The Forge Archives

Something I'm noticing here and there is an "anti-combat bias." Now, before everyone's breeches start bunching up I want to preface by saying that I both understand and agree that certain games don't need one because it isn't the focus of the game.

But here's my thing...isn't it really a big issue? See, maybe it's just me (I am the wacko behind TROS, after all), but most RPGs at some point or another turn to combat as a form of climactic resolution to a problem. No, not all, I agree. But most. More than most. In my group, just about all. Why? I dunno, maybe I'm repressed and just want to hit stuff. Maybe my player are. Maybe we have enough soap-opera drama in real life and violence is no longer socially acceptable, so we do it in our little escapist worlds...

One of the most common suggestions I hear to folks setting up new games right now is "don't have a combat system." I think, though, that for most of these cases (man am I generalizing today...) what really needs to be said is "99% of combats in RPGs bore me frikkin' to death, and I don't want your game to do that to me when I can do it somewhere else."

I'm not proposing that we all write another TROS. I am saying that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a common practice in revolutionary movements, and the Forge is a breeding ground for revolutionary and revolutionary-wanna-be movements), that maybe we should first say "what kind of combat are you looking at for this game? How often are PCs going to be fighting as you envision things? Never or rarely--no combat system at all. Constantly--better have an entertaining one that fits your mood/premise, or you lose. Why? Because Combat IS important to most gamers (I dare say), but its always done so poorly that we start thinking that we're better off without it.

Let's look at combat in the light of GNS. (Preface: my understanding of GNS varies widely based on who's reading what I write. I'm focusing on the basics here)

Combat in Gamism: should promote competition, winning, etc. Lethality (or rather, losing) should be low and/or not too painful, as Gamist-types hate dying (that's my experience with them). It should not be dull.

Combat in Narrativism: should promote the story/premise at hand, and should be worth imortalizing in paint later. Dramatic or otherwise powerful from a "what really just happened here...it was more than athletics, wasn't it?" And it should not be dull.

Combat in Simulationism: should be "realistic" (whatever that means) enough to suspend the players' disbelief or at least carry the proper mood/tone/atomosphere for the setting at hand (simmy combat systems for TOON and TROS would be very different, but both "real" on their own grounds). It should give us simmy types the rush of battle, and should avoid unneccesary detail for what we're trying to simulate. And it should not be dull.

What's the problem, then? Combat is dull as hell generally. D&D2E (I've never played 3E) was like pulling teeth. Combats lasted forever and ended through HP attrition. WW? The worst I've ever seen, I think. Roll after roll after painful roll for what? Nothing!

Many games at the Forge are trying to fix this. Sorcerer. TROS. Final Stand.

Other games here fit the "it doesn't need a CS" mold...but what are they?
-OctaNe, InSpectres, Dust Devils, etc...
All games that focus on player-driven direction. When that's the case, they don't need combat rules, because it's built into the director-stance stuff. But I don't think that most of the games getting designed here are like that. They're intentionally structured, maybe a little simulationist, because that's what so many of us got used to when we fell in love with RPGs.

I guess what I'm saying in just about the most long-winded fashion I can manage is...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play instead of pretending that most games can do without them. There are oodles of stupid assumptions about combat systems that we could allieviate by helping people to create the combat that they really want, assuming they want it. If they don't, well...there needs to be a way to handle combat (because I promise you, if I ever play, I'm getting into a fight), even if it's a set of guidlines for using the blanket system that resolves everything.

Thanks for getting this far (if you did).

Jake

> ...let's help people create combat systems that we want to play...

This is quoted from http://swordforum.com/sfu/swordsmanship/parrying.html from a while back:

Quote
...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

Quote from: Andrew Martin

Quote
...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

Andrew,

I'm not familiar with you S system - but ignorance of the facts never stopped me before... ;-)

It depends on the resoultion mechanic - but from the description in the quote it sounds like the parrying character is using the other slobs stroke against him - so maybe instead of making an additional attack the parrying character gets to apply his opponets attack roll against his opponet.

Or if you're using a successes system perhaps the parrying character can add the attacking characters successes to his roll to make the attack.

Just some random thoughts from the peanut gallery.

Cheers,

Jason

Hi Jake

Speaking for myself, and only myself but I'll bet there are others with a similar take on this, I don't have an anti-combat thing so much as an anti-wargame thing. I don't really enjoy the darn things but combat in most of the RPGs I have played are heavily wargame-based. Whether it uses miniatures or not. Conflict, even physical conflict, can be exciting and all of that, but how combat is typically handled in many, many RPGs leaves me cold.

The problem is that I'm so burned-out on the subject, I treat it like when Jesus Freaks come knocking on my door. *SLAM!*

"I have a new, better way to do RPG combat!"

"Really? How does it work?"

"Well, you roll d12s equal to your weapons damage rating and..."

*SLAM!*

Unfortunately, this means I miss it when someone has something I would find genuinely interesting to offer.

Hi Jake,

I think that you're confounding two issues: presence of combat in the game-story-situation and presence of a unique or distinctive rules sub-set called a combat system.

To take Elfs or Trollbabe, neither has a distinctive combat system - the rules for combat are just an application of the plain old resolution system with little or no extras. InSpectres and Dust Devils are even more so; Universalis (pending Rules Gimmicks) is drastically so.

But all of the games I mentioned can include a hell of a lot of rousing combat, and in fact I think Elfs' combat system is widely underrated.

On the other hand, we have games like Swashbuckler, TROS, and a few others. In these, combat resolution does have a unique rules set, and it pretty much follows the principle that I laid out in a recent Indie Design thread - nothin' wrong with multiple systems in a rules set as long as (a) the systems' special properties enhance the experience of playing that sort of thing (combat, magic, etc) and (b) the various systems don't overlap in function (which usually creates breakpoints).

But I think most people fail to see that there is a third category of RPG design, which is the most common historically - in which the combat system is the system, and resolving anything else is patchy, usually broken, and added-on. Much of what you're seeing in terms of "new design" is rebelling against this very widespread type of design.

So to address your post, I'd say: (1) saying "no special combat system" doesn't mean having no combat in the game situation, and it doesn't even mean shorting or de-emphasizing combat in the game situation; (2) having a "special combat system" can be a great design element when properly applied as a sub-set; and (3) there is indeed a phenomenon to avoid and beware in game design, namely rules-for-combat as central and everything is tack-on, unless it's precisely what you want to be the only/main aspect of conflict in play.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Jack Spencer JrHi Jake

Speaking for myself, and only myself but I'll bet there are others with a similar take on this, I don't have an anti-combat thing so much as an anti-wargame thing. I don't really enjoy the darn things but combat in most of the RPGs I have played are heavily wargame-based. Whether it uses miniatures or not. Conflict, even physical conflict, can be exciting and all of that, but how combat is typically handled in many, many RPGs leaves me cold.

That's it! I'm not saying that the bias hasn't been earned (because on many levels it has). What I'm "calling for" (I guess) is that we start building combat systems that appeal to our goals instead of building them (or throwing them out) "just because."

Perhaps that brings me to a more focused question--what do we really want in combat systems, what do we hate, and how do we make them fun (because in most games, they're not)?

Jake

ps Andrew-
I'd love to talk about the parry and counter issue, but I don't want to derail this thread. Can you post it in a different thread (maybe in Indie game design) or, if a moderator sees this, can they do that. Then we'll talk.

Quote from: Andrew Martin

Quote
...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

I know exactly what move you're thinking about. Theoretically you could treat it as a variation on "parry-riposte". A few facts which might be useful: This is a lot about controlling the line of attack, you need some mastery to perform this move, it requires solid knowledge unlike say a block or something like that. It's the step up after doing riposte moves.

You can grade it like this:

parry-return strike
parry-riposte
cut-into-the-attack (the move described above)

If we look at it like beats. If for the first we have:
beat 1: opponent attacks, defender parries
beat 2: recovery
beat 3: defender counterattacks

The second becomes:
beat 1: opponent attacks, defender parries and prepares to attack
beat 2: defender counterattacks

The third is:
beat 1: opponent attacks, defender parries and counterattacks

The difficulty for the initial attacker to avoid the counterattack is increasingly higher. On the other hand the safety margin for the defender goes down too.

So anyway, create a single move (an upgraded parry-riposte if you will) with a penalty for success on the parry or something.

On the other hand, while I'm aware of these moves, I quickly gave up on implementing them in Ygg, mainly because it still doesn't provide any extra realism for the game unless we're talking about relatively unskilled opponents. For skilled fighters more and more of the fight is on a purely psychological level with subtle physical expressions in slight changes in posture. (I guess you just have to trust me on that one). But I don't think you're ready to throw out the whole S combat system are you ;) So I won't argue that point.

For another common maneuver you might want to include (although it might be tricky to do it well)

"Counter-striking": As soon as the opponent starts to move, you immediately hit even faster with a counterstrike. The beginner version is just about trying to be faster, the advanced version is actually setting up the opponent and lure him into striking exactly where one wants to strike and the use the counter-strike. The "luring" is usually extremely subtle. It can also be done through pressuring the opponent with an intent to attack.

Hi there,

I shall now moderate.

Anyone who wants to discuss the parry question, begin another thread to do so. It is not acceptable in this thread.

Best,
Ron

Quote from: Jake Norwood

Perhaps that brings me to a more focused question--what do we really want in combat systems, what do we hate, and how do we make them fun (because in most games, they're not)?

Jake,

I agree that having a some form of conflict resolution - whether focused on combat or not, is important for most RPGs.  But the answers to your question "What do we want in a combat sysetm for an RPG?" are many and varied.

Some people out there like to play in heavily combat focused, wargame legacy type RPGs.  Some don't.

I would argue that whatever conflict/combat system appears in a game should support or add to the game's handling of the overall Premise - or at the very least not detract from it.

Many of the games produced by regulars on these forums fit that bill: TRoS, Sorcerer, Donjon, Synthesis - just to name a few.

Cheers,

Jason

Quote from: Andrew MartinThis is quoted from the Sword Forum from a while back:

Quote...a "parry-through" in which when your opponent tries to cut you, you cut towards him - the flat of your sword glances off the side of his, thereby deflecting his oncoming attack, resulting in your cutting into your opponent's body. In other words, this is both an attack and a deflection in a single stroke.

I've been wondering how to do this in my S dueling combat system (available on my site). Best I've come up with so far is a two actions, the first is a parry, the second is the attack. Yet, this doesn't seem to fit (and it seems to have the potential of being a "winning" move, if not carefully explained. Opinions? Advice?

Make the riposte (a fencing "parry-through?") something 'less' than an action.  You can't riposte unless you parry right?  Make the riposte a 'rider' on a successful parry (under certain conditions).  In Scattershot, we handle things like this as 'flurries of actions.'  Provided you are trained appropriately, you can compose several Immediate Actions into a single Involved Action (called a flurry of actions) under certain conditions.  This lets us do things like 'quickdraw' as a martial art allowing a draw and fire (and fire and fire) all as a single action.  This also explains all those really fast interchanges between fencers.

I guess my suggestion is to look at the riposte and consider flurries of actions, that's all.

Fang Langford

[Edit: You guys are amazing, I take ten to post something and not only is it already too late, but the moderator defined it off-topic.  Whoops!]

Hey,

Well Fang, I figure you were typing & submitting while I was doing so, but that actually is part of my point ...

People, you all know what the standards of the Forge are. You know that Andrew's post was grossly off-topic - all you had to do was read and think. Practice self-moderation!

I am forced to be absolutely clear: not another word on the parry debate is permitted in this thread.

Best,
Ron

Sorry for going off-topic. To get back to what you're talking about Jake:

I hate combat. Especially in fantasy. Anyway, I know what you're talking about.

Because of that I've done a lot of thinking (to say the least) about combat for Ygg (and I haven't fully playtested it yet, so I can't say if it's any good either).

I don't know if the problem is that "the combat system sucks". I think it's more that when you get to the combat system you're brought into close contact with the mechanics and its failures.

The sim-style of popular games tend to gear many designers into thinking that "emulation of reality" (or rather what they perceive to be a emulation of reality) will create a good and fun game.

It doesn't work like that, and the combat system just happens to be the place where it's the most painfully apparent.

What I mean is that there is no direction in combat system creation. Few designs (Jake already mentions notable exceptions) are ever created with coherent goals in what they try to evoke. Cue: GNS.

The typical approach of making a combat system: "let's emulate real combat" very poorly fulfills the desired target "I want fun combat"

That CS tends to be the most popular playground for interpretations of "what real combat is like", something I believe few designers have much real experience of even if they boast about being in the SCA and knowing all there is to know about it.

In some cases "no combat system" might actually obscure the fact that the rest of the system isn't very thought through either.

Just some random thoughts.

Quote from: Jake Norwood--what do we really want in combat systems, what do we hate, and how do we make them fun (because in most games, they're not)?

This is a tough question to answer for a number of reasons and you will not get a single answer here because that is simply impossible.

I think that a better way to go with this is to turn the topic back on the questioner, that is, you Jake.

What exactly are you looking to accomplish with this, Jake? What sort of insight are you trying to gain?

Personally, I thought Ron answered the original question rather eloquently. It's not so much about combat that's the subject of this prejudice as combat systems and he listed a non-exclusive list of games where combat is a function of the so-called core mechanic and is all the better for it.

Now, what are you after, then?

Quote from: Jake NorwoodI am saying that instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater (a common practice in revolutionary movements,

Thank you for patronising.  As a revolutionary, may I suggest that you you find out a bit more about such movements before spouting off such meaningless bollocks?

As to combat systems.  I think there are two conflicting goals in a lot of systems, which is exctiement and colour.  colour can up the enaggemement beucase the crunchy bits can be interesting, and furthermore crunchiness appeals to gamists who want inputs to decisions.  But this usuually produces a long handling times, which acts against the goal of excitement.

For me, handling time in a mechanic, any mechanic, is crucial.  This has particular resonance in combat, which I try to keep fast-paced and confusing.  The fewer calculations that have to be done the better - but this usually goes against both crunchiness and colour.

I agree with Jake - that we need to pay attention to combat systems, as combat will be a large part of most RPGs - but I also think that what we want in RPGs is going to be very variable.

This is wholesale pimpery, but I can't help seeing things through my own work: I tried really hard with both Donjon and Paladin to create unique combat systems that were fun and fulfilling, but didn't work like "normal" combat systems. (Even though Paladin came out earlier, it's a later design, and so varies even more from traditional combat design.)

Jake - you own both of these. Did they seem to you to be (a) a departure from traditional combat design, (b) systems that fit the game, and (c) fun?