The Forge Archives

Hi all,

I posted this on RPG.net and was told to check out this forum.  So here I am  :)  .  Bear with me as I learn some of the terminology and concepts that seem to be in use here (GNS, etc.).

I'm becoming dissatisfied with the standard turn based rounds and initiative determination. By standard I mean the one found in D&D, Storyteller, and GURPS (it's also found in a bunch of other games). Essentially, the basic system in these cases is "roll initiative, make your action, end of round." They might allow for ways to get more than one action (such as splitting dice pools in Storyteller or getting more cards in Deadlands), but they adhere to relatively well defined combat rounds. In this regard they are more like wargames as opposed to an interactive story.

Disclaimer: I'm not dissing war gaming or more "rulesy" oriented styles of play!!!!! Indeed, on occasion I enjoy playing that kind of game. I just want to find a system that I feel is better suited to a cinematic, "fast and loose" style of play. Also, I don't want to remove crunchy bits altogether - I think both have a place.

Combat would not be split up into rounds - it would just happen, although the rate at which the GM describes things would increase. If I ever need to figure out who goes first at some task, I can always roll opposed Dexterity checks or just wing it. I think it would be safe to say that combat under such systems would require a high level of GM involvement and interpretation, which some people may not like.

I've downloaded the Nobilis example of play from Hogshead's site, and that combat example in the sky seems to be more along the lines of what I'm looking for. However, I don't want to plunk down ~$40 just to be inspired by the combat system, no matter how good it may be  :)

Any thoughts you'd care to give on the matter would be appreciated.

Welcome to The Forge!

Perhaps you could describe how several players describe their character/s actions and how NPC actions fit in? I'm having a little trouble seeing what your desired goal is.

GURPs doesn't have a "round" system, from what I've experienced.

The players and NPCs have a combat speed (or something) and they go in order of highest to lowest.  They take one action each and then they start over.  It's not divided into "rounds," more like an order.  The slowest person goes and then the fastest person and it starts all over.

As for what else to do, I think games are either "turn based" or "real time."

If turn based doesn't float your boat, I'm afraid real time would turn into a shouting match rather quickly.

Quote from: Andrew MartinWelcome to The Forge!

Thanks!

QuotePerhaps you could describe how several players describe their character/s actions and how NPC actions fit in? I'm having a little trouble seeing what your desired goal is.

Ok, I'll try to clarify what I said in my first post.  

Most combat systems I'm familiar with divide combat time into discrete bits (rounds).  Somehow the order is determined, a player takes his turn, and then awaits his next turn.  In this regard combat is more like a board game - it is relatively rigid and structured.  

It may be that this is the only playable way combat can be managed, but I don't feel this truly captures the essence of certain cinematic games high fantasy, super heroes, over-the-top martial arts, etc.  The conventions of cinematic reality seem to rely heavily on spontaneity and appear relatively "fast and loose."  Events simply happen, rather than being "shoe-horned" into arbitrary turns.   Of course, gaming systems are by their nature arbitrary, so take my usage of the word with a grain of salt - perhaps some systems are more arbitrary than others?    ;)

I think it would be neat to try to model combat more as a series of events, where, put simply, actions happen (I think Gwen's use of "real-time" in her other post is a good descriptor).  Most other types of interaction seem to be built on the real-time model.  For example, if a character is at a dinner party and is trying to impress people he just does it.  He doesn't enter a social equivalent of combat, with it's rounds and set turns - it's just one event after another.

There are times when it might be important to see who goes first.  In this case I imagine you would roll opposed quickness/dexterity checks.  This is essentially an iniative mechanic, but it pertains only to those involved in the check and isn't necessarily required for all interactions in combat.

A combat example might be this:  Bob and Joe are in a bar and both are concentrating on each other.  Bob is pissed at Joe, so Bob walks up to Joe and throws a punch.  No initiative dice are rolled - this is just an event which Joe responds to (I'd rule that Joe could respond, since he was focused on Bob - if he was talking to someone else, he might not have seen Bob in time).  Let's say he ducks out of the way.  Bob swings again - this is just another event - and Joe again dodges.  Bob gives another punch, Joe dodges, and , seeing an opening, returns with a strike of his own.  Incidentally, Joe's "taking of the initiative" (can we agree that's different from initiative order?) is what I'm having a devil of a time trying to model - the switch from being on the offensive to being on the defensive.

Combat is just a progression of events.  Let's not worry so much about multiple combatants at this stage  ;)  .  Does that help, Andrew?

What about sometthink like a variation of the Feng Shui system.

Feng Shui does use rounds, but it works like this (bear with me)

Each round is divided into 20 segments. Characters get their first action on segment X determined by initiative (this is fairly unimportant). Every action you can perform takes a certain number of segments. A Punch might take 2 segments say, while firing a gun only takes 1 (cocking the gun might take 3, and reloading might take 6).

These numbers are made up by the way, I don't recall how many segments things take, it's been years since I played it.

So anyway, lets say I sart on segment 17, and I punch someone. I can next act on segment 15 because my punch took 2 segments. Maybe then I draw my gun (lets say this takes 4 segments). On segment 11 I can now shoot. This takes 1 segment, and on segment 10 I can now reload, taking 6 segments. And so on.

There were other considerations like how long it took to move certain distances, and you could parry or block at any time, but it added to the time until your next go (if I'm next due to act on segment 11 as in the example above, but I do a 3 segment block in the meantime, my next go will actually be segment 8 instead of 11).

Yes, a hell of a lot of book keeping, but it's probably the closest I can think of to what you're looking for. Instead of starting new rounds at 20 each time, just start the combat at 100 or so and you'll never have to worry about rounds.

Brian.

Quote from: zaalA combat example might be this:  Bob and Joe are in a bar and both are concentrating on each other.  Bob is pissed at Joe, so Bob walks up to Joe and throws a punch.  No initiative dice are rolled - this is just an event which Joe responds to (I'd rule that Joe could respond, since he was focused on Bob - if he was talking to someone else, he might not have seen Bob in time).  Let's say he ducks out of the way.  Bob swings again - this is just another event - and Joe again dodges.  Bob gives another punch, Joe dodges, and , seeing an opening, returns with a strike of his own.  Incidentally, Joe's "taking of the initiative" (can we agree that's different from initiative order?) is what I'm having a devil of a time trying to model - the switch from being on the offensive to being on the defensive.

Combat is just a progression of events.  Let's not worry so much about multiple combatants at this stage  ;)  .  Does that help, Andrew?

Thanks! That helps.

One needs to model the flurries of combat, where Bob punches twice and Joe dodges twice and punches once; there's the opening, Joe is operating just a little bit faster than Bob. Would this model work for you?

Zaal,

Here's a fast and lose system:

Use an egg-timer and a number of tokens, set the timer up with the starting player, any other player involved can steal it (and turn it upside down) by expending a token. They can narrate game effect, but must pass through each wound level to reach the next most severe one. Some wound levels could include things like, effortless dodge, or graceful parry, as well as flesh wound, or cut to the face. (Which is related to an odd little system I'm currently mixing around.) The player in control of the hour glass when it runs out gets to narrate the tail end of the fight, but it needs to end then. This means fights will likely damage, but rarely kill. Of course the fight can continue in the next area, but you'll be lower on tokens then, which is always a risk.

Hope you enjoy,

  -Mendel S.

When I and an old buddy many years ago gamed together using the ancient, but interesting  BRP superhero system SUPERWORLD we actually visualized action scenes it terms of what they would look like in terms of comics panels. There was an actual superhero game (a British import)  that instituted this as a formal game mechanic.

  The equivaent in the 'cinematic' world to the comic is the storyboard.  Action scenes are often plotted out image by image particularly if they are complex.  

  In resolving the actions narrative control could mean the right to describe the content of one or several storyboard panels.  The length of various scenes could be set to be a certain number of panels and the players have to describe the resolution within a certain number of panels.  This would stimulate a very 'cinematic' thinking style which is what such games are trying to do.

The concept of a round is usefull if only to make sure everyone has a chance to have their character do something before anyone else gets to go again. Without checking the rules, I'm pretty sure this is the only sense in which Hero Wars has rounds. Highest ability goes first, and everyone gets a chance to be proactive, then start again. There's no fixed duration for a round, or even any suggested value so far as I can remember. A round might be a quick exchange of blows in a sword fight, or a an hour long exchange of arguments in a court case.

Simon Hibbs

Lots to talk about here.

First, have you considered that one need not have a "combat system" at all? I am a pundit, if you will, for the notion that RPGS don't always need combat systems. Click here for my Rant on the subject. Take the right pill Neo. I think it might be the solution you are looking for, but people seem very resistant to the idea at first. Keep an open mind.

Second, round based combat of sorts can do what you want. Definitely check out the systems mentioned already (Hero Wars, Feng Shui, etc). Hero Wars has a free quick start download that may give you the idea (www.glorantha.com). You might also want to check out Dunjon from Anvilwerks (can be found on the Independent Games Page).

Another free game that might do what you want and messes a bit with the round idea like Hero Wars does, is Paul Elliot's Zenobia, free from his site. This is my favorite concept right now. Essentially, each "round" is a contest between the foes. As such, there is no "I go, you go". Both combatants roll, and the winner gains some advantage. What this does is to say that the idea of "Initiative" is just another factor of ability. The result is combat which is by far more dramatic than any of the other "round" style systems you've mentioned.

BTW, there have been many attempts at creating a more, "real time" sort of combat system. Starting with Champions an such systems early on, and including Feng Shui. The problem is that most of these systems, while interesting, and often fun, themselves, only seem more "realistic". They do little for drama. In fact, most are som complicated that they become just a more intense tactical effort than anything else.

Finally, you'd be remis if yu didn't check out The Riddle of Steel. While crunchy, and sorta round based, it does it in such an innovative fashion that it is both dramatic, and realistic at the same time. You can also find out about them on the indie games page here at The Forge.

Hope that helps.

Mike

Hey Zaal,

I'm sorry I missed this one earlier; welcome to the Forge.

I'm attracted to posting to this thread because I'm one of the system-junkie mavericks around here (and ain't afraid to say so).

Quote from: zaal

Quote from: Andrew MartinPerhaps you could describe how several players describe their character/s actions and how NPC actions fit in? I'm having a little trouble seeing what your desired goal is.

Most combat systems I'm familiar with divide combat time into discrete bits (rounds).  Somehow the order is determined, a player takes his turn, and then awaits his next turn.  In this regard combat is more like a board game - it is relatively rigid and structured.  

It may be that this is the only playable way combat can be managed, but I don't feel this truly captures the essence of certain cinematic games high fantasy, super heroes, over-the-top martial arts, etc....

There are times when it might be important to see who goes first.  In this case I imagine you would roll opposed quickness/dexterity checks.  This is essentially an initiative mechanic, but it pertains only to those involved in the check and isn't necessarily required for all interactions in combat.

I'm of the opinion that times when it really comes down to 'who is fastest' are relatively rare (like a gunslinger face-off, maybe).  So I don't see that having any real impact on a cinematic game's combat.

Two things seem to be compounding your problem that I think you might benefit from separating in your mind.  The first is the 'who goes first' part (initiative) and second is 'what order' they go in.  Many, many games combine these two for whatever reasons (most often cited, simplicity); a few have distinct systems for initiative and turn ordering.  In play, though, neither is simple and the combined versions are even less so.  Think about it; first you use a 'simple' mechanic to determine 'who goes first' then you use another 'simple' mechanic to determine 'what order' they go in...every round.  No matter how simple such mechanics are, when you multiply times the number of rounds in a game, it is anything but simple.

So when we (my wife and I) put together Scattershot, we got rid of both of these.  A while back, we discussed initiative systems and I detailed what we've done.

Like your example:

Quote from: zaalA combat example might be this:  Bob and Joe are in a bar and both are concentrating on each other.  Bob is pissed at Joe, so Bob walks up to Joe and throws a punch.  No initiative dice are rolled - this is just an event which Joe responds to (I'd rule that Joe could respond, since he was focused on Bob - if he was talking to someone else, he might not have seen Bob in time).  Let's say he ducks out of the way.  Bob swings again - this is just another event - and Joe again dodges.  Bob gives another punch, Joe dodges, and , seeing an opening, returns with a strike of his own.  Incidentally, Joe's "taking of the initiative" (can we agree that's different from initiative order?) is what I'm having a devil of a time trying to model - the switch from being on the offensive to being on the defensive.

Our initiative is basically, 'whoever wants to go first.'  The main reason I've gleaned that many designers use for complicated initiative systems is based on the theory that whoever strikes first has the biggest advantage.  That may be true, but in my experience people spend a lot of time on (supposed) non-combat maneuvers 'positioning themselves' to make the best first blow.  (And I say why not role-play that?)  The second most often listed reason I've pried out of designers I could get an answer out of, basically boiled down to the idea that an initiative die roll collapses much of the various intangibles of pre-battle play.  I thought those were some of the best parts in movies, why 'collapse' them?

To maintain this 'advantage' in our system we divorced it from the initiative and turn-ordering rules (which then became superfluous).  That's right, combat starts with whoever wanted to go first and then simply proceeds around the table from there.  All of the advantages of 'being faster,' 'going first,' and et cetera are captured differently than turn-order or initiative mechanics.  The attention to 'what kind' of 'advantages' the characters have in combat seems to heighten the cinematic flair.

Quote from: zaalCombat is just a progression of events.  Let's not worry so much about multiple combatants at this stage.

The only reason we even kept the 'rounds' has to do with everyone getting a chance to shine.  We've never found a way to keep from forgetting someone without something as rudimentary as rounds.  Considering all the differences inherent in applying 'advantage' directly instead of through initiative or turn-order, going 'round the table seems almost unconsciously intuitive.

One permutation that occurred that allows us to come closer to "a progression of events" even with 'going around the table,' had to do with recognizing and taking a systemic approach to 'flurries of actions.'  A quick-draw is one such 'flurry;' the gunslinger pulls their weapon, takes some kind of aim, and fires a shot (in 'higher' cinematic conventions these last two steps are repeated).  All of this takes place before anyone else gets a chance to do anything.  In a traditional game with turn-order and initiative rules, this creates quite a burden on those systems requiring all sorts of special case rules or rules that make other actions seem snail-paced.  With 'flurries' we don't have that problem; when that character's turn comes up, he does it all as a flurry (as limited by the cinematic convention played under).

With all the possible flurries and the explicit 'advantages,' it makes 'around the table' seem much more like "a progression of events" without 'leaving anyone behind.'

Just to jump ahead for a second, we encountered serious problems with the number of combatants.  This can't really be helped.  We came up with a funny little 'cap' based on another feature of Scattershot that has to do with playing at 'different levels of scope.'  (A different level of scope is like treating a battle as a series of skirmishes between squads over longer-period rounds or treating a court case as a series of 'flurries' of discussion or treating a war as a series of battles between 'units.')  When there are more characters in play than twice the number of people 'at the table,' play must jump to a 'higher level of scope.'  Traditionally this basically means when there are more monsters than player characters you just treat them as 'sides' (instead of everyone getting bored while the gamemaster goes through the actions of every single orc).  This simplifies the bookkeeping and keeps up the tension I like to see in cinematic combat.

Mike makes a good point about eliminating combat as a unique set of rules, but since that is his bailiwick I leave the details to him.  In our system, we stopped calling it 'combat rounds' and changed to 'mechanical play;' our main advice is to only shift to that when player tension is high enough that 'losing' during it because 'you didn't get a turn' demands this objectivity of detail in event-parsing.  Otherwise rounds are avoided in everything.

Good luck and I look forward to any questions you have.

Fang Langford

QuoteThe only reason we even kept the 'rounds' has to do with everyone getting a chance to shine. We've never found a way to keep from forgetting someone without something as rudimentary as rounds. Considering all the differences inherent in applying 'advantage' directly instead of through initiative or turn-order, going 'round the table seems almost unconsciously intuitive.

As Fang points out, sometimes "shining" well involves something like his "flurries". There is another way to handle this, however. The idea here is that as you combine activity, it makes things more dramatic, as more is resolved at once, and that speed makes the action more interesting to everyone at the table.

Another problem with rounds that include everyone is that players tend to settle back into the "it's my turn, now I'll pay attention" and "not my turn, I'll zone out" cycle of behavior. There is a way to combine these principles in a very dramatic manner that keeps everyone's attention. It's not particularly "realistic", but it is fun.

Note how in the movies, when displaying mass combat, you don't look at the battle overhead to see how characters are doing (you might for the entire battle, but not for individual characters). No, instead when a main character is in a fight, you see just him and his opponent up close. They duke it out, and then the shot shifts to other characters, or characters teaming up, or whatever.

From Rolemaster of all places, specifically "Run Out the Guns" we get the idea of combat "cascades". That is, essentially, you play out all combats as single opponent vs. single opponent from start to finish, before you go to the next pair.

What does this do? Well, first, it takes the other players out of the semi-participatory cycle. They are no longer participants at all, but officially audience. And what they get to see is the dramatic back and forth of a single pair facing off. Made all the more dramatic because it goes very quickly. The GM onlyhas one set of stats to refer to, and the player won't fortget his in between rounds. Also, there is continuity. Instead of play being broken up, dialog seems to follow right on top of itself (instead of having to wait until everyine else is done to deliver your next line). This is true even for a game as dense as Rolemaster! You have to try it to get the feel, but it's just way more dramatic. Players intently watch the action and eagerly await their turn to try and outdo the last player.

As such, I can't recommend it enough. You know, thinking about it, I played a game of TROS, with Jake Norwood at GenCon in which in the climactic battle scene, he used just such a method. Intuitively, he knew that this was the best way to go in the situatiuon at hand (I doubt he's played RotG). His game is written to best accomodate the one character at a time method, actually, and it shows here. For all you TROS, players out there take note that this is really the best way to play, IMO.

Mike

I've been considering the following system:

Actions cost tokens to perform.  Active actions ("I stab him") cost somewhere in a range of 2-6 (lower is better), determined by how fast the character or action is.  Defensive actions ("I block with my eye") cost 1.

When you declare an action you set the required number of tokens in your "wait" pile.

If you have no tokens in your wait pile you can declare another active action.  You can declare defensive actions any time you need them - but they continue to add to your wait pile normally.

The GM ticks off combat incriments (seconds, hours, or whatever), each incriment everyone removes a token from their wait pile.


This seems more fluid and less stair-steppy than normal combat rounds, and it lets you easily change the speed of different actions/weapons (6 tokens for a spell, 3 for a dagger stab)...but I'm, as of yet, not comfortable with the amount of overhead or time dely it creates.

FYI for the historically-minded.  The British superhero game that used "Frames" to analogize "rounds" to comic panels was called Golden Heroes.  Unfortunately, I don't remember the name of the publisher.

Best,

Blake

Well, here's a mechanic i'm presenting as an option in the game i'm making.

Instead of "X attacks per Round", it's "Attack takes X amount of time". Which gives you the option to actually impose a Round.

If done in a simple way, then all Characters have the same Attack Time. If less simplistic, Characters each can have a different Attack Time, but only one per Character. More complex is a Character has a different Attack Time for each weapon or attack method.

Initiative is based on rolling 1 die, the faster/better the initiative the smaller the Initiative Die rolled. For example: Super Fast = 1D2, Very Fast = 1D4, Fast = 1D6, Normal = 2D4, Slow = 2D6, Very Slow = 3D6, and so on.

Now for an example:
Every Character has a unique Attack Time, but only one for all of their attack methods.
Foo and Bar are fighting. Foo has an Attack Timing of 5, Bar has an Attack Timing of 6. Foo has an Init Due of 1D6, Bar has an Init Die of 2D6.
Foo rolls a 2. Bar rolls a 10.
So sequence of attacks will go:
2 - Foo
7 - Foo
10 - Bar
12 - Foo
16 - Bar
17 - Foo
22 - Foo & Bar
27 - Foo
28 - Bar
...
etc

Now, a Round can then be randomly put in whenever appropriate. It would reset the counter to 0, and players would roll new Init Dice, etc.

Is that what you were asking?