Alternative Combat Rounds

[zaal]

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 ... 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.

Your argument makes perfect sense to me, and I think it's along the lines of what I was looking for.

BTW, there have been many attempts at creating a more, "real time" sort of combat system ... 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.

There's gotta be a way to capture the drama without sacrificing playability!  :)  Well, there may not be but it's worth testing the waters.

I guess I should also say I don't hate "round/turn" based combat, because I have been able to achieve entertaining results with it.  I just want to see if there is a way to increase my enjoyment.  

Finally, you'd be remis if yu didn't check out The Riddle of Steel.

Incidentally, Riddle of Steel is what sent me on my quest to see if there were other RPG combat systems out there.  It intrigued me that their could be alternatives to the "standard" system - I had never even thought of that before :)  .  I don't mind crunchy bits if they don't hamper the feel of the game; it's just been my experience that with crunchy systems players tend to focus more on the rules than with the action itself.  That's a perfectly valid way to play, but it doesn't do much for me.

[Mike Holmes]

Your argument makes perfect sense to me, and I think it's along the lines of what I was looking for.

Cool, then what's the continuing problem. Simply don't have a separate combat system.

There's gotta be a way to capture the drama without sacrificing playability!  :)  Well, there may not be but it's worth testing the waters.

I guess I'm not getting what you mean. Capturre which drama? How?

For all of you who are proposing systems that are "real time" in some fashion, they've all been done before. See the Rolemaster Companions (I think there are at least five or six different systems like these enumerated therin). See Aftermath! See...heck there are a jillion of 'em, and they've been around forever.

Such systems, while theoretically more "realistic" than other systems all fail to do much more than increase the complexity of combat, and serve as a balance mechanic. You are still left with an abstraction, and one that has as many or more faults than the original system. It's a dead-end.

See TROS for how it should be done. If you haven't read that, you are probably making an inferior system. It's the one to beat right now, hands down.

I guess I should also say I don't hate "round/turn" based combat, because I have been able to achieve entertaining results with it.  I just want to see if there is a way to increase my enjoyment.  

There is, have you looked at the other systems that I and others have mentioned?

Incidentally, Riddle of Steel is what sent me on my quest to see if there were other RPG combat systems out there.  It intrigued me that their could be alternatives to the "standard" system - I had never even thought of that before :)  .

And what do you think about TROS? What's wrong with that (if anything)?

I don't mind crunchy bits if they don't hamper the feel of the game; it's just been my experience that with crunchy systems players tend to focus more on the rules than with the action itself.  That's a perfectly valid way to play, but it doesn't do much for me.

I think you're going to like it around here. Your sentiments are shared by a lot of people here.

Mike

[szilard]

Hmmm... I've been toying with a system (not specifically a combat system, but a system for tense action scenes in general - including combat) that looks like it may have some similarities to toth's ideas above... and Feng Shui (which I have only heard about and not yet read... sigh...). I call it the Moment system.

Time, in tense situations, sometimes seems to stand still and sometimes seems to move too quickly. In any case, subjective time in scenes like combat is much more important than objective time. Subjective time, I measure in moments.

I'm still working out the kinks, but here's what I'd like it to accomplish:

1) A switch from real-time into moment-time. In round-based speak, one person's round may be significantly shorter than another's... though this won't be a round-based system. Also, a moment might not be the same length of time as the one before it. Frex, in a swashbuckling swordfight, both combatants might pause for a moment as their swords cross and trade banter. This moment would likely be longer than the moment in which one of them lunges at the other.

2) A system in which actions can be continuous, rather than discretely staggered. Actions should take time, but they aren't exclusive of each other. Frex, a character might leap across a chasm (taking 8 moments to do so), but draw (2 moments) and fire (1 moment) his pistol a moment into the leap. The gun then goes off when he is halfway across the chasm. The guy he's firing at could potentially be acting at the same time.

Ultimately, I suspect I will need to have an objective timing mechanism to use as a common denominator. I'm still toying with it, though.

~szilard

[zaal]

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.'

This is really interesting.  Has Scattershot been posted in its entirety in that other thread?  Even if it's not, it seems worth checking out.

I have no problem checking in with other players from time to time and asking what there characters are up to.  I guess it doesn't really matter if it's "counterclockwise around the table" or a random order each time.

Just to jump ahead for a second, we encountered serious problems with the number of combatants ... when there are more monsters than player characters ... 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.

Do you distinguish between named and unnamed (aka "mooks," "extras," etc.) characters?  In general, when I run unnamed characters I place them into a big blob, which sounds like what you do.  

I'll certainly check Scattershot out.  Thanks!

[zaal]

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.

I've heard of focusing on one part of the action at a time (playing in "chunks" as one poster on RPG.net put it), and it sounds like it would capture cinematic reality well.

[zaal]

Cool, then what's the continuing problem. Simply don't have a separate combat system.

It's that "taking the initiative" bit that I can't seem to wrap my head around.  In my example in the fight between Bob and Joe, Bob threw a punch, Joe dodged and then Joe threw a counter.  It seems like Joe has the advantage right now (or at least is on the offensive).

It seems unfair to me to just say to Joe's player "Okay, Joe, you can get a counter attack."  Something about Bob's or Joe's skill must have allowed that opportunity to happen.  I'm just can't think of a way to  

From what I know of TRoS, this seems like a situation TRoS can handle, so I will check it out (as mentioned below).

Iguess I'm not getting what you mean. Capturre which drama? How?

In your first post to this thread, you said most real time systems ...

... do little for drama. In fact, most are som complicated that they become just a more intense tactical effort than anything else.

The drama you were referring to (whatever that is ...  ;)  ) is what I was talking about.  What I meant was there has to be a way for real time systems to capture the drama and excitement of a fight without becoming "mere" tactical exercises.

There is, have you looked at the other systems that I and others have mentioned?

I have Feng Shui, but it's been awhile since I looked at it last.  From what I remember I was kind of underwhelmed by it.

I don't have TRoS.  The only information I have about it is what I can glean from the website.  It looks neat, and I'll probably pick it up when I get the cash.

I haven't had the opportunity to check out other games (like Scattershot) yet, but I will do so.  Some people have also posted initiative schemes, but I haven't had a chance to fully internalize them yet.  I guess I'm getting caught up in the theoretical discussion right now  :)  .  I'll look into the other options and get back to you.

I think you're going to like it around here. Your sentiments are shared by a lot of people here.

Cool.  :)

[Mike Holmes]

By "Real Time" I'm talking about all these gus who are trying to do something where each action has a different length and they are resolved at the end of their lengths and the like. Avoiding "rounds" by doing something even more complicated. These are the sorts of systems I was saying are no more dramatic than rounds are.

I think you didn't take the right pill.

This is how you resolve the situation that you describe without a combat system. If you think that Joe was surprised (sunday punch), Bob just rolls his Punch against some target number (probably low), or some dodge skill if the GM thinks that Joe saw it last second, etc. In the example he misses anyway. Then you just go to a contest of punching skills.

If Joe is not surprised, then combat is just that Punching contest. In this case, Joe rolls higher than Bob. The Gm looking at the result says, "Bob swings at Joe, but misses, swinging wide. Joe counterpunches, and smacks Bob right in the jaw, landing him on his ass."

What Initiative problem?

Mike

[Jason Lee]

By "Real Time" I'm talking about all these gus who are trying to do something where each action has a different length and they are resolved at the end of their lengths and the like. Avoiding "rounds" by doing something even more complicated. These are the sorts of systems I was saying are no more dramatic than rounds are.

I think you didn't take the right pill.

This is how you resolve the situation that you describe without a combat system. If you think that Joe was surprised (sunday punch), Bob just rolls his Punch against some target number (probably low), or some dodge skill if the GM thinks that Joe saw it last second, etc. In the example he misses anyway. Then you just go to a contest of punching skills.

If Joe is not surprised, then combat is just that Punching contest. In this case, Joe rolls higher than Bob. The Gm looking at the result says, "Bob swings at Joe, but misses, swinging wide. Joe counterpunches, and smacks Bob right in the jaw, landing him on his ass."

One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"?  I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

[Le Joueur]

One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"?  I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

How about letting faster characters 'do more' on 'their turn?'

Fang Langford

[szilard]

One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"?  I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

One possibility is to require a test against some sort of speed stat if the person tries to do things more quickly than would be normal.

~szilard

[Andrew Martin]

One thing I'm confused on is how do you resolve difference of speed between characters in such a system without treating it as something like "number of resolutions per event (actions per round)"?  I know this is not relevant for "real people" games, but is quite important for superheroic games.

How about letting faster characters 'do more' on 'their turn?'

Fang Langford

Or letting higher skill making it easier to do more?

[M. J. Young]

O.K., I'm making this up as I go along, but I think I might have a combat system idea that would handle all of your concerns.

Much like an initiative roll, we let both combatants roll. However, this roll will be adjusted. A few adjustments you might consider:

[*]Each character would add a fighting skill number, most likely.
[*]If you're concerned that speed should be a  factor, include a bonus for that.
[*]I think that whoever won last time should get a bonus, for reasons that will appear evident in a  moment.
[*]I would also include a fatigue penalty if a character has taken several aggressive or tiring actions in a row.
[*]Surprise might be included, that is, if one side potentially surprised the other, that would give a bonus to this roll (and thus this roll would determine whether the opponent was surprised enough).
[/list:u]

Now, what the roll tells us is not who goes first; it tells us which character is the current actor; the other is the reactor. Thus, although we still could call them "rounds", it's not he goes, she goes, but rather one acts and the other reacts, and then we roll again.

Note that this achieves several desired effects:

[*]The one with the greater skill is more likely to hit more often.
[*]Because there is a bonus for having just been the actor, there is a tendency for one side to make several attack/actions in a row.
[*]Because there is a penalty for extended strings (stated as fatigue) there is an increasing likelihood that the reactor will become the actor with each round.
[*]The number of attacks each side gets is ultimately related to the skill level and speed (because those are bonused into the system) but aren't mechanically connected to the ratio of attacks against attacks; you hit more often because you take the initiative more often.
[/list:u]

Obviously I've never tried it; but it looks like with a bit of tweaking this would give you that cinematic combat feel you're seeking.

--M. J. Young

[Mike Holmes]

But why do you need this roll? Why not just roll opposed combat checks, and just narrate whatever you like in terms of speed, initiatve and order.

Order makes no difference in the end. All we really care about is who has kicked whose ass. If you really want it random have both roll a die, and high roller wins. Classic "initiative".

Bob gets the "initiative" and wins the round. GM Narrates: "Bob comes in and before Rick can react, he just punches Rick's lights out."

Bob loses "initiative" and wins the round. GM Narrates: "Bob comes in ducking a high swing by Rick, and then proceeds to punch Rick's lights out."

Or just pick whichever you like. In the end it doesn't matter at all. The benefit of just letting the Narrator pick is that they can choose whatever they think is coolest.

The solution to initiative? Just don't do it.

Think of it this way. If you were rolling to see who won a game of chess, would you roll for "initiative"? It's actually crucially important to chess. But nobody would ever do it in play. Because it's not traitional to use Initiative for anything other than combat. And that's only true because the first RPGs came from "I go, you go" wargames. It's archaic, and outmoded, and can only possibly make any sense in a game where you've decided to make a special focus of combat (which is a valid option; it should just not be the assumption).

Even then, I think it adds little if anything as it's usually done. See TROS for how to do initiative in an interesting, realistic, and play enhancing way. In that game the most interesting note about "initiative" is made. That is, that who goes first is often just a choice. True, tactical initiative is gained not by going first but by gaining an upper hand and pressing that advantage. MJ's proposed system only starts to approach this correctly Speed adds to ability in combat in general, and as such may help gain and or maintain initiative; but again this says nothing about who will strike next so much as who has the choice. In TROS, the character with Initiative may choose, and correctly so in many cases, to allow the other character to attack first. Counterstriking is often more effective than just attacking.

Mike

[Jason Lee]

Ok, I have to say something in defense of Initiative.  I agree that when taken from the perspective of "realistic" combat going first is simply a matter of making the decision to do so.

However, for purposes of an rpg Initiative is a useful tool for keeping everybody from talking at once - its a perceived "fair" way to adjudicate whose voice is active.  I think it speeds up combat if you use static values instead of rolling.

In TROS, the character with Initiative may choose, and correctly so in many cases, to allow the other character to attack first. Counterstriking is often more effective than just attacking.

Not to quibble, but you do mean "counterstriking is often more effective in TROS"...not in actual conflicts? (which I would argue against).

[Valamir]

In TROS, the character with Initiative may choose, and correctly so in many cases, to allow the other character to attack first. Counterstriking is often more effective than just attacking.

Not to quibble, but you do mean "counterstriking is often more effective in TROS"...not in actual conflicts? (which I would argue against).

This isn't really the thread for this discussion.  But there are entire schools of defense dedicated to counterstriking.  The Germans even have specific words for that style of fighting.  So one cannot successfully argue against the idea that "counterstriking is often more effective" both in real life and in TRoS.