will greatly detract for the roleplaying reasons for begining the fight, once play occurs.

I agree with most of your premise. Combat at its core is a conflict of goals. The game provides for a system of resolving who has the ability to realize the goal.

I sort of agree with the person who scolded you, though I think that argument is flawed as well. The reason is that in conflicts, unintended consequences can occur and participants can change goals partway through the conflict.

The question is what role conflict plays in addressing the requirements of the game. Games with detailed conflict resolution systems with many variables to be weighed when resolving conflict tend to be more about conflict and its preperation. Treating different conflicts with different resolution mechanics can shape the feel of the game (think about the difference between D&D combat and social conflict resolution mechanics).

In one sense, the basics of conflict resolution are known and in that light, there probably won't be any new conflict resolution types. On the other hand, these fundamentals can be expressed in countless ways and innovation will continue for the forseeable future.

[Adam Dray]

There is a huge potential for new design innovation for role-playing combat. Absolutely.

Basically, you're asking if it's all been done before? Let's close up the Patent Office because everything's already been invented[1]!

Here's a new method for resolving combat. It's not very good:

1. Roll 7d10. Arrange the digits any way you want.
2. Dial those digits into your phone, including the long distance prefix, just in case.
3. If someone answers, tell them what you're doing, and ask them how well you hit your opponent.
4. If they answer in a way that makes sense, accept it. Share the answer with the other players. Embellish.
5. If they don't, you hit in a minor way. Describe it.
6. If no one answers or if the number is unreachable. You missed.

My point is that, with just a few seconds of thought, I was able to come up with a combat system that I'm pretty sure no one has ever conceived before. Game design is the process of taking crazy ideas and making them playable. Making phone-combat playable is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Ryutensai]

...I like that.

What medium are we talking here? Is this on the computer, or something else?

[Zeigfreid]

Hi

Adam Dray: you are officially so cool.

I would like to hear Hereward The Wake give a list of existing "combat systems," and maybe a better definition of the term. My list would include:

 - Dice (or other arbitrary things taken from reality, such as phone numbers, the shapes of clouds, tarot cards given #values &c...)
 - Dice & Minis (as above, but with more of a phocus on tactical movement across a board of some sort)
 - Bidding (of points, or whatever)
 - Pure description (or description of things taken from reality, such as the shapes of clouds, or tarrot cards without values)
 - Boffering (using real life combat skills and softer than real weapons)
 - Other games (like playing a game of igo, or street fighter, or a poker hand, and extracting success)

What am I missing?

If the question is "is there a fundamentally new method for resolving combat in an RPG?", then that is a very interesting question. If you are just asking for a new way to use an existing method (such as generating random phone numbers, or random quotes from confuscius, or consulting the bible), then the answer is a resounding and indisputable "yes," as there are tens of millions of different things in the world that could be counted in billions of different ways in order to arbitrarily judge the success of events in RPG combats.

My suggestion (difficult to execute) is: RPCCG

z.

[Nev the Deranged]

"My suggestion (difficult to execute) is: RPCCG"

Atomoton came pretty close to nailing that a few years ago with the excellent Zero*Gravity, a combination RPG/TCG with poseable action figures and interchangeable gear. In advanced play, you have a deck for your gear, and a deck for your character, which included things like special maneuvers, personality quirks and flaws, skill sets, character archetypes, and states of mind. The game has been out of print for some time now, but the fan community is still going strong, and it's not difficult to get ahold of as long as you're willing to do a little searching.

[Matt Smith]

Here's another, for the sake of off-the-dome-ness:

Deal out two cards to each participant.  Put three face up in the middle of the table.  Each participant antes a result - "i raise a blow to the head", or "i see your blow to the head and raise a fistful of torn hair."  Once nobody wants to raise again, flip another card face-up on the table.  Bet again.  Flip the last card, and another round of betting.

Whoever wins the texas hold-em hand gets to be on TV with annoying lizard-eye hologram glasses, I mean, inflicts the currently anted stakes on his opponent(s).

[Hereward The Wake]

Its good to see that the subject has gotten going!
To clear up some points here, of course there are plenty of new/different was to resolve combat in games, we seen a few here. What I was rfeferring to here was that there have been a number of discussions of ideas lately and really they have basically inversions of existing ideas or amalgamations of ideas form different systems, I include my own in this.

Systems that have something going for them, as far I am concerned, thats not to knock others only that this have aspects that fit in with my experience of combat, in no particular order, Riddle of Steel, Burning wheel, Swashbuckler, Contender, Feng Shui. All these have elements that capture parts of the flavour of combat

I also remember that there was a game described here dealing with combat from Homeric poetry that was quite interesting.

Obviously the role that combat plays in a system and the form that combat takes will be dependent on where the designers/players interest lies. The level of realism or abstarction will also follow that criteria,  Which all means that I really have answered my own question, or new it before I asked.
Though really my main interest was to spark some discussion on peoples view points.

Best
JW

[Brannos]