This comes from many of the discussions of desiging combat systems.
Working under the stress of life or death combat, much of what the combatant does happens instinctivley, if one stops to 'think' you will probably die. The point of training is to develop the range of the options that one will perform instinctively and also to allow some form of thinking to take place, which does not cause you to freeze. However the basic premise is that you do what you do almost with out choosing to do it. Bruce Lee for example said that when he fought, he didn't do the fighting, it just happened. The problem with that of course is that it would give the players little to do.

Also ones ability to act will be determined by how much you know and have trained, but ultimately one may not always choose the best option even though it may still work.
My problem,
A way to control the options avaiable to the fighters, so that they don't have the option to always choose the best action, while allowing at least something to be done regardless. What would also really be needed would be a way to witc choices in certain situations, if skill ful enough.

I know that there are other combat systems out thre that do something similar, TROS etc. but I am interested in a flexible way to control choices beyond combat pools which an be to artificial or cards which seems to become too random.

Best
Hereward

Throw a single variable into the mix.

It could be anything but lets assume we're dealing with melee.  You could throw in a variable called Range and allow the range to be altered as combat progresses.  Make a character choose whether he's better at close, medium or far.  Then create attacks/weapons/abilities that work great at one range but not so great (or not at all) at others.

****
Combat Round 7
Range increased to 7 (Far on a 1-10 scale)
Character 1 is specialized in close combat but his close combat abilities are now reduced to a point that his weaker abilities actually do better damage or have a better chance to hit.
****

Just a thought.

Heya,

I'm a little confused by your post.  Are you wanting to limited a player's choice in general or the player's ability to choose what is optimum in each circumstance?

Peace,

-Troy

I perhaps should have said that I am planning on using range as an area of combat, or at least using it as a factor/phase of combat, as being able to control range and line, are two of the most important aspects of close combat.
JW

LogicaLunatic wrote:
It could be anything but lets assume we're dealing with melee.  You could throw in a variable called Range and allow the range to be altered as combat progresses.  Make a character choose whether he's better at close, medium or far.  Then create attacks/weapons/abilities that work great at one range but not so great (or not at all) at others.

****
Combat Round 7
Range increased to 7 (Far on a 1-10 scale)
Character 1 is specialized in close combat but his close combat abilities are now reduced to a point that his weaker abilities actually do better damage or have a better chance to hit.
****

Just a thought.

I am trying to restrict players choice in general. From a gamist point of view the player will start to choose the optimal action, one then would have to restrict this with modifers etc. I would rather do the restricting as prt of the choice/decision phase, to attempt to simplify things or at least reduce the number of stages that have to be negotiated. Any help?

JW

Troy_Costisick wrote:
Heya,
I'm a little confused by your post.  Are you wanting to limited a player's choice in general or the player's ability to choose what is optimum in each circumstance?
Peace,
-Troy

Hereward wrote:
I perhaps should have said that I am planning on using range as an area of combat, or at least using it as a factor/phase of combat, as being able to control range and line, are two of the most important aspects of close combat.
JW

Yes something along the lines of fatigue that reduces the options available. I've also thought of Panic, with the standard reaction to be scared sh**less and do nothing, one would have to test against that to be able to do things in some incremental form.

JW

Heya,

I am trying to restrict players choice in general. From a gamist point of view the player will start to choose the optimal action, one then would have to restrict this with modifers etc.

I am trying to make combat come closer to what it actually represents. So that while I realise that some abstraction has to be there, I am trying to reflect the realities of manuevering and controling distance and line, and areas such as the actaualities of attacks and reactions. What I am trying to work out is ways that will allow players to have realistic choices but at the same time restrict them or at least randomise the options that are available at anyone time.
I realise that this will not make a 'quick' system but niether do I want to get bogged down in th much detail.

Hereward:

It sounds like you want some mechanic to commit the players where they are working with limited information. In other words, to some degree, capture the confusion and "instinctive reaction" quality of combat, IRL. Using a script is one method of creating this effect. There are two games that would be good references to peruse: FASA's Crimson Skies Boardgame (1998) and Luke Crane's Burning Wheel RPG.

With a script, you try to predict what your opponent will do. If you fail to choose the optimal tactic, or worse, you play right into your enemy's hands, too bad; you have to stick with what you wrote. (Actually, in BW, there's some limited way of changing your mind, but it comes at a price.)

I think you could have a variety of moves that land characters into different "positions".  From each position, only certain actions can be taken.  So, Player X could do a 'Savage Swing' with his Axe, and it could throw him off balance.  Instead of just forcing him to balance next turn, give him a couple options, some leading him back to his 'balanced' or 'perfect' position and others leading down a path that ends with him falling down.  It could work with numbers easily.  You could start with a position of 10, swing at a cost of 7 and be left with 3.  Position would greatly affect defense.

I assume (perhaps wrongly) that you want to avoid players from using the same thing over and over again, round after round, much like you would use the spell Ultima in FF3/6j every round for the easy win.  Using a position status you can limit characters combat options, introduce strategy to the game by allowing certain combat options to affect other combatants position, and make sense of the reduced effectiveness.

If, however, you meant that you wanted the players to be unable to control what they do in battle (ie: I punched him in the face when I really wanted to kick him in the sack)... that's a different thing entirely.  I don't think I've ever been in a fight, tournament or otherwise, where I was unable to take the actions I wanted to.

Hereward wrote:
I am trying to make combat come closer to what it actually represents.

Card are a fairly obvious way to give players a restricted set of options to choose from - more skillfull characters get more cards, perhaps with different fighting styles giving cards from different decks. In martial arts you might have a deck of throws, a deck of blocks, a deck of holds, a deck of strikes, etc.

The actual resolution mechanic could be a more complex version of rock-paper-scisors.

Simon Hibbs

One thing to consider: the more you move from the abstract to the detailed, the more people are going to want to apply their own real-world "knowledge" (whether it's accurate or not) to the combat.  You might perform a 'mighty swing' with your axe which leaves you off balance and can be followed up my maneuvers Y and Z, and you'll get someone swearing up and down that he knows someone that can follow it up with maneuver Q as well.  Also, the more detailed your combat representation is, the more the places where you are abstracting things out will stand out.

One method you might consider is this: rather than having certain moves being allowed or prohibited, give bonuses or penalties.  Your mighty axe swing might give a bonus to a followup mighty swing (as you use the momentum to bring the weapon around and strike again) but a penalty to the shield hook or disarm maneuvers (as you need to stop the momentum and get the axe in position for something with a little more finesse.)  Maneuvers might also give your opponent bonuses and penalties (they get a bonus to knock you down, say, because the mighty swing left you unbalanced) which would mean that the 'optimum move' was a product of the specific conditions of the battle: the terrain/environment and the previous actions of both you and your opponent.

To get a little into broader theory, I prefer the carrot/stick method of bonuses and penalties because I hate outright prohibitions.  As soon as a rulebook or setting says "you can't do this" I (and many other people I know) start looking for the exception.  To use an old-school AD&D example: "Whaddaya mean, wizards can't use swords? What was Glamdring, a baloney sandwich?"

I think if it helps to identify what you want from your combat system.

What is the purpose of combat in the game? Is it the only or a privileged form of conflict resolution (D&D, Dying Earth), one form of conflict resolution amongst many (HQ), a method of demonstrating a style of interaction (octaNe), part of an escalation of forms of conflict resolution (Dogs in the Vineyard) or narrative intrepretation (My Life with Master)?

Do you want to resolve the minutiae of each blow, the ebb and flow of advantage or perhaps just the narrative of the conflict?

How long in real time do you want subjective fights to last?

Do you want tactical choices to have a clear influence over the combat?

Do you want randomness to play a large part?

To what extent are you interested in simulating real combat and including variables such as position, fatigue, experience, injury, weapon readiness or environment?

Is the outcome of the combat influenced by variables such as commitment to what's at stake, desperation or other emotional states?

Do you want combat to be deadly or merely disabling?

(I am not actually Black Iris Dancer, but a friend of hers and co-creator of the Logos system)

I would suggest perhaps allowing each player to choose a set of combat maneuvers in which his or her character is trained.  Then the player could prioritize these maneuvers in terms of his character's familiarity with them.  In combat the player would roll for panic, perhaps with some modifier based on the character's training level.  The result of this roll would determine the number of maneuvers the player can choose from, in descending order of priority.  Alternatively, each maneuver could have a maximum panic rating at which the maneuver can be executed.

Before reinventing the wheel, check out Swashbuckler! by Jolly Roger Games.

It does exactly what you're talking about.

There are a number of maneuvers.  You and your opponent each choose 1.  Certain combinations are better or worse.  Each maneuver has a limit on which maneuvers you can play next.  i.e. playing a "ready" maneuver now is pretty weak but opens up the entire range of maneuvers.  Playing a "Lunge" is very strong but greatly limits what you can do next (making it easy for your opponent to predict what you will do next and choose a maneuver that will crush you).

Obviously the more maneuvers you know the wider range of possibilities you have.  Beginning fighters know only a few maneuvers making their progression between them pretty predictable and easy to defeat.  Skilled fighters know alot of maneuvers making them far more able to know the right one to use to skewer their opponent with.

Let me offer something entirely abstract which could be made concrete according to your situations.

Create six "categories" for maneuvers. They make the most sense if they're divided situationally--maneuvers that can be used when in close, when far away, when partly impeded, when in the weak position, when in the strong position (well, that's five, anyway).

Each maneuver includes the numbers of the categories in which it can be useful. More ordinary less powerful maneuvers can be used in far more situations than more powerful less ordinary ones.

When it's time for the player to act, a d6 is rolled, and the result determines the situation at that moment. Thus no matter what he was planning, if the roll is 3 the character is partly impeded (there's a beam in the way, or an obstacle, or something has grabbed your sleeve) and he can only use maneuvers that fit within category 3.

This will change the maneuvers available to him randomly during play while generally keeping the simplest ones there. It will also create advantages and disadvantages, as no character is likely to have top skill in top maneuvers in all six categories.

Approached a different way, you could have the player declare his intended maneuver, and instead of having a chance of success roll use the category roll to determine whether it worked in this situation. Thus if he chooses a maneuver that does not work if he is impeded and a three is rolled, he failed. (Skill ratings would then shift to the effectiveness of a success, the randomness being factored into the probability that the maneuver would work at all in this situation.) A player then would take a risk in attempting to use a powerful but unlikely maneuver, hoping to get the one or two chances in six that it works for critical results, or could fall back on the maneuvers that have five chances in six of working.

Anyway, those are some thoughts on the subject.

--M. J. Young

To throw in another idea, the system that I was working on for this was to have Initiative (in the old-school sense of the term) as a Skill. A veteran soldier doesn't panic as much as the bookworm academic when the shit starts flying, so combat experience is directly factored into the character sheet, which is then modified by strategic advantages (e.g. ambush, higher ground etc.).

Depending on the result, the character accrues an integer of Advantage. Maneuvers have variable advantage costs, so the good ones (which require short-lead in maneuvers anyhow), are usually beyond the possibility of inexperienced fighters unless they have a large strategic advantage. Manuevers are played simultaenously, and advantage can also be spent to push oneself up the initiative tree. Trade off between speed and cool (powerful) maneuvers, and the calls are made double-blind. Can spend a lot of advantage to change the maneuver after the call, or defend and hold onto ones advantage until the opponent has exhausted all of theirs.

Anyway, my 2 jiao. Synthesise as you like. Although Steves post is extremely relevant - what exactly do you want to get out of combat?

All interesting replies, I've not had time to read them properly to give back any thoughts as I have got a rush job on, (putting a series of fight interpretations on at The Tower of London 8'))
I'll hopefully get the chance in the next couple of days.

JW

Reading over my post, it occurs to me that I can add another tweak to my idea that might be interesting. A character could have defensive maneuvers that worked in much the same way as the die roll: creating a situation which has to be overcome to attack successfully. Thus what I'm thinking is a maneuver such as "clinch" creates "in close" (#1) as a limitation. The attacker now knows that he can't use any maneuver that doesn't work in situation 1, and he can't use any maneuver that won't work in whatever situation appears on the die roll.

I would limit all defenses to a single number and permit only one defense to be in place, unless I could find a way to penalize them (giving up attacks, taking extra damage if hit, giving up damage). I think it might also make sense to suggest that if a character is using a particular defense against his opponent, it counts against him as well, so that if the character uses some means of inserting an impediment he can't use attacks that don't work in #3 either. Thus his choice of defenses would be focused on eliminating his adversary's better attacks while leaving himself a wide field of options.

Anyway, I think it's a clever idea, and almost wish I were working on a game in which I could use it.

--M. J. Young

Thanks for all the views and replies. Having been reading them and with my own thoughts and re looking at actual combat some points have back int o my thoughts about combat in RPGs.
One thing that I have mentione in previous threads on combat that I am looking at again is the idea of deviding each action/readtion in to parts curentyl difeined as timing/commitment, the combat score would divide amoungst these. The fighter with better timing would not generally need to have so much commitment in the attack, though of course if the use of timing was not good then the opponents greater commiment would probably carry the action.

Obviously one could make the decision to allot dice/points/cards etc between the T/C scores as part of the, but one could add the that advantges to each added by types of weapon, ie a rapier is better on with timing attacks, where as a poll axe would add to commitment, weapons woudl also give modifiers when using specific attacks, see next note. Certain type of action woudl give bonuses, ie a straight attack such as thrust would give an advantage when using timing, where as a downward strike would add to commitment.

The actual application would be through target numbers and opposed rolls. D6s could be used. The fighters for example roll a number d6s, for example = to their skill, the number of success' are then compared to the number of success' the opponent achieved, the higher number gaining the advantage.

The advantage from specific parts of an action and actions themselves have a nock on/carry over affect to subsquent parts. From the previous example the winner of the timing segment would gain a significant advantage and the fighter who had applied greater commitment would lkely now find that more of a hindrance than an advantage.

Now all I have to do is make something that I can play test 8')

Thoughts?

The restriction of choices will come from the fact that certain actions will be preferable for certain characters, and with the addition of the knock on affects of success and failure then the choices will become limited OR ehanced throughout an exchange.
JW

My problem with cards is that it becomes to randomised and can also end up with loads of decks fo cards! 8')
JW

simon_hibbs wrote:
Card are a fairly obvious way to give players a restricted set of options to choose from - more skillfull characters get more cards, perhaps with different fighting styles giving cards from different decks. In martial arts you might have a deck of throws, a deck of blocks, a deck of holds, a deck of strikes, etc.

I think that from my point of view this has some merit to what I want from a game. I will think it over, Cheers
8')
JW

M. wrote:
Reading over my post, it occurs to me that I can add another tweak to my idea that might be interesting. A character could have defensive maneuvers that worked in much the same way as the die roll: creating a situation which has to be overcome to attack successfully. Thus what I'm thinking is a maneuver such as "clinch" creates "in close" (#1) as a limitation. The attacker now knows that he can't use any maneuver that doesn't work in situation 1, and he can't use any maneuver that won't work in whatever situation appears on the die roll.

I would limit all defenses to a single number and permit only one defense to be in place, unless I could find a way to penalize them (giving up attacks, taking extra damage if hit, giving up damage). I think it might also make sense to suggest that if a character is using a particular defense against his opponent, it counts against him as well, so that if the character uses some means of inserting an impediment he can't use attacks that don't work in #3 either. Thus his choice of defenses would be focused on eliminating his adversary's better attacks while leaving himself a wide field of options.
--M. J. Young