Flawless victory! (new RPG: Final Stand)

[Kenway]

[multiple post]

[Bailywolf]

What about if PC's- through dramatic teamwork and coreographed cooperative fighting- can recombine their Forms and Styles to allow them new and unexpected attacks?  Attacks which might exploit a Boss's weaknesses....

Say a odd-couple pair of jokers Mr Fong (a Dancing Cobra M. Stranger) and Number Three Lion (A Stone Lion Enormous Ox) are partners... they fight their way into Dr. Jade's Secret Lair... but find that Dr. Jade's awesome Kung Fu is flawless when confronted with their individual styles...

But Mr. Fong and #3Lion combine their styles- Lion throws Fong, who makes a powerful Flying Stone Cobra Strike.  Dr. Jade retaliates, but the partners spin off in oposite directions, using a Dancing Lion evasive manuever... etc.

Or perhaps instead of just mixing and matching, a team of PC's can focus all their skills through one member of the group- #3Lion could throw Mr. Fong who uses a Dancing Stone Cobra strike...

[Kenway]

Playtest with a friend:

   We picked secretly:  Stone Dragon (11,9) vs. Storm Dragon (9,12).  Both our characters ended up with more punches than other moves because these moves looked to be the most effective for the cost.
   Since we were just trying the system out, we didn't try the Inner Peace uses and just concentrated on the fighting.
   Descriptions of the fights:
   1.  I started with cheap punches and they were so effective I kept using the cheapest moves.  My friend had really bad luck and failed every single defensive roll.  When his dice were all gone, I finished him with the big moves (unblockable by now).
   2.  We fought again and my friend, the attacker, gleefully tried to "cheap" me back.  In a cool sequence, we punch-blocked a couple times, each spending 2 punch dice at at time and getting perfect successes...
   But then we suddenly realized that if the defender didn't block any of the attacks, the cheap attacker would run out of dice before victory (I had 4P,1K,1T dice which would be 4+2+1=7 dmg)!  Oops.  Up until this point, we overdid the defensive stuff.  Things got more interesting.
   The first couple fights were over in a single round.

   Notes:  Overall, we still focused on using cheaper attacks.  We never really explored the possibilities of throws.
   Our narrations were very very brief as things were tense enough without having to visualize everything.  Sorry!

[edit:  continued in Actual Play]

[Tim Denee]

I have some questions about "Major Fights."
Should the first PC have a reasonable chance at winning? Or should a GM plan for the last PC being able to win? How should the Boss stats be determined?

Ideally, no-one should be knocked out (either PC or opponent) in the first lot of rounds (the new name for bouts).
If you go first, you risk softening up the opponent only to have someone else knock him out and gain the standing. However, if you go too late, you risk the opponent getting knocked out before he gets to you a second time (or even a first time). It should be a balancing act (so the major opponent should have a good chance of surviving at least one lot of rounds).

[Tim Denee]

We picked secretly: Stone Dragon (11,9) vs. Storm Dragon (9,12).

Thanks for play-testing! (perhaps this should be put in the actual play forum?)

Did you find that either energy or action was much more useful to have than the other? (i.e. did one of the characters have an obvious advantage?)

You made some comments about the way the fight went. Were any of these things really bad or good? What did you like? What wasn't so good?

Did you find the short length of the fights annoying? Do you think characters should have a higher average energy? On the other hand, ultra-quick fights allow for lots of 'em in a session (and quick sessions to boot, which I'm a fan of).

The fact that your tactics changed and developed in response to one another is awesome. Just what I was going for.

Both our characters ended up with more punches than other moves because these moves looked to be the most effective for the cost.

Did you allow action-allotment changes in between fights? If you know your opponent is going to go almost entirely with punches, you can put everything in to kicks. You probably won't get the 'initiative' (since punch actions are more likely to succeed), but once you dodge even one attack, you can just completely lay into him; remember that only dodges (which your opponent won't be able to use if they only have punch moves) can be used to defend against a kick technique.

Our narrations were very very brief as things were tense enough without having to visualize everything. Sorry!

Don't apologize! I think it's a great sign that the fights are still still fun/tense even without narration (something a game like, say, Feng Shui is somewhat lacking).

Hoping to play myself in the weekend, once I finish this cursed essay on the socialization of Hutterite children...

Tim

[Bailywolf]

I just came up with a quick idea for FS... let me throw it out here.


Combo Moves

A staple of action videogames and kung fu movies- hammer your oponent with the right series of lesser moves to set him up for... Seven Dragon Strike!

They way I see it, certain especialy devistating moves can be made more so by adding in Foundation moves- say to land that Seven Dragon Strike you must have already landed 3 successful strikes- 2 punches and a kick- in a row.  It can add another layer of strategy to a fight if you are laying down the smack in such a pattern as to open your oponent up to a your signature attack move.

Perhaps that is what is needed... each character needs a Signature Move or two... perhaps a Signature Defense, a Signature Attack, and a Finisher...

They would be combo moves- each requiring a certain number of successful moves bofore they can be used- and would be much more potent than normal attacks or defenses, but could only be used once per fight.

A Finisher is more a stylistic thing... describing your prefered method of dispatching a defeated foe... anything from stabing a vital nerve point to render him unconscious... or ripping out his spine.











<<side note>>

I've also been thinking about some of the other ways to use this system... what about a WoD-on-its-ear BLADE-style Monster Mash fighting game?  Remember NIGHTLIFE?  Wouldn't Flawless Victory be about a million times better than that system?  And how easy, eh?  Pick your race (vampire, ghost, werewolf, boogie man etc), pick your Style, pick your form, pick your stereotype... A Half-Vampire Flashing Blade Slayer...

anyhow... when will the next revision be available?

[ThreeGee]

Another MA game to play. I can't believe I've never seen it before now, considering the dates on this thread. Would it be okay to link to the rules?

Glancing over the rules, it looks like fights are supposed to always be one-on-one. If so, I am curious why, as the mechanics seem to support multiple characters fighting at once. I think the skill system (if you can call it that) is great. Less talk, more fighting.

Getting away from rules, a character sheet at the back of the document would be greatly appreciated. A good character sheet is worth a thousand words (or more). Also, the layout is really clean, except the paragraphs run together. Typical wisdom says to indent the second and subsequent paragraphs in a section, for readability's sake.

Overall, this looks like a riot. I will definitely be scrounging up some poor souls to inflict it upon.

[Tim Denee]

A hoy hoy,

Would it be okay to link to the rules?

I don't see why not...

Glancing over the rules, it looks like fights are supposed to always be one-on-one. If so, I am curious why, as the mechanics seem to support multiple characters fighting at once.

Originally it was going to be more "universal", but I realized there's just no reason to go into that level of complexity:
- I think it's perfectly valid to want to have hordes of mooks attack the characters. That's what the gang rules are for.
- I think it's perfectly valid to want to have a team of martial artists fight one-on-one with the characters. That's what the normal fight rules are for.
- I think it's perfectly valid to want to have all the characters lay the smack down on one big bad. That's why the major fight rules are for.
- What I don't see as perfectly valid is having convoluted fights with 3 on one side, 2 on the other, with 1 person fighting 2 people, and another person picking and choosing, and all sorts of other chaos. It's not something I've seen in the source material (video games, anime, action movies, and what not), and it would add all sorts of complications to the rules (my head started hurting when I was just trying to theorize a way to make free-for-all fights work)

Getting away from rules, a character sheet at the back of the document would be greatly appreciated.

That's in the works. Hey, I'm not superman.

Thanks for the comments. Please post in actual play if you do actually play it.

[ThreeGee]

I was hoping to put in a session today, but that did not happen, so here I am applying 'pure thought' to the matter at hand. In other words, take my comments with a grain of salt.

The first thing that jumped out at my devious mind is that some Ways get more points than others.

Next, knowing there is already a possible exploit, I need to know where to put those extra points. Looking over the defenses, I quickly see that there is one 5+ option for stopping a kick, an additional 5+ option for stopping a throw, and a 4+ option for stopping a punch, in addition to the other two. Kicks and throws both seem more effective than punches in terms of energy/move damage, so this would be the way to go. Also, Monkey Roll and Recoiling Serpent look handy.

However, looking through the moves, none of the really good specials are in styles that fit the sort of horribly broken character I am going for. Mantis offers Crushing Grasp, but offers poor stats. Panda offers Bear Hug, but is very Energy heavy.

Overall, I would have to pick Storm Leopard. 9/13 looks promising, plus a couple powerful mid-level moves and a strong finisher. I would combine this Way with either Quiet Mystic or Mysterious Stranger for maximum skill use. That this is the sort of character I usually play makes it even better. I can kick ass with style.

It does not look like I can break this system the way I did Streetfighter, but I would suggest a more obvious balance between the Styles and Forms. The premise of the game is very gamist, so expect people to be this cheesy in how they make characters. No one plays a video game to lose.

On a different note, not only a character sheet, but a cheat sheet, too. Very handy. I can give everyone two sheets of paper, instead of an entire rulebook.

Concerning multiple attackers, I still do not see why you think it is complicated. Clearly I am missing something, since I do not see any reason whatsoever why the rules as written cannot support this idea. The mook rules are great, but what about when our favorite protagonist faces two named opponents? Or, more likely, how about when a player finishes off his man and decides to tag in and help his buddy? I feel that you are limiting the game needlessly when you force it into a video game mode. Films certainly do not have any such limitations.

You have been very responsive to everyone, so I imagine you will continue working on an already fun game to make it even better.

[Tim Denee]

Hey man,

Thanks for giving it a read. Make sure you post in Actual Play if you do play it (or just send me an e-mail).

Hopefully the Styles and Forms are balanced, but there's obviously going to be some problems at this stage (minimal playtesting so far). I tried to make sure that the styles/forms with more energy and action got weaker moves. Stereotypes shouldn't be a problem; some may have more powerful abilities, but all the abilities are pretty minor.

While we're talking about styles/forms, I ran into a problem last night whilst testing the character generation. If you take certain Ways, you get redundant moves. F'rinstance, take Iron Eagle; the Eagle has Raking Talon (2 kick moves, 6 damage, -1 move), and Iron has Cold Foot (2 kick moves, 6 damage). This is because Iron has 1 more action than eagle (so eagle has better techniques to compensate).

Possible solutions:

Combos: at character generation you can remove ONE technique, and combine it with another of your techniques. The technique you combine it with must not be a basic technique, and must have a move cost of more than one. The new technique, named by you, has the combined damage/effects of the two base techniques, and costs the combined move cost minus one.

Example: I take Iron Eagle. Because Cold Foot is redundant, I remove it and make it into a new technique; Icy Talon. I add Raking Talon to Cold Foot. Icy Talon will cost 3 kick moves (2+2-1 = 3), does 12 damage, and deducts one move from the opponent. My character no longer has Cold Foot as a technique, but does have Icy Talon and Raking Talon.

Problems with this solution: it only makes new problems; in the example above, Icy Talon has made Flying Kick (3 kick moves, 9 damage) redundant for the Iron Eagle character. Maybe the new techniques should have prerequisite moves, like Ben's idea above?

Another possible solution: you can cash in one technique for extra energy/action?

And another: each advanced technique can only be performed once per round (or fight, even); so having a back-up technique is quite handy, even if it is a bit weaker.

Ideas?

When I implement the double-energy change, it'll make Gangs a little harder to keep track of. With that in mind, I'm going to make gang mini-sheets, with energy trackers on them that also show when the gang loses an action (and thus what their total action is currently). Considering how fast combat runs, I think I can safely slow down gangs with making combat go at a crawl.

And finally, here are the gun rules I posted on RPGnet:

- Inside a martial-artsy fight, they work through the 'improvise' rule.
- If it's outside a fight (like shooting a sentry or something), they work in relation to the context:
If you were sneaking into a military installation and wanted to take out a guard with your silenced pistol, it'd be covered by the 'intrusion' skill. If, later on, you were in a pitch black room and wanted to shoot the lock off the door, it'd be 'perception'. If you were standing out in the open operating a heavy machine gun, it'd be 'independence'. And so on.

Thoughts on the problems above would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers,

Tim

[Bailywolf]

Nifty cool solution to the gun issue... nicely delt with.

I think the once-per-fight rule is a good one for special techniques.  When I think of...say... Iron Monkey, Wong Kei-ying only whiped out his Shadow Kick at just the right moment... it might make sense to a gamer to tap that extra groovy attack as often and furiously as possible, but from a dramatic standpoint limiting its use makes good sense.

It prevents technique redundancy, will help extend fights, and keeps special tecnhiques SPECIAL.

I can also see a new use for CHI.  

Recharge Technique- spend 2 Chi to reuse one of your special techniques during the current fight.  To use the same technique a third time will cost 3 points.  A fourth time, 4 points, and so on.

[ThreeGee]

Making the special moves once only sounds like a good idea. However, some of the existing specials seem more basic than others. Maybe an overhaul would be in order? I could see Bear Hug being used a few times in a row and described as a continuous attack, but Screeching Uppercut brings painful memories of being on the wrong end of Ryu/Ken. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks like fights only last a round or two, so any given special should not reasonably be used more than once a fight, anyway. Changing the rules would just make it explicit.

Also, it should go without saying, but a line explicitly stating moves should be improvised would be a good idea. You have chosen not to actually describe any of the moves, which i applaud. I do not punch someone, I jab them, or chop their shoulder, or something. throws are not just standard judo hip tosses, but wristlocks, sweeps, chokeholds, etc. Too many people typify the 'I cast magic missle' gamer.

Finishers were mentioned earlier in the thread, so here is my take on the matter: some of the specials are rather risky propositions anyway, so you could make a rule saying they may only be used on defenders who have left themselves open (ie, are out of moves and cannot defend). Thus, every character suddenly has a signature move. You could even add a section to the standing rules giving points for finishing someone with the sig move and taking away points for attempting the finisher and failing to KO.

Guns are a real pain in MA games. Weapons of any sort in martial arts flicks are just props and are never used as actual weapons, but guns have no style. The characters can have style, but the guns never do. Certainly not like a long bamboo pole in the hands of a good actor/martial artist. Using all the existing stuff and just saying it is actually a gun sounds like a good plan. 'The five tongs pull their guns and start shooting, but you nimbly flip over their heads and disarm them' sounds a lot more exciting than 'the mook horde kicks you, you dodge'. Shooting the lock out certainly sounds like an apt description of how the grizzled soldier breaks into places.

I like the idea of combos, but I am a little sceptical that making super moves is the way to go. I would play around with the idea that certain moves make harder moves easier by reducing their move cost. Maybe the characters can start with something simple, like choosing a basic move that leads to a special, or something.

[Tim Denee]

OK, I'll go with the one-special-technique per fight rule, and also add in that chi use. Thanks fellas.

Grant,

The reason some moves are more basic than others is because the style/form they come from has more energy and/or action, and so their techniques are more basic to balance it out.

Also, thanks for pointing out the improvisation thing. I over-looked mentioning that side of things.

some of the specials are rather risky propositions anyway, so you could make a rule saying they may only be used on defenders who have left themselves open (ie, are out of moves and cannot defend).

Basically, this happens anyway, so I don't think I need a seperate rule for it. Take the Eagle technique Flying Kick (3 kick moves, 9 damage). The chances of you having much more than 3 kick moves at the beginning of a round are pretty slim, so you probably won't risk them all at once (since dodging a 3-kick move is just as easy as dodging a 1-kick move) until you know your opponent can't defend.

It's interesting that you think kicks and throws are more effective than punches; Kenway and the person he playtested with both thought the opposite. Cool. The system has depth. Hah.

Tim

[ThreeGee]

I understand it is a balance thing. I just meant it seems weird that you can only use one-move techniques once per fight. Some of them are things any fighter could do. Maybe Bear Hug should be Panda Crush or something to differentiate it from Throw (Bear Hug), which anyone can do over and over. I know this is minor, but it jumps out as a way the characters are being railroaded. Not everyone is going to know Crashing Waterfall (for instance), but common wrestling techniques would be easy to pick up.

The high-cost techniques are used at the end of the round, but it would add an additional element of strategy if you only pull them out of the trick book when you are sure they will work. On the other hand, less rules is probably better.

My analysis of effectiveness is based purely on math (yes, I said the evil word). Assume a character has 18 Action for simplicity, and these moves are split evenly into 6 punch, 6 kick, and 6 throw. On average, that means the available moves each round will be: 5 punch, 4 kick, and 4 throw. Already we see that punch gets more moves right off the bat, so more points may as well be allocated elsewhere, if desired. But getting to defence, on average it takes two moves to defend against a kick or a throw when it takes only one to defend against a punch. 1 Block has a 50% of success. 2 Blocks have 75%. 1 Jab or Dodge has 33%, 2 have 55%, 3 have 70%. Thus, for pure cheesiness, it makes sense to have a minimum of throw moves and to stock up on kicks for attacks and defense against kicks and to have some punch for defense against punches and throws. That kicks already do more damage on the whole just makes it even better. The advantage to lots of Punches is the possibility of a better move total at the beginning of a fight.

However, it is somewhat of a relief that the playtesters find the opposite to be true. I still remember the nightmare that Streetfighter: the Storytelling Game could be. Throws were easily the most dominating thing in the game. Throw - Beat, rinse and repeat.

You have not mentioned why you think multiple combatants is complicated, so I am going to take a guess and say that initiative presumes only two people. However, it seems simple enough to just use 'tags'. By that I mean that when more than one person is beating up on someone, one person goes as usual, but as long as he retains the initiative, he can tag the other person, who then gets initiative. If, for some reason, both sides have multiple attackers, people standing around can attack someone on the other side who is likewise doing nothing. If one person has the initiative on two or more defenders, he can pick and choose which he is attacking. Maybe if one defender is taking all the punishment, he can tag his partner to bow out; then initiative is determined by total moves remaining.

Something new to think about: I was reading through the old posts and noticed comments about Power Up. Power Up trades one Energy for two Action, but one round only. The current trade-off is two Energy to one Action (in character creation). With the doubled energy, fights might last longer than one round, but it still seems like a must-do option, especially for the Ways that are already Energy-heavy.

[Tim Denee]

Grant,

Bear Hug should be changed simply because Pandas aren't even bears... (right?)

As to multiple combatants... I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep it the way it is, unless play-testing proves otherwise is better. It's not that multiple-combatants is impossible, it's that the amount of fun added to the system by multiple combatants isn't suitably high compared to the amount of complexity added.

When the double-energy rule is made, I'll it to one energy burnt = 1 extra action, (max 2 energy can be spent).

Tim