Combat Examples of an Engine without Hit Points

[Ar Kayon]

King Arthur and Lancelot circle each other, preparing to duel. They are both wearing armour and fighting with sword and shield. After his knights were soundly beaten by the graceful warrior, Arthur knew Lancelot would be more than a challenge for him (composure checked: passed).

Round 1


Arthur's turn: Arthur moves into range to attack, and strikes at Lancelot's shield repeatedly.

Lancelet's response: Lancelot chooses a safe maneuver and blocks with his shield to prevent the blows from knocking him off balance (reflex, bonus from shield: pass for each blow). 

Arthur : ends turn *

Lancelot's turn: Lancelot  uses his shield to shove Arthur (special technique allows dexterity instead of strength to be used).

Arthur's Response: Arthur resists the push (strength + shield bonus = pass).

Follow-up: Lancelot tries again, but uses his Concentration effort pool to improve the attack

Arthur's Response: Arthur resists and uses his last combat action to improve his score (Arthur rolls 2-1=1, Lancelot rolls 4-1=3, which allows him to roll again and gets 3-1=2, so 3+2 = success).  Effect: Lancelot pushes Arthur off balance

Follow-up: Lancelot uses his last attack to strike Arthur in the head. The attack is successful (+4 gradient of success), but because of Arthur's helmet (-3 effect against bladed weapons), the blow only stuns him.  Lancelot is out of actions, so he cannot take advantage of it.


Round 2


Arthur's turn: Arthur uses an action to recover, but in his anger from being struck, he makes a poor decision and takes a huge cutting blow at Lancelot (power strike; combat action added to improve attack = roll of 3 - power strike penalty of 2 = speed+1).
Lancelot's response: Lancelot, having excellent dexterity, moves his shield in an arc to parry the blow instead of blocking, which knocks Arthur off balance, and then with the momentum, Lancelot uses the complex maneuver Reverse Parry to immediately follow up with a sweeping blow behind Arthur's knees, which trips him (knockdown effect).

Lancelot could use his last attack to kill Arthur (floored opponent bonus negates 2 effect reduction of armor, not to mention an attack bonus, and since Arthur has no actions left, he's pretty much helpless as his Passive Defense score** is terrible in his position), but merely holds his sword under Arthur's chin as Arthur huffs, "Yield! I yield!"


Notes

This example demonstrates combat resolution without the use of hit points. This method, combined with the techniques-based actions, also results in an interesting meta-game effect. In other systems, it's common to see the exchange, "You hit for x damage/ You miss", representing what happens in combat. In the example above, combat is depicted in a very concrete, vivid manner in which the aforementioned descriptions can never happen, even with a less verbose GM. Damage and hit points are abstracts, but effects are not.  Also, notice how combat was resolved without any of the combatants getting hurt.

*Using all of your actions at once represents an overzealous attack.  Since several defenses, such as blocking, do not cost actions, you will be at a disadvantage when your opponent counters with his remaining actions because you will not be able to use an active defense; your Passive Defense score is used instead.  Arthur ending his turn in this case represents him preparing for Lancelot's counter-assault

**Your Passive Defense score represents how well positioned you are at any given moment. In melee combat terms, this number represents the integrity of your stance. To make an example, if a boxer has a high passive defense score, he probably keeps his hands up at all times so that if he can't tell a blow is coming, there's a chance it may be blocked anyway. When he throws a cross, he may be in the habit of leaning his body sideways so that an attack from his opponent thrown at the same time misses.

[Ar Kayon]

Question 1
Do you find the combat engine to be engaging?

Question 2
Does the example make sense to you at first glance?

Question 3
Are there any flaws you can point out that need to be addressed?

Question 4
Would you enjoy outwitting the GM with such a system?

[whoknowswhynot]

Question 1
Do you find the combat engine to be engaging?

This system requires more of the player than just rolling the dice and has a very good feel to it.  It encourages you to make decisions and actually role play a combat scenario instead of just saying "I'm attacking [so-and-so]" and rolling dice.


Yes.  Good enough example.

Question 3
Are there any flaws you can point out that need to be addressed?

I would only be afraid of the skills list being big, but I have always been afraid of long skill lists.  This is not really a flaw, though.

Question 4
Would you enjoy outwitting the GM with such a system?

Absorutely!

[Ar Kayon]

I personally like the idea of the GM and the players having a battle of wits.  The tightly-machined rules design offers a balance of interactivity between the two entities so that:

1. The GM is discouraged from being cheap, coercive, or otherwise dispelling the suspension of disbelief: an extremely important element in simulationist design.  Because the fortune element is so small and controlled in the semi-diceless system, the GM has few opportunities to arbitrarily fudge events; if he wants to tone down the difficulty, the GM may make a feasible strategic error, and if he wants to pump it up, there will be useful pre-made strategies within NPC descriptions.
2. It's highly improbable, if not impossible, for the player to break the system.  Strategies are transient, therefore you cannot have a single-best strategy to be used repeatedly.

This is why I say the system is intellectually rewarding - because you typically win or lose contests on planning and execution rather than luck or juiced-up player levels.

On another note, I understand your concern for the large skill lists.  I have two methods of approaching this:
1. Technique development takes time.  You pick what you want to learn beforehand and gradually allocate experience hours to that technique until you learn it; you don't just level up and pick it up right then and there.  So, there will probably be some role-playing involved during the training period where you learn how to apply what you are learning in a controlled setting, like sparring, drills, or maybe a mock firefight with paint rounds.
2. The player's manual will provide sound tactical guidelines so you understand how to utilize your techniques in meaningful ways.  It may go something like "It is typically not a wise idea to begin an assault with the Power Strike unless you are confident that your opponent won't strike you first or that your opponent's strike will be ineffective."

[Callan S.]

Just seems like having actions instead of hitpoints.

The real change I'd say is that you seem to have a 'one must pass' system, unlike in traditional games where both guys can swing and miss and...nothing happens. Here you set it that even if one guy rolls a 2, if the other guy rolls a 1, one of them connects and hits and something actually happens. I'd say that's the strength of your idea here - not the hitpoints thing.

[Ar Kayon]

I feel I need to clarify actions and how they are represented in the combat sequence.  That is part 1 of my response.

Each combatant always receives 3 actions per round.  As opposed to hit points, this number never internally changes. 

"What about speed?"
Speed does not affect how many actions you receive in a round.  It does, however, affect the density of an action: how far you can move in a single action, or if you're skilled, for example, how many blows you can throw in a combination.  So, there is a wide range of how many potential actions you may use in a single round.  If your character was, say, Muhammad Ali, you'd be able to throw your 7-punch combinations without the system arbitrarily interfering.

"So what do combat actions represent?"
Combat actions represent your ability to time your actions.  When you get distracted, stunned, use an action, or focus on an action, you progressively lose your ability to time your actions because your attention becomes overwhelmed.  If you run out of actions, your Passive Defense score takes the place of your ability to take defensive actions; you won't automatically lose the fight when you run out! 

"What's the rationale behind combat actions?"
I would like to first point out that every mechanic in Nevercast is designed to model occurrences within the game-world as realistically as possible.  If an element does not exist, like say hit-points, then it is because said element does not suit the goals of Nevercast's mechanics.

That said, actions were designed in a manner to balance out combat time and to accurately model real-time combat.  This is why players will be able to utilize strategies that work in real-life.  Without the 3 action point concept, the action/reaction system FALLS APART.

"Why?"
Because with 2 actions, you're likely to only either act or react.  However, the action/reaction concept STILL falls apart without 1 more element.  Without this element, the system will favor whoever attacks first and completely unbalance combat.

"What's that?"
The 0-action element.  Some actions are so easy to perform that they do not negatively affect your timing.  Parrying, slipping (not dodging),  blocking, and many follow-up actions cost 0 actions, unless if you have already run out of actions.  This element also models multiple-opponent mechanics gracefully.  Furthermore, it allows the action/reaction system to work against opponents of greater speed, because without it, their high volume of attacks will eat up your actions too fast and disallow you from taking counter-measures.

[Ar Kayon]

Response Part 2

"Why are there no hit points in Nevercast?"

Hit points are problematic for my system for several reasons:

1. They're abstract.  If I hit you for x amount of damage, it doesn't really represent anything happening.  Therefore, in order to suit Nevercast's goals for realistic integrity, I would have to add effects tables on top of hit points, based upon how much damage you do in relation to your opponent's total hit points.  This is a mechanical nightmare. 
Furthermore, I would have to assign hit-point values to each body area if I wanted a realistic targeting system.   With an effects system, I don't.  No matter if you get cut on your arm, leg, or body, if you suffer the "profuse bleeding" effect, it automatically takes your entire condition into account.  I don't have to figure out how losing 20 hit points to my arm affects my total hit points.

2.  They are numerous.  I hate crunching numbers.  Nevercast assumes the GM also hates crunching numbers.  It's time consuming and makes combat boring.  Keeping track of the hit point values and adding/subtracting from them for 6 combatants is annoying.

In conclusion, the effects system does realism better, concretely, more descriptively, affects combat directly, and does it with less calculations.  I love qualifiers, and I hate quantifiers.  If I can represent a mechanic with a name instead of a whole bunch of numbers and tables to translate those numbers, you know exactly what I'm talking about and you can memorize its mechanics with greater ease. 

Let's compare:
The opponent cuts your abdomen deeply with his sword (he passed his attack by 3), and you start bleeding out (suffer the "profuse bleeding" effect).

VS

The opponent hits you for (rolls dice, and adds modifiers) x amount of damage.  Hold on a second, I need to look up the effects for that.

[contracycle]

Hit point based and wound based systems are definitely very different in feel.  In a ahit point system, even when hit points are in a small range, the expectation is that you will be hit and wittled down.  That informs the way you play.  Wound effect systems do not have this assumption, and everyone tries to avoid being hit at all.  Things do play out quite differently as a result.

[dindenver]

Ar,
 The mechanics are a bit obscured by the narrative, so I just want to ask some questions:

Round 1
Arthur's turn: Arthur moves into range to attack, and strikes at Lancelot's shield repeatedly.

Why is he attacking the enemy's shield? Is there some mechanical incentive to do this?

Lancelet's response: Lancelot chooses a safe maneuver and blocks with his shield to prevent the blows from knocking him off balance (reflex, bonus from shield: pass for each blow).

If the shield is the target of the blow, how can using your shield provide you a bonus? Was that Arthur's intent all along, knocking down Lancelot?

Arthur : ends turn *

Lancelot's turn: Lancelot  uses his shield to shove Arthur (special technique allows dexterity instead of strength to be used).

Arthur's Response: Arthur resists the push (strength + shield bonus = pass).

Follow-up: Lancelot tries again, but uses his Concentration effort pool to improve the attack

Why does Lancelot get a follow-up? Shouldn't it be Arthur's Turn?

Arthur's Response: Arthur resists and uses his last combat action to improve his score (Arthur rolls 2-1=1, Lancelot rolls 4-1=3, which allows him to roll again and gets 3-1=2, so 3+2 = success).  Effect: Lancelot pushes Arthur off balance

Follow-up: Lancelot uses his last attack to strike Arthur in the head. The attack is successful (+4 gradient of success), but because of Arthur's helmet (-3 effect against bladed weapons), the blow only stuns him.  Lancelot is out of actions, so he cannot take advantage of it.

Is one damage always a stun? Even if you are already damaged?

Round 2


Arthur's turn: Arthur uses an action to recover, but in his anger from being struck, he makes a poor decision and takes a huge cutting blow at Lancelot (power strike; combat action added to improve attack = roll of 3 - power strike penalty of 2 = speed+1).
Lancelot's response: Lancelot, having excellent dexterity, moves his shield in an arc to parry the blow instead of blocking, which knocks Arthur off balance, and then with the momentum, Lancelot uses the complex maneuver Reverse Parry to immediately follow up with a sweeping blow behind Arthur's knees, which trips him (knockdown effect).

OK, why would Arthur do this attack (and why is it in the system) if it is such a bone-headed maneuver and so easy to counter attack? Does that Reverse Parry use one of Lancelot's attacks? How many successes did Lancelot need to buy this knockdown affect?

Lancelot could use his last attack to kill Arthur (floored opponent bonus negates 2 effect reduction of armor, not to mention an attack bonus, and since Arthur has no actions left, he's pretty much helpless as his Passive Defense score** is terrible in his position), but merely holds his sword under Arthur's chin as Arthur huffs, "Yield! I yield!"

How else could Lancelot have won? Is the only victory possible if the enemy is knocked down and out of actions? Could he whittle him down using 1 damage Stun attacks or?

[Ar Kayon]

"Why is he attacking the enemy's shield? Is there some mechanical incentive to do this?"
Yes.  Against a heavily armored opponent, attacking the shield can be a good opening maneuver because you may be able to knock your opponent off-balance.  If you're particularly strong or effective, you can destroy a weak shield. 


"If the shield is the target of the blow, how can using your shield provide you a bonus? Was that Arthur's intent all along, knocking down Lancelot?"
A shield provides a reflex bonus for blocking, because it's a fairly simple and straightforward maneuver.  However, because of its surface area, Arthur gets a bonus to hit for an effect overall.  And yes, as stated above, Arthur's intent was to knock Lancelot off balance.


"Why does Lancelot get a follow-up? Shouldn't it be Arthur's Turn?"
Lancelot gets a follow-up because 1) he has actions left and 2) he did not end his turn.  As long as you have actions left, you can keep using your remaining actions for the round.  However, your opponent may also use his actions to attack at the same time as you.  Take note that Nevercast uses an action/reaction system.


"Is one damage always a stun? Even if you are already damaged?"
Several effects in the system have a degrading potential.  Stun is not one of them, however, as it is always a superficial hit; a smack in the face could result in a stun.  Stun does not damage you, but it does affect your timing in the chaos of combat, so you lose an action.


"OK, why would Arthur do this attack (and why is it in the system) if it is such a bone-headed maneuver and so easy to counter attack? Does that Reverse Parry use one of Lancelot's attacks? How many successes did Lancelot need to buy this knockdown affect?"
Circumstances dictate when it is or isn't wise to use the Power Strike.  To make an example, in boxing, it is typically unwise to lead with a cross because it's telegraphic and you're almost guaranteeing that your opponent will punch you first.  But a boxer knows the quickest way to end a fight is to knock the opponent out with power shots, so he sets them up.  Nevercast's combat system allows you to set up your powerful blows, whether it's by knocking your opponent off-balance, crowding him, distracting him with a feint, or stunning him with a quick jab.  However, In this particular instance, it was unwise and I honestly made Arthur do it because I wanted to keep the combat example short.  The GM is also encouraged to intentionally make tactical errors when utilizing belligerent, less practiced, or less intelligent NPCs.
Reversals are typically follow-up actions that do not use up actions.  These techniques will be covered in my next post.


"How else could Lancelot have won? Is the only victory possible if the enemy is knocked down and out of actions? Could he whittle him down using 1 damage Stun attacks or?"
European martial arts historians insist that combat between armored foes typically went to the ground.  This is likely because armor was very effective against a sword's blows.  Aside from taking the opponent to the ground, it is known that trained combatants utilized a variety of sword grips in order to penetrate armor:
Example 1: The combatant gripped the blade itself with his free hand in order to leverage a powerful thrust in close range (a power strike in game mechanics).
Example 2: The combatant gripped the blade with both hands and bludgeoned the opponent's head or face with the hilt.  The hilt in this position could also be used at close range to hook an opponent's sword.  Therefore, in game mechanics, several weapons will have secondary uses available.

[Ar Kayon]

Reversals
A reversal is when you turn a successful defensive maneuver into an offensive maneuver. For example, when an opponent tries to take you down by the legs, you sprawl and catch him in a headlock, or you parry an opponent's punch and turn the parry into an arm lock.
As opposed to a counterattack, a reversal is executed as one fluid action, rather than two individual actions in succession. Also, most reversals cannot be actively defended against and require the usage of Concentration to pull off. These techniques require that you use your Concentration effort pool in order to use because perfect timing is such an important factor.  To maximize realism and to highlight how difficult it really is to time these things, I'm currently debating on whether or not I will require a high Concentration use roll (scoring a 4 on a d4 roll) in order to successfully pull off a reversal. In which case, every time you level up your reversal technique, your chances will improve by 25% (pending: your reversal success rate based off of your Reflex attribute instead).

[leodegrance]

Ok its enough for me.... I want those rules :-) Do you have a website or .pdf hosted somewhere with them?
M.

[Ar Kayon]

Unfortunately, I'm not web savvy.  I also move at a snail's pace, and the bare bones of the system isn't yet complete - once it is I'll release them here.  In the meantime, I am more than willing to comprehensively answer any questions you may have.

[horomancer]

I like your combat story boarding system. I too am working on a system without HP but have gone the opposite route of generalizing combat to a point where you declare your intentions, then story board what happened after the dice have revealed the conclusion.
I was wondering, in your system how would a 'fumble' arise and be interpreted? In the above example, something such as one character loosing their footing and failing to perform the action they intended. A more clear example, if we use a more modern setting, is what if you are in a gun fight and your gun jams at a crucial moment? How would that risk exist in your system? When would it come about if ever and how would it effect the flow of combat?

[Ar Kayon]

I like your combat story boarding system. I too am working on a system without HP but have gone the opposite route of generalizing combat to a point where you declare your intentions, then story board what happened after the dice have revealed the conclusion.
I was wondering, in your system how would a 'fumble' arise and be interpreted? In the above example, something such as one character loosing their footing and failing to perform the action they intended. A more clear example, if we use a more modern setting, is what if you are in a gun fight and your gun jams at a crucial moment? How would that risk exist in your system? When would it come about if ever and how would it effect the flow of combat?

When your character uses effort, the randomizer is implemented and you suffer a critical failure when your roll comes out to zero two or more times (the dice explodes every time you roll zero).  The severity of the failure is equal to the number of zeroes you roll.  So, let's say you try desperately to punch an elusive boxer: when you roll a double zero (1 in 16), you lose balance from extending too far, and when you roll a triple zero (1 in 64), you fall.
In high-variability circumstances, the randomizer is always used - like if you were shooting a gun.  In that case, the critical failure rule applies with differing critical failure rates based upon the weapon's quality.  A shitty gun might have a jam on double zeroes, a dud on triple and weapon failure on a quadruple (1 in 256).