Thoughts on a roleplaying-combat philosophy.

[anonymouse]

((NOTE: bcook tossed in some gnarly Last Samurai spoilers in his post, so beware!))

Inspiration:
M.J. Young in this thread:

One thing is that players have to work with contingencies: I'm going to do A until B happens, unless C happens, in which case I'll switch to D. I'm going to Try E, F, G, and H, until something works. The referee then has to work within those contingencies, interpreting what the player will do based on what he's said if it doesn't fit exactly, or interrupting to ask for clarification if something happens that's off the expectations.

also, Last Samurai, which I saw today and was a most excellent movie.

Caveat: There are a lot of games I've never played, scores more I haven't even read. So as always, if something's already done this, please direct me to it!

Thoughts:
There's only so much you can do to affect the outcome of the battle. And yet, every game I've seen involves a blow-by-blow chance for things to happen. Sometimes the zoom is pulled back, and we get abstract that a bit further into larger units, but you've still got back-and-forth between those forces.

Why not have a build up of modifiers? Of strategic modifiers? You don't get a bonus for high strength; you'd get a bonus for using your strength in the White Tiger school of fighting to swing the sword at the orcs.

Combat is then reduced to either a single roll, or simply a comparison of modifiers, depending on the battle, the setting, the tone of the game, or whatever other factors seem most appropriate (comparing modifiers of which factors are strategically important, you might say).

Definitely not a route to go for every game - this isn't a stab at a Unifying Theory of Tabletop Combat - but I think it has some merit for consideration, especially in party-based games of the sword-and-sorcery variety.

Addendum: I'm not sure if this would even necessarily be more fun. Maybe the standard exchange model is standard because.. well.. it's just more enjoyable.

[Bill Cook]

I think a lot about scaling combat to a grand melee.

TROS has a supplement for mass combat called The Flower of Battle (DFW 1005) scheduled for release.  Also, BW has something in the works along these lines.  I remember downloading something from a link in one of Luke Crane's (abzu) posts.

I imagine the Hubris Story Engine would resolve a big melee with one roll of a die pool of attributes and descriptors.  I assume this is a trend among die pool based resolution systems that focus on narrative.

With The Last Samurai, in the first exchange of close combat, the flurry of blows became a backdrop.  Singular moments basically served to increase the dramatic intensity or further engross the primary characters.  (e.g.  The guy that trained Cruise got shot, the guy that guarded Cruise called out his name and ran up to take a bullet for him, Cruise got shot in the leg and fell down on one knee.)  I was interested to note that these events served to invest the audience.

In terms of strategic vs bland modifiers, your example suggests freer use of description.  The actual strategy of that exchange was to draw in their infantry, hold for two volleys, shower them with arrows, ignite a trench of tar, charge with infantry and finish them off with a second charge of cavalry.  In terms of scene framing, this sequence cretes a list of items for resolution more really than qualifying modifiers.  In the movie, they served to reveal (e.g. surprise tactics), invest (i.e. slaying of lovable secondaries) and relieve (i.e. the master swordsman leading the cavalry charge).

That was the meat of the melee.  How would an RPG do that?  I don't know.

[anonymouse]

I'm even thinking of this for small-scale stuff.

Player 1:
I'm going to use my sword (+1), fight on the nearby incline (+1), at some point leap over to the other side of him (+1), kick some sand in his face (+1), and use my Tiger School techniques for close-combat fighting (+3).

Player 2:
I'll fight in the ditch (-1) to lure the second orc in close, then use my Crane techniques, which are useful in this terrain, and gain an advantage (+2), and make use of my Fire Gem (+5).

And the orcs would do similar things. The idea is to describe the sorts of things you might try on each turn, just condense it all into the setup and just roll to see how it all turns out.

Hmm. Actually, doesn't BW do something like this with scripting?

[rafial]

Hmm. Actually, doesn't BW do something like this with scripting?

Not quite.  BW scripting is all about establishing the timing of actions.  It basically acts as a substitute for initiative in many respects.

The idea of cumulative modifiers and roll reminds me of Wushu.

[Callan S.]

It's funny, I was thinking about somthing like this recently, and was on the verge of posting.

What I was thinking about though was a sort of pre combat set up thing. Eg, the player has some set up sheet for their character. They write in what they use for melee attack, what for ranged, any style...in other words, lots of fiddly (and thus presumably fun) variables.

When combat comes, the GM just asks for the sheets, gets them to do one or two rolls perhaps and that's it. The math is done and you might even find the combat in the game world would have taken longer than it did in the real world. Wouldn't THAT be a turn around?

Anyway, the idea behind it is that during combat its hard to think strategically and make calculated plans. Its more about trained reflexes and sticking to a plan. So the idea is you plan before battle.

It does take out the fun of making descisions as the battle rages. But on the other hand you just make your chunky descisions before battle. And since the battles are so short in RL, you can just have more fights if you want.

[Jeph]

I'm even thinking of this for small-scale stuff.

Player 1:
I'm going to use my sword (+1), fight on the nearby incline (+1), at some point leap over to the other side of him (+1), kick some sand in his face (+1), and use my Tiger School techniques for close-combat fighting (+3).

Player 2:
I'll fight in the ditch (-1) to lure the second orc in close, then use my Crane techniques, which are useful in this terrain, and gain an advantage (+2), and make use of my Fire Gem (+5).

That looks a hell of a lot like Wushu...

[anonymouse]

I'll take a look at Wushu over the next few days (I suppose I could do worse with $5); like I said, it's entirely possible this has been done and everyone knows the game(s) it's in except me. ;)

[M. J. Young]

Michael, I think the advantage of the detailed combat is that it gives the players an ongoing opportunity to rethink their strategies--this isn't working, so I have to try something else. The further you pull back from that, the more hangs on each choice and each roll; the tighter in you focus, the less trouble comes from making one mistake.

As an example, let's say in Multiverser I'm using an evasive tumbling skill. The usual way to run one of these is that at the beginning of each round I roll my skill to see whether I am successful, and if I am my roll becomes a penalty against any attacker rolls for that round. However, if I botch, the attacker is going to get an automatic hit. Now, if I'm doing it round by round, then a botch on the first round is going to mean I get hit--but on the next round, I might be able to roll well enough that the opponent can't hit me, and on the next round I might roll well enough that he can't land a good blow even if he can scratch me. On the other hand, if I'm rolling the skill once for the entire combat, the botch roll becomes certain death--I attempted to roll out of the way, and instead left myself so defenseless I have little hope of surviving this fight.

Similarly, in a lot of fantasy games there are creatures that cannot be hurt by this or that sort of attack. Thus a lot of the combat against these creatures follows the pattern of trying various attack forms against them to find something that works.

Thus the problem I think most gamers would have with such a system really revolves around having an opportunity to assess how things are working and adjust tactics accordingly.

That's not to say that it's not workable otherwise. After all, in Risk no one asks whether the armies in Kamchatka are sufficiently supplied to successfully assault Alaska--you roll the dice, and see who loses armies. It's just a higher level of abstraction, and one which shifts a lot of the tactical decisions into options less familiar to the average gamer.

--M. J. Young

[xechnao]

There's only so much you can do to affect the outcome of the battle.

I disagree with this approach. Combat is not something exclusivelly character based and it's analysis is not regarded as when you are creating archetypes for your rpg.
Combat does not depend from you but from the environment, you and your adversary. It is the evolution of the mix of those. You should firstly create a mechanism of this and then try to apply it on the archetypes of each player.

[Ben Miller]

Sorry, what is BW (as referred to by anonymouse)?


Ben

[Mark Johnson]

BW = Luke Crane's Burning Wheel.   They have a forum here.  The Actual Play reports on this look incredible.

[Lance D. Allen]

I'm going to back up M.J. on this one, though your technique doesn't sound like it would be bad for specific types of games (such as Wushu, perhaps.. I've never looked at it either..)

An example of why rethinking strategies mid-exchange may sometimes be necessary can be made by the last battle of my last TRoS session..

The PC was attacked by a Walking Dead, and exchanged a few blows with it, managing to chop deeply into the upper portion of it's skull.. which he then realized meant nothing. It kept coming, and nailed him in the side. Immediatly, mid-fight he made the risky decision to turn and strike down the sorcerer who thought he was safe with his undead minion keeping the warrior busy. The  walking dead got him again, but he managed to kill the sorcerer, thereby averting another nasty spell, and likewise interrupting the magic which animated the walking dead (note: I'd decided that these two were not proper walking dead, but were instead animated corpses, whose animation died when the sorcerer did)

Had he finished up the exchange with the single walking dead before changing tactics, he would likely have died, as the sorcerer and the second walking dead would have had their own effects upon him.

Additionally, there is some satisfaction in a blow-by-blow combat, because you get to see your attempts have immediate and individual effect, as you finish off the first orc with a single blow, then the second and third with a few well placed strokes, are wounded by the fourth, then finish him off with a thrust. This is opposed to the all-in-one system of the Pool, Fastlane or what you describe, where you are able to narrate these things after the resolution if you wish, but in which you lose the immediacy.

In systems where combat is not a focus at all, your system would be very good, and could be used for any sort of conflict or contest. I like the way that some sort of tactics does enter the pre-declaration of the modifiers, and could see it used in a variety of situations, from social conflict to magical to stealth to climbing a wall.

[Callan S.]

Michael, I think the advantage of the detailed combat is that it gives the players an ongoing opportunity to rethink their strategies--this isn't working, so I have to try something else. The further you pull back from that, the more hangs on each choice and each roll; the tighter in you focus, the less trouble comes from making one mistake.

As an example, let's say in Multiverser I'm using an evasive tumbling skill. The usual way to run one of these is that at the beginning of each round I roll my skill to see whether I am successful, and if I am my roll becomes a penalty against any attacker rolls for that round. However, if I botch, the attacker is going to get an automatic hit. Now, if I'm doing it round by round, then a botch on the first round is going to mean I get hit--but on the next round, I might be able to roll well enough that the opponent can't hit me, and on the next round I might roll well enough that he can't land a good blow even if he can scratch me. On the other hand, if I'm rolling the skill once for the entire combat, the botch roll becomes certain death--I attempted to roll out of the way, and instead left myself so defenseless I have little hope of surviving this fight.

Similarly, in a lot of fantasy games there are creatures that cannot be hurt by this or that sort of attack. Thus a lot of the combat against these creatures follows the pattern of trying various attack forms against them to find something that works.

Yes, but mostly that's inserted because you can try something new each round in those games, its content (creature invulnerabilities) that fits the system. If your have a combat system where everything wrapped up in one roll or what have you, you don't have this quite so blatantly. Eg, obviously in such a system it wont always be to the death, the results can range from victory, to retreat and then to death. So you have these resistant ones not so powerful that they not only defeat attack, but also cause death. You balance them so they cause people to retreat if they don't attack right (with lost resources). Then they can come back again latter and try something else.

It's either that or in the thick of battle the fighter thinks 'well, although all around me is chaos and I should be concentrating on hitting things a lot, I did note the reducement of damage I did on a strike. Now, I'll just think of an appropriate choice from my golf bag of weapons and...'. An extreme example, but it gets that way. Really, I'd prefer the concept that thinking is something you do outside of combat and that's why soldiers go through so much training, so their all reflexes when the stuff goes down.

Thus the problem I think most gamers would have with such a system really revolves around having an opportunity to assess how things are working and adjust tactics accordingly.

Essentially a 'retreat and rethink then return' is the same as 'one this round I do this, on the next round I'll do somthing more effective'. It'll just have a gap in the middle where roleplay happens ('what the hell do we do, gandalf!')...which is okay, because the quick combat didn't take long. While in the turn by turn, it uses up time and there generally isn't any considerable roleplay between each turn.

[Ian Cooper]

I'm going to use my sword (+1), fight on the nearby incline (+1), at some point leap over to the other side of him (+1), kick some sand in his face (+1), and use my Tiger School techniques for close-combat fighting (+3).

Heroquest works along these lines. The modifiers are called augments and you can draw them from any other abilities of magic. An augment can be automatic (bonus = 1/10) or rolled (may be bonus or -).

So when I am using my Sword & Shield Fighting 17 I might request augments for my Strong 17 (+2), Tiger School Techniques 13 (+2), Sword +3, Shield +1, Chain Byrnie +3 etc. In addition situational modifiers may come into play +10 for upslope, -10 for the deck of a pitching ship etc.

A simple contest lets us resolves the conflict in one-roll (HQ also has extended contests in which the conflict is resolved in a series of rolls as advantage swings one-way then the other).

[Ian Cooper]

I think a lot about scaling combat to a grand melee.

This might be a slight tangent to the intent of this thread.

In terms of mass combat my two favourite approaches are Pendragon and Bushido. Both have the story of the battle occur at a high-level (the camera pans back to take in the whole field of action) but focus on the individual challenges faced by our heroes Pendragon has the commander make a battle roll up front and his success/failure determines the kind of struggle the knights face, Bushido allows the hero (IIRC, so long since I played it) to bid a level of bravery in the battle which determines the significance of their part in it, the kind of encounters they face and the chance for recognition.