Topic: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Started by: Noon
Started on: 11/21/2004
Board: RPG Theory
On 11/21/2004 at 6:10am, Noon wrote:
Speed tip for highly detailed combat
The forge gets a few posts on complex combat rules. Although it's not really my thing, it made me wonder about the factor involved with them which makes them not my thing.
I was wondering if you could design it so you could roll the results of wounds and such before play. Much like a DM stocking his dungeon in advance of play, you roll up the wound and all it's micro effects.
You do several of these and number them. When the time comes, you roll percentile to see which one of them is to be used.
This could also be used for the firing of guns, in a similar way.
Now, while there would have to be some compromises, you don't have to compromise for speed purposes now. That means you can get pretty damn detailed!
Just noting the idea and seeing what people think.
On 11/21/2004 at 6:47am, Eero Tuovinen wrote:
Re: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Isn't the point of a detailed combat system generally to build chains of consequence as a part of an exploration effort? Having a detailed wound system is not itself that cool, but when you get that wound because of this type of axe and that type of armor interacting in a rain shower, then the wound itself partakes in the greater simulationist project. It's there because of these other facts, and dice were used in it's production to gloss over additional complexity, not because we the players think it unimportant what kind of wound you get. The wound becomes part of the SIS by the virtue of the system that produces it from facts already in the SIS.
That is, I'd imagine this is how one would think it if he had the common gamer misconceptions about axes, armor and rain showers. Personally I find these the completely wrong factors to follow even in a historical sim effort. But whatever the factors used, the point stands.
Anyway, by this notion, to get the same effect by prestocking, you'd have to prestock per fighter, weapon, opponent and all other factors the wounds are meant to mirror. In a simpler game like D&D this would be possible, but pointless. In a more complex game it'd be impossible. In any case, I doubt if there were any speed benefit.
... however, I see merit in your suggestion. It's an interesting thought, and I could well imagine using it in a game that's meant to work that way. It wouldn't be a game about complex combat, thought.
On 11/21/2004 at 5:10pm, Vaxalon wrote:
RE: Re: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Eero Tuovinen wrote: Isn't the point of a detailed combat system generally to build chains of consequence as a part of an exploration effort?.
That's the party line, anyways.
On 11/21/2004 at 8:00pm, jdagna wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
For my tastes, I would consider any pre-game prep to be slower than work done during the game. In the pre-game phase, I only want to think about NPCs, relationships, plots and scenery stuff (and I designed my own game to let me approximate all necessary stats on the fly so I don't even need stats for NPCs).
I think the keys to a fast system lie in:
1) allowing people to interpret their own results. Think about the handling time involved in:
"I rolled a 19."
"OK, you hit. Roll Damage."
"I got a 4."
What if you could just say:
"I succeeded. and rolled 4 for damage."
This takes about a third of the time of the initial example, with a tiny change to the system (in fact, many D&D groups have already worked in similar techniques without any changes to the system).
(Note: interpreting your own results doesn't require giving narrative rights to players, although it could include that. You can do it in any system where they know their modifiers and TNs... roll under percentile systems have been doing it for a while.)
2) Simple dice mechanics and single-roll resolutions. Dice pools and dice gimmicks hugely slow down combat. Donjon, for example... I can spend as long tallying up successes for one roll in that system as I spend in an entire round in Pax Draconis. Likewise, many systems (Palladium, for example) have a roll to hit, a roll to dogde and a roll for damage (and against missiles, Palladium adds two more rolls - a chance to shoot the missiles (which, if it hits, requires a roll for damage, and a roll to see if nearby missiles explode) and a roll to reduce the damage they do). Literally, you could make 7 rolls for a single attack and defense. Not only is a lot of this unnecessary mechanically, it's unnecessary statistically... rolling a d20 to resist a d20 roll is the same as rolling 2d20 to start with.
And... with that in mind, a whole D&D battle that may take hours to whittle hit points down could be statistically condensed into something much simpler... for example, just by assuming that each roll represents two attacks and doubling the amount of damage done.
3) Representative samples for results. When Gallup Polls wants to know who Americans are going to vote for, they don't ask 200 million people. Typically they ask 500-900 people who are representative of different groups, then they extrapolate the results (often with tiny 3-5% margins of error). You can do the same thing in RPGs, especially for complex damage results or lengthy spell or equipment lists. For example, instead of having pages of damage tables for every conceivable result, take 10% of those results as a represenative sample. You no longer have quite as much detail, but a well-chosen sample gives pretty close results for game mechanics just like it does for Gallup - in my mind, you're sacrificing 90% of the complexity and giving up only 5% of the detail to do it.
On 11/22/2004 at 6:45am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Thanks Justin, but methods to speed up in play rolls aren't really part of this topic. It's related, but for this post it I'm not focusing on it.
Eero Tuovinen: I thought this sort of percieved problem would come up.
Think of it with guns (always a favorite): You pre roll with system where you determine what a high powered weapon would do. This is weapon A.
Now, if weapon B was actually used (a weaker one), in play remove results that don't apply to B. If weapon C was used, remove A and B results.
Having a detailed wound system is not itself that cool, but when you get that wound because of this type of axe and that type of armor interacting in a rain shower
For this you have pre rolls that determine slashing damage like that gun example. This type of axe removes certain results you pre rolled rolled. The particular armour type can remove results as well. Other results you generat can have 'if' statements, eg; if confusing circumstances are happening then this effect applies (and one listed confusing thing is a rain storm). Same for the armour; the axe can produce 'if' statements that say if its type of armour X, this effect then happens.
How's it sound now? Roll more than you need, either taking away stuff because the weapon isn't that strong or the requirements of the 'if' statement aren't met.
On 11/22/2004 at 8:55pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Callan, I can see it working in a very limited context.
The first limit is that you have to do it for the specific weapons that are going to be used in play. Thus if you have four characters, you would run primary weapons for each of them--this guy uses his sword and his long bow, that guy his dagger and sling, the other guy his axe and crossbow, whatever. You would have to generate character-specific results. Similarly, you could use them for a horde of orcs, but all the orcs would have to have the same chance to hit and the same weapons doing the same damage.
The second limit is that you could only use this for standard attacks. If the game allows tactical uses of weapons (e.g., martial arts, special weapon maneuvers) they have to be handled individually. The degree to which the players rely on these is the degree to which pre-rolled results become impractical.
The third limit is that there can be no connection between chance to hit and damage. For example, in Multiverser part of the tactical options in combat include that by increasing your chance to hit you also increase your potential damage, and that by decreasing your opponent's chance to hit you decrease your potential risk.
Also, again citing Multiverser, you hit trouble if the game penalizes damages based on skills or attributes of the target, even apart from chance to hit.
The problem with pre-generated attack results is ultimately that it assumes the system has an inherent simplicity up front, and in that case you have less need of it. Yes, if you have a simple pattern of roll to hit, roll damage, roll hit location, roll chance to stun, you could do that all in advance, check whether the next attack on the list will succeed and if so run the numbers. To the degree that the game has complexities at any of these steps, even as player options, the method starts to fall apart.
Finally, I would suggest that such pre-generated rolls would only really be helpful if you programmed a computer to generate and print them, so you could have such long lists made quickly. Considering the number of rolls you would make in pregenerating the results that you would not have to make in play (because if the hit roll fails the others don't matter) you're investing much more time before the game to save much less in the game, and that's rarely a good choice for most of us.
--M. J. Young
On 11/22/2004 at 9:34pm, John Kim wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
The whole "pre-generated" rolls and damage sounds a lot like RoleMaster to me. RoleMaster has gotten a bad rap in some circles, but the principle was to fold in a lot of complexity into at most two rolls, or often only one. As long as you had copies of the correct tables in front of you, hit resolution went pretty smoothly.
These days, this could be improved by having a computer utility which printed out a different chart for a given individual. The problem is that if conditions change (i.e. someone picks up a non-standard weapon or otherwise acts unusual), then you have to recalculate. This sort of thing could alternately be done by having a specialized deck of cards for wound results.
Actually, I found that just having dice pre-rolled was a great help in my Conan D20 event. Given a bunch of monsters with multiple attacks, I found that my end was helped a lot by having a printout and just crossing off numbers instead of rolling the die.
On 11/23/2004 at 3:30am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
M. J. Young wrote: Callan, I can see it working in a very limited context.Not really. You can have slashing and piercing results for example. Before you think that simplifies it, basically the result(s) from slashing can have 'if' statements like; Result X: If this comes from a great axe, this result applies.
The first limit is that you have to do it for the specific weapons that are going to be used in play. Thus if you have four characters, you would run primary weapons for each of them--this guy uses his sword and his long bow, that guy his dagger and sling, the other guy his axe and crossbow, whatever. You would have to generate character-specific results. Similarly, you could use them for a horde of orcs, but all the orcs would have to have the same chance to hit and the same weapons doing the same damage.
That way you can just have basic damage effects, but their results can customise to the weapon involved quite easily.
Also, I'm wary of the 'horde of orcs' thing. To get on the same page here, don't most of these people just have one on one fights? The reason you have hordes of orcs in D&D for example, is because it's not that interesting to just fight one. I thought all these complex combat things were about quality not through quantity (of bad guys). Am I reading them wrong?
It depends on how you want to handle your special manouver. If it's basically a specially modified to hit roll, then this doesn't need to be pre rolled since it's pretty basic. The complex wounding stuff is where the time cuts in. The only prob I see is in hit locations...if the players can choose their location, you need to somehow accomidate that in your pre rolling (damage for every location). Either that or don't let them choose.
The second limit is that you could only use this for standard attacks. If the game allows tactical uses of weapons (e.g., martial arts, special weapon maneuvers) they have to be handled individually. The degree to which the players rely on these is the degree to which pre-rolled results become impractical.
If your too hit rolls are complex as well, they can still be pre rolled. Whatever results you generate can have special target numbers listed. If the PC's skill equals the number, the result occurs. Otherwise it doesn't.
No, not really. Just as I said you would roll for a powerful strike and then only apply the strength effects the weapon warrants, you could just as easily only apply the effects the weapon plus the skill it was wielded with.
The third limit is that there can be no connection between chance to hit and damage. For example, in Multiverser part of the tactical options in combat include that by increasing your chance to hit you also increase your potential damage, and that by decreasing your opponent's chance to hit you decrease your potential risk.
The only prob is that sometimes someone might beat the best pre rolled result you've done. But then again, if the bad guys head has already been chopped off...what would all that extra skill do anyway (no, no carving a Z on the flying head!)
Basically you just need to think of modular results. Imagine I pre roll a cut artery and a cut muscle. But the strength of weapon X only qualifies for the cut muscle. Two modular results and I throw out one.
Also, again citing Multiverser, you hit trouble if the game penalizes damages based on skills or attributes of the target, even apart from chance to hit.
The problem with pre-generated attack results is ultimately that it assumes the system has an inherent simplicity up front, and in that case you have less need of it. Yes, if you have a simple pattern of roll to hit, roll damage, roll hit location, roll chance to stun, you could do that all in advance, check whether the next attack on the list will succeed and if so run the numbers. To the degree that the game has complexities at any of these steps, even as player options, the method starts to fall apart.
Finally, I would suggest that such pre-generated rolls would only really be helpful if you programmed a computer to generate and print them, so you could have such long lists made quickly. Considering the number of rolls you would make in pregenerating the results that you would not have to make in play (because if the hit roll fails the others don't matter) you're investing much more time before the game to save much less in the game, and that's rarely a good choice for most of us.
--M. J. Young
Mmmm, it's a matter of work Vs time. It could be more work before play, but during play ten minutes of silent table consultation is more deadly than 20 mins of work before the game.
Also, you might not get what I mean. In how I roughly envision it, you use pre rolled results for attacks that hit. You don't throw away results because of a miss...that result gets used once someone hits.
On 11/23/2004 at 11:02pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Noon wrote: Also, you might not get what I mean. In how I roughly envision it, you use pre rolled results for attacks that hit. You don't throw away results because of a miss...that result gets used once someone hits.
Yes, that would work in many games. It would not work in Star Frontiers, Multiverser, and a few other games, because the hit roll is the damage roll. You couldn't have the situation of determining whether it hits and then consulting a separate roll for damage, because the damage depends on the first roll.
I can see games it would help, but I don't play any of them even though I do play games in which there are some complex combat options.
--M. J. Young
On 11/24/2004 at 12:04am, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding exactly what you're looking for, but what makes your suggestion different than a pre-built table, aside from who is putting in the time to build the table?
It sounds to me like you're saying "I don't like complex combat, with a bunch of rolling and consultation along the way. I would like it if it was a table of pregenerated results."
....which isn't complex combat anymore. It might be a complex algorithm that feeds into making the table, but the actual combat is just a table lookup.
James
On 11/24/2004 at 9:36pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Hi M J,
But as I said, if you figure the damage for a strength 10 attack (for a rough example), and then the attack done is strength 4 plus 3 because of the skill, then it's strength 7...you just remove the effects from 10, 9 and 8 strength.
If I'm imagining your system right. I'm imagining something like a 'for every point you get over what you need to hit, you add a point to damage to represent exceptional accuracy'
Hi James,
Why isn't it complex combat if its 'just' a table look up? I don't really see the difference between a lot of complex wound generation (for example) before game (and recorded in a table for latter use) and the same thing generated during the game with the same rules.
The complexity of the situation is still accounted for with the 'if' statements and modular effects, those which don't apply aren't used. But instead of looking through the book during play and reading 'if its a battle axe being used, figure out these set of effects' it is instead 'before play, figure out this set of effects. If a battle axe is used, then this applies.'
On 11/24/2004 at 11:32pm, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Noon wrote: Why isn't it complex combat if its 'just' a table look up? I don't really see the difference between a lot of complex wound generation (for example) before game (and recorded in a table for latter use) and the same thing generated during the game with the same rules.
Well, because a table lookup isn't complex, to be a bit blunt about it. I think we might be getting hung up on the definition of "complex combat", tho. I am taking that to mean "there is a lot of work involved in figuring out the results of combat" - is that what you mean as well?
If there is complexity in generating the result of a combat system, one of two things is happening:
a)the complexity is due to poor design, or
b)the complexity is in and of itself desired.
Your suggestion of doing all the work ahead of play is, basically, dumping the burden of a) on the player. "All of these complicated rolls and stuff could have been chopped out, along with 40 pages of rules, and a well-built table used instead." is not good design, unless the complicated is desired. I guess you're saying "why do it in play, if you can do it beforehand?" and I'm responding with "If you can do it beforehand, why didn't the guy who wrote the rules do it beforehand?" and then answering myself (bad habit, I know) "Because the guy who wrote it might have meant the complexity to be part of play."
I'll pull up a couple of examples, one RPG, one not.
Riddle of Steel has very simple combat rules that interact in a very complex fashion. It's very clearly an example of b) -Jake has been pretty clear about wanting the combat system to simulate his understanding of real fighting, as experienced with ARMA. That requires active choosing *during combat*, which means you can't short-circuit it by doing the number crunching ahead of time without breaking the intent of the rules.
Attack Vector: Tactical has really obscene* amounts of complicated result generation during combat, that is - as much as is humanly possible - turned into chart lookups, tables and graphs. It's definately a case of "we do not want to be a)" - there is complexity we want, but there is no need to dump it on our players.
thanks,
James
*no, really. Ask Ken about the spreadsheets someday.
On 11/26/2004 at 1:35am, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Noon wrote: Hi M J,
But as I said, if you figure the damage for a strength 10 attack (for a rough example), and then the attack done is strength 4 plus 3 because of the skill, then it's strength 7...you just remove the effects from 10, 9 and 8 strength.
If I'm imagining your system right. I'm imagining something like a 'for every point you get over what you need to hit, you add a point to damage to represent exceptional accuracy'
Ah, no. Multiverser's system is designed to be simple as long as the players keep things simple, but to become more complex as the players want to do more and/or improve their character abilities.
I thought about not explaining it, but decided it's probably relevant to the discussion, so here goes.
The first part of the problem is calculating the character's chance to hit. This is the sum of several character scores, sometimes adding values from targeting skills (e.g., scopes, magic bonuses), modified by the world bias (which means the player doesn't necessarily know his own total, because the world bias is something he's probably trying to figure out), then subtracting opponent defenses (always includes the target value, can include armor and skills). This gives the number against which you're going to roll. It's a roll-under percentile system with no automatic success or failure on the roll (although the chance of success can be greater than 100% or less than 0%). Compare the roll to the chance of success, and find out whether it's successful.
In the simplest attacks, the damage is drawn straight from the roll by virtue of the damage category of the weapon. The damage categories are:
• Annoying ((Roll/50)-1)• Damaging (Roll/20)• Dangerous (Roll/10)• Lethal (Roll/5)• Fatal (Roll/2)• Annihilating (Roll)• Obliterative (Any hit destroys target)
The majority of weapons are from damaging to lethal, and ordinary people usually take 15 points of damage. Rolls round up to the nearest whole point of damage.
So if the player rolls 45 with a damaging weapon and it was a hit, he did 3 points of damage, all things being equal.
However, two of the scores that are summed to get the target number have other functions. If either of them are level 2, he gets a "damage category bonus", treating his damaging weapon as a dangerous weapon, so that the roll of 45 is now 5 points; if both are level 2, he gets two damage category bonuses, making it a lethal weapon, and a 45 is worth 9 points. He could have damage category bonuses for other reasons, such as quality weapons or martial arts skill. At the same time, his opponent could impose damage category penalties, pushing it down into a lower damage category, such as special defenses. Obviously, bonuses and penalties cancel each other. Once all bonuses and penalties are counted, the damage category is allowed to move up as many as two or down as many as three, with any additional categories being converted to damage points. Damage points can also be gained in several other ways, including level three in those two scores previously noted, martial arts skills, and other bonuses.
Damage points are added to the roll after it has been determined whether or not the roll hit, for the purpose of transposing to the amount of damage done. Thus if the character has +10 damage points, that roll of 45 is treated as 55 before calculating the damage. With the damaging weapon, that doesn't make a difference in this example, because 45 and 55 both round up to 3 points. The dangerous attack goes from five to six points, and the lethal one from nine to eleven points. There can be damage point penalties as well, reducing the effective damage. It is possible to do more than the ordinary maximum damage for the weapon, and it is clearly possible to hit the target and do no damage at all.
After all this, if the target has a second or third level damage value (rare, but not impossible), he divides the total damage by his level, and discards fractions.
Attack forms may have damage riders. That means that there is a second determination of damage. These fall into three types.
• Intrinsic damage riders essentially mean that it's normal for this one kind of attack to do damage calculated on two scales and summed, such as attacking with a piece of construction equipment which does annilhilating plus lethal damage. The one success roll determines the success of both damage calculations.• Secondary damage riders occur when an attack form does two kinds of damage on the same attack form, such as a grenade which does both concussive/impact damage and incendiary damage. Different defenses may apply against the second attack form, but the same roll is used.• Dependent damage riders involve damage caused by a second skill riding on the first, such as a magic sword which does ordinary kinetic damage by hitting the target plus magical bonus damage. In such cases, the second skill is rolled to see if it is successful, and damage calculated based on that roll, but only if the first roll was successful.
Damage category bonuses and penalties and damage points may also affect damage riders, and may do so in different values than those of the primary attack.
If the attack does more than ten points of damage after all this is determined, it might result in a crippling injury. This is rare, as doing more than ten intensities on one attack yet not killing the ordinary target seldom occurs. In the event of a potentially crippling injury, a hit location is rolled, and the actual damage done becomes a percentage chance that the injury is crippling against which a roll is made. That creates a temporarily crippling injury. If in the judgment of the referee a temporarily crippling injury at that location could become a permanent disability, the target must roll against its own stamina to avoid permanent disability.
There are apart from this extensive rules for martial arts in which special attacks may do special damage.
In short, when combat becomes complex in Multiverser, it is possible for every attack to be unique as the various skills of the attacker and the defender interact. A chart system to cover all the possiblities would be almost as long as our entire five hundred page rule book, while the description of how to do it actually only takes forty pages with all combat-significant variables and examples.
A complex system doesn't lend itself to pre-generated results because the real complexity lies in the choices made at the table, not the number of rolls it takes to work out each combat move.
--M. J. Young
On 11/28/2004 at 10:29am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
A complex system doesn't lend itself to pre-generated results because the real complexity lies in the choices made at the table, not the number of rolls it takes to work out each combat move.
First I must establish that I'm not suggesting current complex systems can be converted to this. Just that some of the main concepts can carry over, like choice.
So, in terms of how your design allowed player choice to interact with the system, I don't think that's the only way to do it. As I see it, the idea of a complex design is to give lots of feedback from prior choice, and thus prompt more choice. Pre generated result scraping with 'if' statements is able to do that.
Also there seems to be a lot of intimate statistical interaction there that hasn't anything to do with player choice (barring PC generation). That style of interaction wouldn't be suitable for pre gen, but I think I already said it's not the only way to get to the same goal of giving lots of feedback from choice to prompt more choice.
I think I've managed a second thread where I need to give an actual design to show what I mean, when I wanted to just give a suggestion and discuss it.
On 11/28/2004 at 10:50am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Riddle of Steel has very simple combat rules that interact in a very complex fashion. It's very clearly an example of b) -Jake has been pretty clear about wanting the combat system to simulate his understanding of real fighting, as experienced with ARMA. That requires active choosing *during combat*, which means you can't short-circuit it by doing the number crunching ahead of time without breaking the intent of the rules.
I flatly disagree with not being able to do number crunching ahead of time. You do understand that these 'if' statements I keep going on about are controlled by player choice? That you can generate material ahead of time, if you design it so that pre generated material can be influenced by player choice. Things like 'if the PC is swinging an axe, this result happens' and 'if the PC is doing an upper cut, this result is applied'.
And were not just talking some fixed result. It'll be a unique result, generated so it's always different. When I mentioned tables, the GM isn't working from them...he's using the books to make a list of results to work from...basically making a table himself, then working from it.
This is almost the same as having an D&D NPC's stats generated before play. IF the player fireballs the NPC then use its precalculated reflex score to do a save.
It doesn't matter if you never use the pregenerated reflex score/don't use the whole NPC because of player choices. Here, the entire pregenerated result (or NPC) doesn't need to be used, only the parts that apply because of player choices. The simplicity of calculating something like reflex doesn't make any difference to the idea of generating complex results ahead of time.
"why do it in play, if you can do it beforehand?" and I'm responding with "If you can do it beforehand, why didn't the guy who wrote the rules do it beforehand?"
If your generating something randomly, your going to end up with something different each time from the same rules (the rules for wound X or whatever). That's the only reason why it can't be done by the designer before hand.
On 11/28/2004 at 5:05pm, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Noon wrote:Riddle of Steel has very simple combat rules that interact in a very complex fashion. It's very clearly an example of b) -Jake has been pretty clear about wanting the combat system to simulate his understanding of real fighting, as experienced with ARMA. That requires active choosing *during combat*, which means you can't short-circuit it by doing the number crunching ahead of time without breaking the intent of the rules.
I flatly disagree with not being able to do number crunching ahead of time. You do understand that these 'if' statements I keep going on about are controlled by player choice? That you can generate material ahead of time, if you design it so that pre generated material can be influenced by player choice. Things like 'if the PC is swinging an axe, this result happens' and 'if the PC is doing an upper cut, this result is applied'.
Callan, have you played Riddle of Steel? The end result of a single combat pass (a level 2 cut to the left knee, to pull an example from last night) is a cascading end result of several independent choices from different people and independent fortune mechanics. Trying to build all the possible results, or even a useful subset of them, ahead of play would be not only incredibly difficult, it would be time and effort far and away beyond the benefit. I'm talking spending hours to save seconds, and I'm honestly not sure it could be done.
I do understand what you are saying about choice affecting the table result, but that doesn't make it any less a table lookup. All you are doing is compressing multiple tables - instead of having a table for axe results and a table for uppercut results, you put both into one table. That's just efficient design.
And were not just talking some fixed result. It'll be a unique result, generated so it's always different. When I mentioned tables, the GM isn't working from them...he's using the books to make a list of results to work from...basically making a table himself, then working from it.
Ok. Still a table lookup; you're just making new tables all the time. I'm not sure where I see the extra value in rebuilding a table that will, pretty much inevitably, have many results in common with it's predecessor.
"why do it in play, if you can do it beforehand?" and I'm responding with "If you can do it beforehand, why didn't the guy who wrote the rules do it beforehand?"
If your generating something randomly, your going to end up with something different each time from the same rules (the rules for wound X or whatever). That's the only reason why it can't be done by the designer before hand.
Ok. I think I agree that we're at the point where I would need to see an example of what you're talking about, or we'll just keep talking past each other. I'm having a hard time seeing what you're talking about as anything but building a table that (if a table is desired) should already be there in a well-designed game.
On 11/29/2004 at 10:57pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Yeah, played TROS a bit. It's on the cusp of complex results, but not exactly like some of the complex designs I see suggested here (cred to Jake for not going over the line design wise, IMO).
Mostly they seem to consist of many interacting numbers. The whole idea seems to be that the more numbers you have interacting, the more representative that result is of some quality (it's usually said to be realism).
This leads to stuff like 'now take the number you just generated, round it down and apply it to the bone marrow rating of the target. If it's between half and 3/4 of that rating, then add on point to the continual overextension check. If it's higher, then...'.
Before they actually get to anything that will be noticable to the group, it goes through a number of complex calculations. The ironic thing, is that the people who design these have (IMO) to many calculations already, but instead of going the whole hog and really doing all the math they want, they cut back for time reasons. IMO, it's unwieldy (it still takes too much time) and still doesn't forfil the designers dream.
Now, what if you could do this stuff in advance? Hell, if someones designed something with this much math, it clearly isn't a burden on them to do the math...whether thats during or before play. So that's not a prob.
Why can't you do it in advance? Well, because player input must be taken into account. Well, player input and PC stats, usually (lets face it, there is a difference between the two).
Or perhaps you can take player input into account. It depends on how you look at how most of these complex designs work. Where does the player input/PC input come into effect?
For example, if you get hit by a really strong sword strike and roll it during play...how much are you going to change that sword strike into a mere nick? Your not. Your stats might lessen it a bit or more (and if your handling that fairly simply like TROS does, its something you can still do at the table), but its still a womper of a sword blow.
Why slowly go through determining the womper of a sword blow during play, when you know it's wompum damage will suffer very little influence from the player? Why can't you figure out the majority of the effects in advance and some of these have 'if' statements. Eg, if you have 5 dex, you loose one less finger from the blow (from a reflexive draw away). (the number of fingers you did loose was determined in advance, since we'll assume something more complex than 1D6-1 was used)
Likewise, even if your to hit rolls are complex as well (more complex than TROS), a similar method can be used with them too.
Now, perhaps I'm not estimating the design goals of these designers correctly and this is way off. But despite dozens of numbers being drawn together in these designs, it doesn't mean all those numbers will effect things dramatically (ie, they often average out...you don't often shrug off a shotgun blast at short range). Or that because your drawing from all these numbers during play, your not ending up with a results which, at their core, have a predictable range.
I'm basically looking at exploiting the basic math of most of these complex system, so as to be able to do most of the work ahead of time with little resolution loss (perhaps even an increase, as you can add to the complexity).
I needed to establish this idea before I can give a rough example, otherwise the example probably wont be seen in the light it needs (since it'll be rough...I'm not even into complex systems, remember!)
On 11/30/2004 at 7:12am, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
I noticed something along these lines in playtesting BW. This is how you process a sword Strike:
• Roll skill in six-sided dice. Count results of four and higher as a success.
Sword (5) rolls for four successes.
• If the target has scripted a Block, roll skill in six-sided dice; successes count against the Strike.
The blocker rolls Sword (4), plus one shield die from his parrying blade; one success, only!
• For a margin equal to or greater than the obstacle, roll protection dice that armor offer; add the sword's VA to DN; one or more success defeats the Strike, regardless of margin.
The target has a chain shirt, whose three dice grant success on results of four or higher. The sword's VA is one, requiring rolls of five or higher. No successes are rolled!
• For a margin equal to or greater than the obstacle, subtract it and divide by the sword's Add to scale the wound by IMS category.
A margin of three minus an obstacle of one divided by an Add of two equals one. One category above Incidental indicates a Mark result.
• Reference the sword IMS on the character sheet for the pre-formulated pip count.
"Sword (4), I 3 M 7 S 11" is written on the sheet. A Mark result is worth seven pips.
• Reference the target's PTGS to rate the wound category by IMS. Apply its wound penalty.
"Su: 2, Li: 4, Mi: 6, Se: 8, Tr: 9, Mo: 10" is written on the sheet. Seven pips is a little better than a Midi wound. The wound penalties are easy enough to memorize. (Su: +1DN, Li: +2DN, Mi: -1D, Se: -2D, Tr: -4D, Mo: Slay) Tally a -1D wound penalty on the target's sheet.
Well, I thought, all that matters is the wound penalty. I made one mechanical change and two procedural ones: (1) fix PTGS to two-pip steps, (2.1) group the margin in dice according to a particular arrangement and (2.2) pre-formulate wound penalties instead of IMS.
• 4. Order successes in a column up to the obstacle. Treating the column as one success, complete an island up to the Add. Group the remaining successes, likewise. The island count rates the wound category.
Stack the first success as a column of one. Complete the island with the next success. Separate the third success as a second island. Two indicate a Mark result.
• 5. Reference the sword IMS on the character sheet for the pre-formulated wound penalty.
"Sword (4); -1DN, -1D, -4D" is written on the sheet. A Mark result reduces pools by one die.
The main drawback is loss of mortality-expressed unit variety. This could be re-captured by fixing three PTGS scales: man-sized, horse-sized and troll-sized. The main gain is getting to what matters more quickly.
On 11/30/2004 at 3:50pm, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Noon wrote: Mostly they seem to consist of many interacting numbers. The whole idea seems to be that the more numbers you have interacting, the more representative that result is of some quality (it's usually said to be realism).
[...]
Before they actually get to anything that will be noticable to the group, it goes through a number of complex calculations. The ironic thing, is that the people who design these have (IMO) to many calculations already, but instead of going the whole hog and really doing all the math they want, they cut back for time reasons. IMO, it's unwieldy (it still takes too much time) and still doesn't forfil the designers dream.
[...]
I'm basically looking at exploiting the basic math of most of these complex system, so as to be able to do most of the work ahead of time with little resolution loss (perhaps even an increase, as you can add to the complexity).
Ok, I see what you're getting at now, and to me, it sounds like you're discussing what I would consider my catagory A games: bad design. Or I'll admit to the same possibility you do, that I am misunderstanding the intent, and the complexity is desired (my catagory B).
My basic point is that, if this is work that can be done before you sit at the table, it's conceivably work that the game designer could have done. If they could have but didn't, it's either poor design, or they want the complexity they left in to be stepped through.
Without having a specific game or designer to actually query, I can't say which is which, but I would be inclined to put most of these games into catagory A, and blame kitchen-sinking. (ie. the tendency to try and cover every eventuality with your rules instead of just having the rules cover what you want to be important to the game.)
James
On 11/30/2004 at 11:06pm, M. J. Young wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
James Blankshield wrote: My basic point is that, if this is work that can be done before you sit at the table, it's conceivably work that the game designer could have done. If they could have but didn't, it's either poor design, or they want the complexity they left in to be stepped through.
Without having a specific game or designer to actually query, I can't say which is which, but I would be inclined to put most of these games into catagory A, and blame kitchen-sinking. (ie. the tendency to try and cover every eventuality with your rules instead of just having the rules cover what you want to be important to the game.)
O.K., let's say that I'm here. I'm the designer of a game which apparently qualifies in some ways as a complex game. Let me address these concerns first.
I'll admit that there were some things that could have been simplified in our earliest publications. We had gotten as far as suggesting to the referee in the game shortcuts appendix that he could do such simplifications in his own world and character designs, and we did them in our world books, but the rules themselves failed to include these bits, because at the point at which we were writing those we had not yet realized these. I'll get back to that.
You might reasonably accuse us of kitchen sinking. It was one of the design objectives that anything that any character could do in any game in any setting, even if not yet published, would be covered by the Multiverser rules system. In part this is because we foresaw Multiverser player characters becoming player characters in other games as a normal part of play, and that meant there had to be rules to control how equipment and skills which were not part of that other game would be handled if the character brought them with him, as well as rules to control how equipment and skills drawn from that other game would be integrated back into Multiverser play once the character left that world. Thus I make no apology for trying to cover everything. The game was intended to be about everything, and what was important to the game was making anything possible that was imaginable.
So let's look at a combat. I'm going to make it complicated. Let me note that combat can be really simple--two ordinary guys of equal ability going at each other with clubs or swords or something can come down to one rolls, then the other. The complexity of combat arises because characters elect to use skills and equipment that create complexity.
Our attacker is going to fire a kinetic blaster at point blank range.
To determine his chance to hit, we start with three scores that are innate to the character: his best relevant attribute (BRA) for technological skills, reflecting how well he understands technology; his skill ability level (SAL) for using the kinetic blaster, which tells us how good he is with this particular weapon; and his Ranged Strike Value (RSV), a score which is the average of his intuition and his hand/eye attributes reflecting his innate ability to aim at a target. The minimum total of these three scores (assuming the character is using a weapon he knows, and thus has an SAL) is 33. 45 is typical of complete amateurs, and reasonably skilled people are at 60. It is not inhuman for experts to reach 100, but it's extremely unlikely. 120 is the highest possible total for any being, including gods.
The next variable will be bias. Bias is critically important in play, because it is the score that makes things easier or more difficult according to the world in which they are used. This character might be able to use this blaster in a swords and sorcery world, but it won't be as reliable or as effective as it would be in a space opera world, and that's injected by bias. What makes it tricky is that both the world and the character have bias, but the lower of the two scores is the one that is used. Thus a space marine in a swords and sorcery world is going to lose the benefit of his own high tech bias, but a cavalier transported to a space opera world is limited by his own tech bias. A comparison has to be made between the character's bias score and that of the world. This usually has already been done, since the character will have been in the world for some time; but the lower bias score is doubled added to the chance of success.
It is possible for the world bias to be negative; this means that the chance of success could be lowered by as much as 30 because of the world bias. (There are other effects of negative bias I'm ignoring in this example; the blaster probably would not work in such a world.) If both the character and the world have very high biases, they could gain as much as 30 points for bias.
What we didn't realize when we were writing the rules, but managed to include in the First Book of Worlds, is that for a character who lives in a particular world, you can have all of that added already on the sheet with the character information. We use spreadsheets for our non-player characters, and particularly for combat numbers (but also for other skills which may be used frequently) these numbers are summed to save time. Thus the character information will include that the character has a base chance to hit with a particular weapon of whatever that base chance is.
However, this shot is being taken at point blank range. That means the attacker is so close to the defender that it's difficult to imagine him missing with a gun like this, so he gets +20.
Perhaps the weapon can be equipped with a scope. A scope is a separate piece of equipment, and the use of the scope requires a separate roll. (This is required because in a low bias world the player might fail to properly use the scope.) That check uses a similar procedure, but that there's no strike value included and there are no defensive values (still ahead) interfering with the use. Thus a roll is made to see whether the character uses the scope. With a scope, a successful roll probably adds a flat +20 to the chance of success. You might wonder at using a scope at point blank range, but since the amount of damage done is based on the roll, increasing the maximum possible roll means a greater potential for damage done.
Neither the scope nor the point blank adjustments could really be included prior to play, as they were decisions made during combat.
Blasters usually have adjustable power levels; I will assume this one is set on lethal damage, 1-20 intensities of damage.
The defender is now considered. All targets have a target value (TV), on the sheet as the average of intuition, agility, and density, representing the difficulty of landing a damaging attack on that target. (Inanimate objects also have target values, primarily based on density, which tells the probability that they would deflect the blow.) This is subtracted from the chance to hit. This particular defender is using his martial arts skill; once he has successfully rolled this body skill, he gains some protection against attacks--we will assume this one gives him -10 against the attack itself plus -10 against damage directly. He is wearing a flack vest under a combat space suit. The vest provides cover value, probably about -12 against the attack; this particular space suit provides no cover value (it does not reduce the chance of being hit) but instead disperses the force of a blow such that it creates a damage category penalty. That reduces the damage of the intended attack to dangerous, 1-10.
He also uses an evasive tumbling skill to get out of the way of incoming attacks. This particular skill allows that if his roll is successful, it is subtracted from the attacker's chance of success. It's typical for the chance of success on such skills to be around 45 to 50, but it could easily reach as high as 70 or 80. However, what matters is the value of the roll. If he uses the skill, and the die roll works, the attacker's chance of success is reduced by that amount.
Our defender is a combat monster. His damage value (DV), an average of his stamina, resistance, density, and will power, is a second level score. That means that if he's hit, he divides all damage by two and discards fractions.
Once the attack is rolled, there's really very little left to do. In this case, which is a particularly complicated one, if it succeeds we have to reduce the damage category of the weapon from lethal to dangerous (the combat space suit), subtract ten from the roll (the martial arts damage adjustment), convert from the percentile value to damaging damage (shift the decimal point one place left and round up), and then divide by two and toss the fractions (for the damage value).
Callan wrote: Why slowly go through determining the womper of a sword blow during play, when you know it's wompum damage will suffer very little influence from the player?
Because it's not like that at all. The damage the sword blow will do is entirely dependent on what the players do and what they roll. If in this example the defender got a high roll on his evasive tumbling, he could reduce the attacker's chance to hit to (for example) 11%. If the attacker rolled above eleven, it would be a miss. If he rolled below 11, his ten points to be converted to damage would be reduced to zero by the martial arts subtraction, and he would do no damage. If he rolled 11, he would hit the defender, but because the defender is so tough the resulting 1 would convert to one intensity of damage, then divided by the level two damage value to give a total of one half, which would be discarded, meaning that the scratch taken was meaningless.
In other words, yes, I have seen players facing bulldozers and bombs and artillery walk away with minor injuries or even unscathed, because they had the skills and equipment to counter the attacks and they had a few good rolls when they needed them.
When players do this in combat, a large part of play is about outmaneuvering the enemy by fighting smarter and avoiding serious injury. The decisions are made in play because they are tactically useful; their effectiveness is adjudicated in play. I can't know in advance what a player will use or do. I've got a guy who likes his evasive tumbling skill, and I keep a note of what he needs to roll for it to work in his current universe. On the other hand, the last time he was in a bind he went for a psionic force shield instead. That would be a different skill, a different defense, the effect of which would have to be considered in calculating the chance of success on the attack. Having options is very much part of the game. The fact that nearly any skill can be adapted for use in combat if the player desires increases those options beyond the ability of the referee to predict.
So, the floor is open for questions to the game designer.
--M. J. Young
On 12/1/2004 at 11:22pm, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
Hi MJ,
In other words, yes, I have seen players facing bulldozers and bombs and artillery walk away with minor injuries or even unscathed, because they had the skills and equipment to counter the attacks and they had a few good rolls when they needed them.
No, I meant if the damage is applied. If you have attack rolls which are simple enough to do during play (and defence rolls are likewise) and all that means the damage isn't applied, then its cool. But if it is a hit, then why work through the damage slowly during play. You can figure out the wompum damage in advance and then remove the parts that don't apply to the PC during play.
That said, I think you've got one primary design goal that differs from the one my suggestion works from, and that is the goal of encompassment.
My suggestion did take encompassment into account, but not as a primary goal. More that encompassment was there to support the goal of rich results.
By that I mean...well, I'll quote James to give context
My basic point is that, if this is work that can be done before you sit at the table, it's conceivably work that the game designer could have done. If they could have but didn't, it's either poor design, or they want the complexity they left in to be stepped through.
Imagine a treasure chart which is really quite complex, but gives quite detailed results. Even more detailed than this rough example
Battle Axe
Chipped blade: May shatter on iron or better helmets (not bronze)
Different center of gravity: Shorter characters add one to damage because of how it swings.
Ragwood handle: X chance to slip out of hand when wet (ie, its raining).
And so on.
So, these are lots of fiddley attributes the treasure (in this case, an axe) can have. It's not stuff the designer can roll in advance, but also it takes time to roll up (not a good idea to do in play). But at the same time, all these funky attributes will interact with the PC's skills, stats, situation and player choices. They will interact, even though its made in advance of play. Now, imagine instead of a treasure table, its a wound table. With lots of fiddley interaction bits as well for each wound (should I give an example? Its just like the axe example but all wound related).
Basically that's what I thought was the main goal with the complex designs...rich results. Wounds are like a type of treasure for them, I thought.
But for encompassment, if your gaming pleasure doesn't come from rich results but from thinking you took everything into account in your rendering, then perhaps this suggestion doesn't hit the mark.
On 12/3/2004 at 4:30pm, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
M.J. wrote: You might reasonably accuse us of kitchen sinking. It was one of the design objectives that anything that any character could do in any game in any setting, even if not yet published, would be covered by the Multiverser rules system. In part this is because we foresaw Multiverser player characters becoming player characters in other games as a normal part of play, and that meant there had to be rules to control how equipment and skills which were not part of that other game would be handled if the character brought them with him, as well as rules to control how equipment and skills drawn from that other game would be integrated back into Multiverser play once the character left that world. Thus I make no apology for trying to cover everything. The game was intended to be about everything, and what was important to the game was making anything possible that was imaginable.
(Emphasis mine) The bits I pulled out of there are all I really need to know: you, as a designer, have desired complexity. I'll caveat this by saying I haven't (yet) read or played Multiverser, so can't really evaluate the game, but obviously the design intent is there.
Callan: re your treasure example, that is exactly the kind of thing I think the designer should generate in advance. Rather than making you either roll through a complex process during play to generate a unique item, or spend a crapload of time ahead of play to generate a bunch of unique items, the designer should do that work for you, and present a table with a huge number of unique items. I would suggest that, in fact, TROS does this with it's wound tables. Jake could have presented a complex process for wound generation, but instead he did that work ahead of time, and generated a bunch of tables that give you the 'whole bunch of unique results' necessary.
James
On 12/3/2004 at 6:46pm, bcook1971 wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
What TROS gains in figuring complex damage results beforehand is lost in the time spent looking it up. It's a known issue; many TROS players recommend copying the damage tables into their own booklet for ease of reference. Then, just like in D&D, where you had this guy lookup spells for you, in TROS, you have one player find and read damage results.
On 12/3/2004 at 7:36pm, Blankshield wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
bcook1971 wrote: What TROS gains in figuring complex damage results beforehand is lost in the time spent looking it up. It's a known issue; many TROS players recommend copying the damage tables into their own booklet for ease of reference. Then, just like in D&D, where you had this guy lookup spells for you, in TROS, you have one player find and read damage results.
Hmm. I don't want to get into a TROS holy war here, as it would be fairly off-topic to go there, so I'll confine myself to saying I've never had any problem finding the appropriate result in very short order; one person keeps the book open to the charts whenever there is a fight, and it never takes more than a few seconds.
More germane to the topic though, I am not claiming that TROS damage tables are the be-all and end-all, but I will assert that they are easier to use than it would be to codify and follow whatever criteria Jake used to build the table every single time a blow lands. That process, if it exists anywhere but Jake's head and in his design notes, almost certainly takes up more space to explain and more time to use.
James
On 12/3/2004 at 11:26pm, Hereward The Wake wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
The simplicity of design will reduce the time taken to actually carry out the combat. Most rules try to incorperate the kitchen sink into the system and there fore bog down speed of play. Most systems which claim to be simplistic still incoperate too much detail, or apply basically the same level of detail to all involved, where as really all we need to know about is when the important people get involved. So if i chop a bad guy, in the arm say. i don't need to work out the specifics of how much actual damage i did, only if it was enough to take him out, imobilise the arm, or enough to let him carry on. Those 3 results can be achievd quickly and simply. Basically I see it that it is the root of the system that speeds up the play and the emphsis of the players, If you want fast play then you have to loose some detail, at least in some areas, if you want detail you get a slower game, you can't have both, unless you get a niffty piece of gadgetry that allows it.
Jonathan
On 12/4/2004 at 3:49am, Noon wrote:
RE: Speed tip for highly detailed combat
James,
Ah, this is probably more of a space issue thing. Say I have room for either 100 entries (wound details) or I can use that space to list rules that have 100,000 variations (basically like a table with 100 k of entries). And I design it so they can be pre rolled.
Typically it a time or space issue; you can't list all these neat things because that uses too many pages. And you can't use tables during play because it eats up too much time.
Here I'm tackling it with pre rolled stuff. Stuff the author could do himself, but doesn't have space in the book for. And lets say the authors intent is not to limmit himself to 100 entries.