Troll Slayer is about killing things in tactical miniatures style combats. Magic is part of the concept. I'm trying to settle on just what the role of spell casting characters should be. A separate discussion is the role of magic items, but I want to deal with that in a separate discussion.

Looking over a variety of combat oriented games that have spell casters in the past, we can see a variety of roles that spells play:

- helping characters recover after the fight (healing or otherwise)
- blasting scores of enemies
- taking one (or a few) enemies completely out of the battle
- "buffing" the other characters (or self)
- creating tactical advantage
- getting the PCs into or out of a fight
- dealing with obstacles outside of combat

A big issue I see in many existing games is that magic, by operating differently than swinging a sword, is hard to balance. Blasting enemies is cool, but if the caster can deal damage faster than the sword slinger, then there is a risk all the glory goes to the casters. Taking enemies out of the combat completely usually doesn't mesh well with the sword slinger. If the caster takes an enemy out that was injured, the sword slinger's contribution has been wasted. Another problem with take them out spells (and blasting spells also) is that they make for big swings depending on whether the spell succeeds or not.

Buffing and healing maintain the concentration on the sword slinger's contribution, but if that is all the caster does, then the caster doesn't get very much glory (unless the players can easily perceive how the odds have changed). Spells that create tactical advantage fall into this same trap, though they may be more apparent (of course some may also act as take them out spells - for example, trapping an opponent behind a wall of fire).

Another trouble is that often spell caster characters are set up to not be as good at sword slinging, and thus become a liability in some tactical situations, or when they have run out of spell power and have not had a chance to refresh.

But making spells just an alternate to sword slinging doesn't seem appealing.

Rune Quest provided one sort of solution to this. Spell casters (at least among non-rune level characters) were not so specialized, and almost everyone cast spells. This is an interesting solution, but I have encountered numerous players who just don't want to deal with playing a spell caster (though they are generally happy to use magic items).

In the past, I've felt Cold Iron did a good job here, but in my recent Cold Iron play, I've observed that the spell casters have been whiffing a lot, and if the tactical situation leaves them vulnerable, they go down fast and hard. In part, I think back in college, we had more players, so it was easier to protect the casters. Also, I think the chargen left them with far better combat stats than my current point buy system does (basically, the college era spell casters probably had way better stats than the non-casters).

Of course one option would be to make magic something slow and not suitable for adventuring casters. All player use of magic would come from magic items. That would reduce the number of character types, but maybe that isn't a problem. In my current Cold Iron campaign, we don't even have examples of all the reasonable warrior builds.

I would be interested in pointers to other game systems that have dealt with this issue if they have done so in a unique way. In this light, in addition to Rune Quest and Cold Iron mentioned above, of course I'm familiar with the D&D model.

Thanks

Frank

Hi!
  Well, I think my system manages it pretty well. The DMG is scaled to be similar to the swashbuckler. and characters can cast spells as many times a day as they would like to. They have to make a skill roll, so it balances out to about the same as swashbuckling.
  As far as finger wiggling goes, balance it against archers instead of swashbucklers, it's more of an accurate model.

Frank, all of the things you say that spell-casters contribute to the system are actually things that they contribute to the tactical goals of their side.  Now it's important that they do make contributions to their side, but they can make many other kinds of contribution to the system as a whole.

For instance, I've played a spell-caster in a combat LARP where you had to actually flip to the right page in a spell-book to cast a spell.  The right spell at the right time was absolutely devastating ... but a spellcaster who was under attack (or even close to combat, IME) was quite simply unable to concentrate.  You couldn't get the right time, much less the right spell.

So fighters suddenly had another role on the battlefield.  They had to protect their mage's personal space (give him room to breathe and cast) while at the same time pushing the attack close to enemy spellcasters.  The spell-casters acted almost as flags:  they really couldn't defend themselves worth a damn, but it was essential (to the team) that they be defended.  The massive powers of the mages made the fighters more important.  The fighters were not merely swinging a sword, they were doing their part to facilitate spell-casting.

In this system, the mages contributed "spells" to their side, but they contributed "combat structure" to the game as a whole.

There are lots of other ways that mages can contribute.  If you want your game to involve small, roughly equal clusters of fighting units rather than (say) one massive monolithic band of warriors beating on everything in their path, spell-casters with area-effect spells (like, oh say, fireball) will contribute that to your game.  The presence of such spells in the game guarantee that people won't want to cluster all their units together for mutual support.

If you want your game to involve heroic last stands against impossible odds, adding spells that let people live for a certain short period of time (even when, by the damage rules, they should be dead as a doornail) will help to encourage that.  It will let you sacrifice a unit in a lone stand (or a crazed charge) and actually get combat advantage out of it.

Anyway ... that sorta thing.  Does that distinction (what they contribute to their team vs. what they contribute to the structure of the game) make sense as I've described it?

Tony - good point about the structure of the combat and the various ways the spell casters can affect the tactics.

What I observed in D&D was that the spell casters power, and their limited resources caused the game to overly revolve around the spell casters, and in fact, the fighters had far less opportunity to "be cool".

How important was combat in the LARP? What percentage of game time was spent on it?

I expect 80-90% of the playtime in Troll Slayer to be spent in combat, so the ability of players to contribute "equally" to combat will be important (of course realizing that it is impossible to perfectly balance contribution, and in fact, even agreeing what "balance" means is a whole debate).

I am now pretty steadfastly against area effect damage spells because they really seem to ampliphy the effect of the caster, and also eliminate the viability of opponents that need to concentrate forces to be effective in combat.

Another observation I have made is that when different character types contribute in very different ways to the same kinds of scenes, that invariably one way is more effective than the other, and comes to dominate those types of scenes. This might be fine if there are a variety of types of scenes, and each type of character dominates a different one, but when 90% of the scenes are of the same type, the domination makes the game unenjoyable (for me).

I like your thought about the heroic last stand. That type of combat would not be a regular thing in my view of Troll Slayer, but might happen occaisionally. Magic that made that more likely to succeed would be cool. Of course that requires the mage not be incapacitated before the need for the magic arises... Many buffing spells of course serve to extend the amount of combat a fighter can sustain which comes at this type of result from a slightly different angle.

Also, one thought I have long had is that it's ok to have the spell caster slightly less effective if they have more options, and can do things non-spell casters just can't do, since that gives them something cool to do. But there's a delicate balance.

Frank

Dave - that's an option I've considered. What I wonder is does it really feel like you're playing a spell caster, or is the effect just different narration for the same effect? And then if so, does the swashbuckler or archer have just as interesting narration capabilities? I.e. do they seem as "cool" to play?

Another thought - the casterr being able to do his thing as often as he wants (or otherwise under the same constraints as the fighter), doesn't mesh well with one of the things I like best about Cold Iron - there is a very good balancing effect in that almost all magic items are limited by the mana available to power them, and further, that potions, the items that are hardest to use, are the only items that store mana. This combined with most magic items being of a non-permanent nature is one of the core features I like about Cold Iron, and I intend it to be a core feature of Troll Slayer.

But that doesn't absolutely mean that casters couldn't have some ability for combat magic that is not limited by mana. On the other hand, I think it would be simpler to just let the spell casters be decent at fighting, so that when they run out of mana, or something else prevents them from casting spells, they just become fighters (perhaps not quite as good as the specialist, but still competent).

Frank

Frank, try turning the question ninety degrees and looking at it the other way.

Magic users do all sorts of cool stuff -- "fireball!" "summon elemental!" "wave of fear!" -- but a warrior only does the same thing over and over -- "hit enemy with sword," "hit enemy with sword," "hit enemy with sword."  What can you do to make being the warrior as diverse as being the magic user?  Can the warrior do "feint!," "breach armor!," and "lethal strike!" instead, and does that make them the available-options equal of the mage?

Dave - that's an option I've considered. What I wonder is does it really feel like you're playing a spell caster, or is the effect just different narration for the same effect?
And then if so, does the swashbuckler or archer have just as interesting narration capabilities? I.e. do they seem as "cool" to play

I can see several ways you can fit mages and fighters into a combat situation, each of them with pros and cons.

1. No difference...everyone's both fighter and mage to a greater or lesser extent (RuneQuest, for instance). I think, personally, that this is slightly less tactically interesting because it reduces the ability/need of characters to work together...but I haven't played RuneQuest so I may be entirely wrong.
2. Mage as traditional D&D glass cannon: Here, the fighter is usually the less-glorious-but-vital support character while the mage is the center-stage glorious nuclear missile. The fighter's job is, to use the most derogatory but accurate term possible, to be a meat-shield for the wiz. Spells here aren't an alternative to sword-swinging, they're a replacement for it, and in "traditional" AD&D games, it's inefficient to attempt to kill major monsters by getting bloody with the sword...you kill major monsters by burning them -and- their minions to ashes with a 20d6 fireball or similar.
3. Mage as support character: Clerics have occasionally been nicknamed "walking band-aids" in D&D, and if mages don't have a damage-dealing capacity that equals or exceeds that of fighters, then their usefulness will come from their support magic, such as healing, buffing or debilitating. Here, the fighters get all the glory and all the girls, but that mage over there is the stagehand that makes sure he can do his job. Lot5R is usually a good example of this.
4. Mage as fighter variant: If a mage can sling spells as long as a fighter can swing, and does about as much damage as a fighter...I fail to see the difference between a mage with magic missile and a simple archer.

From what you said in the beginning, Frank, I think that #3 may be the best option for the type of game you're looking for (tactical combat). That way, the fighter's role (get in, kick ass, take names) and the mage's role (make sure the fighter can get in, kick ass, and take names) are clearly separated and defined. Yes, the fighter will get center stage...but who's more important to a Hollywood production? Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, who get to be seen blowing things up and having steamy kissing scenes, or the special effects team who make the explosions happen and dream of themselves being in the steamy kissing scenes?

I will be exploring Joshua's angle of make the sword slinging more interesting. One problem there is that I'm not sure how to do that and make it workable in a grid based miniatures style game system. I think scripted combat and such can do so, but I'm not sure how to tie that scripted maneuvering into a map board representation. The options I've seen in grid based systems (GURPS and D20) either result in mostly useless or ignored options (D20) or complicate the game to the point where the GM can't keep up (GURPS - where feinting and called shots and such were absolutely the way to go - which doesn't work when the GM is trying to control a horde of NPCs).

Cold Iron has some tactical options, that don't overwhelm the GM (the hand to hand/grappling system, which is very different from straight melee, is not always the best choice, but is pretty easy for the GM to decide when to use it and when not to use it - though it turns out it's mostly a choice for monsters, not weapon using types).

Last night in my Cold Iron game, I aksed the players to experiment with something. We replaced the cleric with a paladin and dropped the mage (who had become an NPC when the player withdrew). There was another PC paladin, a PC warrior (thief), an NPC warrior (scout), and an NPC paladin. Due to effective ambushes on the part of the monsters, the PCs never got a chance to cast spells, but since the paladins are all effective fighters, they did well (in fact, the former cleric, now paladin, kicked ass, even having time to whip out the wand of stasis to save downed fellows).

This is leading me towards setting up the spell casters as not quite so focused so they can still be good fighters. And balancing their "coolness" with other "coolness" choices for those players who don't want to be able to sling spells. It's interesting to consider Rune Quest in this area because RQ definitely influenced Cold Iron, and the clerical magic in Cold Iron uses associations like RQ's runes (and D20's domains), except it takes it a step further - all spells derrive from the associations, there are no "standard" clerical spells. So each paladin (or cleric) can have a different set of spells (and that was true in RQ, each character usually followed a different cult, and while there were some common spells everyone had, each character usually had some spell unique to their character).

One thought would be to set up a PC option that would allow hand to hand combat to be a viable choice for PCs.

Ramidel - the mage as support character is not really a good choice. Players in general don't like to play the support character (in fact, I should note that the young wife, in changing from playing a cleric, who was mostly a support mage, to playing a paladin, who could fight, last night was definitely more engaged with the game).

Dave - I'll definitely have to look at your ideas.

Frank

Heya,

One problem there is that I'm not sure how to do that and make it workable in a grid based miniatures style game system. I think scripted combat and such can do so, but I'm not sure how to tie that scripted maneuvering into a map board representation.

How important is it to you that the game use miniatures?  Would the various aspects of it be better without them?

ffilz wrote: I will be exploring Joshua's angle of make the sword slinging more interesting. One problem there is that I'm not sure how to do that and make it workable in a grid based miniatures style game system. I think scripted combat and such can do so, but I'm not sure how to tie that scripted maneuvering into a map board representation.

This is leading me towards setting up the spell casters as not quite so focused so they can still be good fighters. And balancing their "coolness" with other "coolness" choices for those players who don't want to be able to sling spells.

Hey Frank

Why not just build magical paths and combat trees, that way you can balance them all against each other and allow players to develop whatever talents they want. There's no reason you can't build a mechanical system that balances swordplay and magic nicely.

That's what I did for Call To Adventure. It works really well, it's damn near unbreakable!

As for Troll Slayer (careful GW might have copywritten that title) - Show me the mechanics!

ffilz wrote:
Ramidel - the mage as support character is not really a good choice. Players in general don't like to play the support character (in fact, I should note that the young wife, in changing from playing a cleric, who was mostly a support mage, to playing a paladin, who could fight, last night was definitely more engaged with the game).

Quote from: ffilz on Today at 10:37:28 AM
Ramidel - the mage as support character is not really a good choice. Players in general don't like to play the support character (in fact, I should note that the young wife, in changing from playing a cleric, who was mostly a support mage, to playing a paladin, who could fight, last night was definitely more engaged with the game).

Well, this may be just our group, but there has never been a problem in our bunch getting someone to play the cleric/support crew and like it. Maybe we've come from two different experiences...

The right spell at the right time was absolutely devastating ... but a spellcaster who was under attack (or even close to combat, IME) was quite simply unable to concentrate.  You couldn't get the right time, much less the right spell.

So fighters suddenly had another role on the battlefield.  They had to protect their mage's personal space (give him room to breathe and cast) while at the same time pushing the attack close to enemy spellcasters.  The spell-casters acted almost as flags:  they really couldn't defend themselves worth a damn, but it was essential (to the team) that they be defended.  The massive powers of the mages made the fighters more important.  The fighters were not merely swinging a sword, they were doing their part to facilitate spell-casting.

In this system, the mages contributed "spells" to their side, but they contributed "combat structure" to the game as a whole.

Joe - thanks for that thought. In some sense, I was reacting to support roles that I've seen in the past where the support character really wasn't an equal contributor. When a character contributes equally, but part of that contribution is making others shine, then that can work well. That's what we saw last night, the young wife went from playing a support character who couldn't contribute much beyond her support role to one who could contribute decently, but had an additional support role.

And ultimately that plays into what I've been working out in my head all along, that casters working in a support role where they can contribute more equally, and particularly, more consistently, then they work much better. What has attracted me all along to Cold Iron, and is something I want to capture, and improve upon in Troll Slayer, is that mages were support characters. Mages don't take out enemies by themselves, or even with the fighters just being meat shields. They provide support to the fighters, who do the real work (though the mage has opportunities to make noticeable contributions that earn them high fives also).

Ramidel - on playing a support character - it is true that quite frequently there is a player willing to take this role, but when the ability of the support character to contribute is noticeably less, it can be a trap for the quiet player. Perhaps they are having fun, but would they have more fun if they weren't caught in a trap? I have also seen groups struggle over who was going to play the boring cleric. D&D 3e has done several things to get the cleric out of this trap (allowing them to convert any spell to a healing spell is a big one, the domains also add interest so not all clerics are the same).

Joshua - good thoughts on making combat specials more map based. That is an area where I want to add something to. One thing that has always been a slight annoyance with Cold Iron is that a human normally can only be engaged by 4 other humans, but there are 6 hexes surrounding each hex. The problem I have is how to make it so people aren't overwhelmed by large forces, for example, Cold Iron allows two characters fighting back to back to only be engaged by 3 opponents each, where using hex based, would allow 4 on each, or 5 on one, and 3 on the other. Of course a square grid not allowing diagonals would restrict to the 4 opponents, but that gets real clunky (and a line vs line is absolutely restricted to 1 on 1, Cold Iron allows a line on line to still get 2 on 1s (with every other opponent not being attacked). I also appreciate the benefits of not using strict facing (that gets rid of most of the problem with Metagaming's Melee).

Hmm, just did some playing around... If a character occupies 2 or even 3 hexes, and has to have 2 hexes engaging the opposition, the number of opponents that can gang up is more limited. The only problem is that if the attack has to be to the middle of the 2 hex front, then the line only allows 1 on 1s.

A quick check on http://www.uspto.gov shows that Troll Slayer does not appear to be a registered trademark (though plenty of Dragon Slayer trade marks, and even Trout Slayer...). A google search didn't turn up anything other than the Warhammer Fantasy character type.

Well, off to start bashing out a first draft.

Frank

An observation from the world of RTS's: as far as I can tell ALL tactically interesting combat comes from paper-scissor-stone. The best way to balance melee and magic is to add a third option (say... archery) which works in a paper-scissor-stone way so, say, magic beats archery, archery beats melee and melee beats magic. That way combat becomes about leveraging your strengths in the right way. The problem in applying this to your situation, of course, is (I presume) that each player controls a single character.

One idea that comes into my head is to base magic around summoning. Spell casters would work by bringing multiple smaller units onto the battlefield under their control, while fighters would be the big hitting heroes of the piece.

Ffilz, are you set on having each player control a single character?
What if each player controlled 1-4 (or so) characters?

That way, you could have people play a hero, and the support heroes, etc.
It would also give people more combat strategies...
Do I want to take a single brute, or a few weaker swashbucklers? (etc)
That's actually what I originally thought you were doing, before reading through a lot of this.

I think that would turn support characters into something really interesting, because you are now dealing with a small group dynamic...
That's just my thoughts.

Heya,

That way, you could have people play a hero, and the support heroes, etc.
It would also give people more combat strategies...
Do I want to take a single brute, or a few weaker swashbucklers? (etc)
That's actually what I originally thought you were doing, before reading through a lot of this.

I agree with the rock-scissors-paper analogy to a point. What is important is that no strategic choice is clearly superior (character type is a strategic choice). In that sense, I don't think it has to be a triumvirate. Rock-scissors-paper needs to be a triumvirate to work because of it's simplicity.

Another way to get tactical interest is to make the game so complex it's virtually unsolveable. This is much of what makes chess interesting (though with computers becoming more and more powerfull, eventually not be remotely fun to play a computer, and it's remotely possible that the computer will discover a winning strategy).

In general, I don't want the game to rely on multiple characters. With a small group of players, it may require multiple characters, but I've generally seen resistance to that from players, unless the individual characters are very simple, which I think makes a long term role playing game less attractive (I know it can work for a short term role playing game because that's just what Evil Stevie's Pirate Game does when played in campaign/role playing mode).

Of course animal companions are one way to hav e multiple characters. Summoning is another way.

Frank

but I've generally seen resistance to that from players, unless the individual characters are very simple

Yea, I really have seen the resistance. Part of the resistance may be irrational because players do seem happy running animal companions and such. The workability of it may depend on whether the game is party oriented, or player vs player oriented. I know as a GM, I would be worried about how much harder it would be to prep for a larger party, and how much more complex the combats would be.

On the other hand, the warband idea may provide a solution to another issue with tactical combat games - how does the player continue to make contributions when his character is out of action? With a warband, the player is less likely to have all his characters out of action (and if he does, another player may be quite happy to let him control some of her secondary characters).

I'll have to give the idea some thought. This thread is being very helpful to me in making me challenge assumptions.

Frank

how does the player continue to make contributions when his character is out of action? With a warband, the player is less likely to have all his characters out of action (and if he does, another player may be quite happy to let him control some of her secondary characters).

ffilz wrote: On the other hand, the warband idea may provide a solution to another issue with tactical combat games - how does the player continue to make contributions when his character is out of action? With a warband, the player is less likely to have all his characters out of action (and if he does, another player may be quite happy to let him control some of her secondary characters).

Hi!
  I thik what you need to do is come up with different mechanics for generating DPS (Damage Per Second/Round). Make sure that they are all equal and then assign one to each class (casters included).
Example:
Accuracy
DMG/Hit
ROF
Reload time
Area of effect
Armor Piercing

  And balance out defensive techniques so that all chars are equal this way too:
Example:
HP Total
DMG Reduction
Defensive Rating
DMG Reflection
Attack Avoidance
Detection Avoidance (Inability to be targetted)

  Again, make sure they are mechanically balanced and assign one to each class. Of course, each class will have elements of the other Offenses and Defenses, but to a much lesser extent.
  Just an idea, I think something like this might help. PM me if you want some elaboration.

joepub wrote:

Ramidel, it sounds like you pictured someone who can probably hold their own... but who excels in strengthening those around them. This person boosts the whole team to success, and does so selflessly.
The best examples of what you seem to be picturing are the commanders, the leaders, and the "buff"ers.

Problem with this would of course be to make the 5-weakling band balanced against Fighter and Fighter With Support.

I'm pretty much thinking I don't want warbands. A 2nd backup character might be more reasonable.

One other issue with warbands, I do like to do the odd dungeon type adventure (though I don't go for the multi-level monstrosities of D&D). Warbands become very problematical in such a situation.

It is helpful to think about the warband idea though, because it opens the possibility of balancing some character choices with a 2nd character.

Frank