Hi everybody!

As many do here, it seems, I will start my topic with an apology too: Forgive me if I misuse terms that are fluent here or if I missed something already written in this rich trove of experience and ideas.

That done, I am getting right to the actual core of my problem:

My idea is to design a diceless system. I want to reduce randomness and the widespread calling-on-luck to effect a gritty, realistic feel that gives player the impression that it is their decisions that count in the end. Pure karma or drama does not do it for me. There will be some fortune involved by *betting* mechanics. The background similar to x-files/conspiracies/aliens/paranormal. Again, I want it to be gritty and a *realistic* feel.

The system will be based on traits like expert gunman, trained in forensics, weight lifter, with few steps or levels. These increase or decrease the ability of a given character in certain situations. Then *effort* can be spent if the player is unsure about the outcome, to meet the difficulty. Effort is limited by the amount that can be spent at once and in total. The more effort is made, the less can be invested in the future because of fatigue. Nothing new up to here, only my own, private approach.

Concerning combat, I want it to be colorful, concrete and descriptive. Imagination and ingenuity are to be rewarded. Combatants have a combat pool based on their combat ability (composed by applicable traits) and effort spent. This pool is spend on speed, accuracy and power (in close combat). I do not want a long list of moves, as I tried this approach and it proved to be anti-intuitive, as expected.

I do not want a scripting mechanic like used in some games as this slows down things too. My idea is, if not determined by the situation, adversaries bet combat pool (CP) on initiative. This may be crudely modified by certain traits and reach. The faster combatant becomes the attacker and secretly sets his attack in a descriptive way (I kick high to his face OR I crouch and punch his groin). He also allots CP to his move. The form of the attack is kept secret at first but determined by an icon or (very short) note (like *kick head).

Then the defender gets a chance to guess the attack. If he guesses correct, his chances to defend successfully are greatly increased. Also, the number of CP allotted to the move determine its effect: does it stop or just slow down the attack? If there is an excess in defense, this may lead to a reversal of the roles of attacker and defender, depending on the chosen move.

Supposed there is no successfully defense, the strike hits. The location is dictated by the attack description of the attacking combatant. Its effect is determined by the difference in allotted CP.

Here my problem starts: I want to retain a certain uncertainty concerning the effect. In real life, a stab with a knife to the chest can pierce the heart, resulting in very fast incapacitation. It may also sink in to the hilt and do no immediately threatening or even impairing damage. There is always a measure of *luck* involved. At least my research into the topic of real world injuries shows this. If not hitting the brain or spinal cord, even an expert gunman cannot guarantee a take-down with one shot. This may be a reason, that certain combat trainings involve the placement of multiple hits if possible without waiting for the effect of the first.
As you see, I dislike the approach that a high success-overkill results in an automatic kill.

My questions now:

What weaknesses/problems do you see in the system in general?
What are your ideas about attack resolution and hit localisation?
How to include a certain randomness in the effect of hits without involving dice and the like (my approach is guessing/betting methods; everthing that can be done with mere words or maybe the help off tokens/icons/counters)?

Thanks to any who have cared to read until now. And even more to those that take the time to reply.

Have a nice day!

Phil

Hi Phil,

Welcome to the Forge!

I like what you're presenting and I've seen versions of it work extremely well in practice. So I think you should develop this.

Here's my suggestion about your realism-vs.-high-roll dilemma. It seems to me that you might be a little stuck in the older RPG paradigm of "hit" vs. "damage." Whereas if I were playing in a bidding context like you're describing, then I'd be bidding not on whether my character hit, but on whether he hit + did damage, as a unit.

Another way to put this is that, if I lost, my character's action may indeed be described as sinking his blade into the opponent's chest ... but not effectively, due to whatever vagary of anatomy or angle might have been involved.

Does that seem like a useful concept for what you have in mind? If the bidding/comparison really is the resolution system, then it would be better, I think, for it really to resolve something. And in this case (deadly combat), the issue isn't "do I contact his flesh with my blade," but rather, "does the bastard hit the dirt?"

Some interesting games to check out for you are:

HeroQuest: a bidding system combined with a dice roll
Haven, City of Violence: a pure option-comparison system for unarmed fighting
Swashbuckler: a comparison system combined with a dice roll

None of them use traditional damage techniques (hit points or similar), and although none of them are precisely what you describe, they all offer angles or experiences that could be useful as you design your system.

Also, a final note to everyone - beginning one's posting with an apology is neither required nor desired, at this forum. Unlike many forums, a new person is not an automatic target, and so no one has to appease the existing participants in order to be accepted.

Best, Ron

Before I get into turning your suggestions from one side of my brain to the other, I do not want to waste time to thank you, Ron, for the welcome. I take that final note about apologies and the like to heart.

I know the systems you named, but swashbuckler (I heard about it before) eluded me until now. Any hint, where I can get a glimpse?

Best,

Phil

Phil, two reviews of Swashbuckler are here and here. That last one's even by Ron. (I've got the game myself, but haven't played it, so I can't really say much about it).

Swashbuckler is one of those "sets the standard" games that define the baseline for a certain sort of mechanic.  As such it should be part of every aspiring game designer's core curriculum of games to be inspired by.

The core fighting system works as follows:

There are a number of maneuvers that can be made in a duel (around 20 or so).  Each combatant will select a maneuver for the round (parry, feint, quick thrust, slash, lunge, etc).  The maneuvers are then cross referenced on a matrix to show who has the advantage for the match-up.  Aggressive maneuvers can end a battle quickly but can also get you creamed if your opponent selects a maneuver that effectively counters it.

The key is that each maneuver limits the maneuvers you can play next.  Generally the more committed (i.e. aggressive attack or determined defense) the maneuver is, the fewer maneuvers can be chosen from next turn.  The more flexible maneuvers won't necessarily earn you a big advantage from the matchup, but allow for a wider range of follow up maneuvers.  Certain maneuvers (like "ready") can always be played, resetting you to a position where all maneuvers are available, but leaving you vulnerable if your opponent lays the smack down that round.

A character will only know a limited number of maneuvers based on how skilled a swordsman they are (and even masters won't know them all) so a player can customize his "fighting style" by the selection of maneuvers you learn.  Attention must be paid when "building your style" to make sure the maneuvers complement each other.  So you can put together a fairly aggressive slashing style based on stringing a series of attacks together (that can be followed in sequence) often culminating with a brutal finishing move.  Or you can put together a very defensive style designed to be patient and wait for the opportunity to counterattack.  Unfortuneately the book offers no advice on how to "build a style" so basically you have to fight several mock battles before you start to see how the various moves interact.

Ultimately, what happens is that your limited number of maneuvers combine with the limited number of follow up options such that after any given play you will have only 2 or 3 choices as to what to do next.  If you've been particularly aggressive, or have a poorly designed style you might have only 1 option (or none and have to rely on the universal "ready").  An opponent who's been patient and has a wide range of options available can then use that knowledge to select a manuever that matches up well. 

Essentially you can think of the system as a "card game" (and the game even comes with the maneuvers printed on perforated cards) where your deck is built out of all the maneuvers you know, and your hand is recreated each round based on what maneuvers you have available after your previous choice.  The object is to out guess your opponent based on what you know of their deck and the maneuver they played last to maximize your chance for a good matchup in the matrix.

Hi Phil

Some great ideas here. I am a fan of bidding systems though the only system I have played in depth is the new Marvel Universe RPG which I drifted to serve my player's styles a bit better than originally presented. I will try and use my experience with this game to answer your questions.

What weaknesses/problems do you see in the system in general?

What are your ideas about attack resolution and hit localisation?

How to include a certain randomness in the effect of hits without involving dice and the like (my approach is guessing/betting methods; everthing that can be done with mere words or maybe the help off tokens/icons/counters)?

Im not sure about the initiative and secret attack guessing mechanic.  Isnt that introducing a random mecahnic to the game anyway (you said you wanted to reduce luck)?  And then its kind of like the players guessing skill becomes important, whereas really the ability of the character to anticipate the enemy's move should be based on the characters combat skill ?  Or do you want a clever player with an unskilled character to be able to get the better of a not-as-clever player with a skilled character?

If one char is faster than the other, then the other always has to bet more CP on initiative or he will forever be defending.  maybe instead of just damage, you should be able to aim for an advantage in initiative next round.  thats the purpose of feinting, jabbing, eavading or countering etc...- to set up a decisive attack through a series of non-decisive actions.

but without a random element, however, how does the fight become simply- the better skilled character always wins?

stefoid wrote:
but without a random element, however, how does the fight become simply- the better skilled character always wins?

its up to the GM whether the opposing characters are suprisingly tricked up.  We are talking about the combat rules which apply to all combat situations.

Hi everybody!

Thanks for the valuable contributions of all of you until now. They quite helped me to straighten out some of the design confusion. I hope to be able to post the results soon and adress some of the still existeing weak points.

This far, I want to comment on Stefoid's post:

I wanted to reduce randomness, that's right. Still I am aware that without it, the game will be totally karma-based (as I understand the concept). Guessing and betting mechanics have another nice "side-effect": it seems to me, that they give the players more control over the action and their characters fate and performance as they decide on the import and effort put into an endeavour. At least in the gaming groups I participated in, this was a concern. All to often, a random roll made a fool out of an highly competent character.

It is my belief, that cleverness on the part of the player should be rewarded. Otherwise, all to easily, the whole event is reduced to simple and exclusive dice-rolling, resulting in a kind a passive players. Sure, it should not be the other way around that less creative players get punished beyond that their enjoyment of the game may be already lessened by their minor ability to contribute.

And why shouldn't a less skilled character have a disadvantage versus a more able opponent that forces him to exert more effort and will eventually leave him drained if he is not able to turn the tables to his favour in time with clever and ingenious moves? This is exactly what you wrote about aiming for advantage (or equality in this case) instead of going for a direct kill. And this, to me, is better gaming, putting higher demands on creativity, not only on stats and dice.

This is exactly what I aim for: forcing player's to be descriptive and imaginative beyond that:"I strike him!". How do they do it? How can they defeat an opponent that is superior in direct damage-dealing? How defeated Odyseus the cyclops? Not by attacking him straight-away ...

Hmmm...have you seen Amber Diceless?

With this last post it sounds like your on your way to something very similar.

I'm more of a traditionalist (i.e. dice) in terms of resolution mechanics. You seem to me to be going at cross-purposes, wanting randomness at some level, but not wanting randomizers like dice. I think that both Ron and Ralph have good points, Ron in that a system that resolves both hit and success of hit at the same time, and Ralph has an excellent system in his resolution matrix. Anything involving betting mechanics has to be invulnerable to the "bet as much as you can as fast as you can" tactic.

Just about anything you choose is going to penalize someone. A resolution that requires player creativity (or actual knowledge of fighting techniques) is going to penalize someone who just wants to fight or lacks the knowledge. Something that requires guessing can make a fool of a skilled character just as easily as a bad dice roll.

A manuever system where the number of manuevers you have to choose from depends not (just) on your skill, but on the difference in skill might be interesting. That is, the skilled person can see what their opponent is up to better, more accurately guessing what they are going to do, either because the less skilled person had fewer moves available, or because the more skilled person "herds" the less skilled one into a smaller number of possible options. I can see two masters facing off, each having trouble seeing the other's next move (because they are good), or two novices facing off, doing the same, but with a smaller number of moves in their repertoire.

Greg Porter

Phil wrote:
Hi everybody!

Thanks for the valuable contributions of all of you until now. They quite helped me to straighten out some of the design confusion. I hope to be able to post the results soon and adress some of the still existeing weak points.

This far, I want to comment on Stefoid's post:

I wanted to reduce randomness, that's right. Still I am aware that without it, the game will be totally karma-based (as I understand the concept). Guessing and betting mechanics have another nice "side-effect": it seems to me, that they give the players more control over the action and their characters fate and performance as they decide on the import and effort put into an endeavour. At least in the gaming groups I participated in, this was a concern. All to often, a random roll made a fool out of an highly competent character.

It is my belief, that cleverness on the part of the player should be rewarded. Otherwise, all to easily, the whole event is reduced to simple and exclusive dice-rolling, resulting in a kind a passive players. Sure, it should not be the other way around that less creative players get punished beyond that their enjoyment of the game may be already lessened by their minor ability to contribute.

And why shouldn't a less skilled character have a disadvantage versus a more able opponent that forces him to exert more effort and will eventually leave him drained if he is not able to turn the tables to his favour in time with clever and ingenious moves? This is exactly what you wrote about aiming for advantage (or equality in this case) instead of going for a direct kill. And this, to me, is better gaming, putting higher demands on creativity, not only on stats and dice.

This is exactly what I aim for: forcing player's to be descriptive and imaginative beyond that:"I strike him!". How do they do it? How can they defeat an opponent that is superior in direct damage-dealing? How defeated Odyseus the cyclops? Not by attacking him straight-away ...

Hi,
I think the best way to solve the problem is to first try the manuevers in a "real" combat. Using Larp-weapons and a little bit of creativity will help to find a rule how much damage an attack will actualy do and where it hits.
I do not know, if you have a classic hitpoint-based system, so things like "triple damage" could not work or are not wanted. A wound-level based systems migth work best, especially when you are going to include the loss of blood and fatigue.
A concrete resolution for the hit-location-problem could be to draw the characters, mark vital points and so on. Then everybody attacking another chooses a point to attack and a kind of attack, for example a slashing attack from left to rigth. This is marked on a combat sheet. The action of the "defending" char. determines if and in which direction the attack goes. For example could a very unlucky und not so clever figther try to block the blade by hitting it from underneath and risking his throat...

Kinds of attack and direction could be displayed easy by differend kinds of arrows, dots, smileys, etc.
The effort put in the attack by the length or size of the symbol.

Hiya,

A couple things.

You've mentioned wanting to reward players for being inventive in their combat descriptions and such. What about if your system incorporates something along the lines of opponents can give each other a bidding resource as a reward for awesome description (I'm thinking here of Stunting in Exalted and Fan Mail in Prime Time Adventures).

So, the procedure goes something along the lines of:

-Decide actions and allocate resources.
-Describe actions, without revealing resource allocation.
-Cool description gets rewards that go directely towards your resources (from opponent, or from people not in the combat, or both!)
-Reveal resources allocation.

Secondly, you mentioned that the game is kinda x-files/conspiracy based. What do the characters do ("go on adventures" isn't really an answer to this question...)? What do the players do (ditto "play their characters")? What kinds of behavior do you want your system to reward?* I ask because I think that it's helpful to establish the context within which your combat system is working. How and why do people get into fights? Why is combat important? What do you want the fallout of losing, or of winning, a fight to mean for the greater goals of play? Notice that this also hooks into figuring out a wound/injury system. For example, Truth and Justice uses a system whereby being physically injured mechanically can mean you lose points from social skills, to simulate superhero comics like Spiderman. Is injury simply a punishment for not doing well in combat? Or does it have an effect on other parts of the game (like, say, making it more or less likely for the conspiracy to be real or discovered**)?

I hope some of that helps.

*If you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend checking out The Power 19

**I just got really excited about a system that is set up such that the more the players get beaten, injured and generally tossed around, the more likely it is that they are objectively right about the conspiracy. Not sayin' you should do this. But how cool would that be!

For what it is worth, I have seen something similar to a "diceless" combat with still some random aspect of chance, using cards. I believe it was the Saga system. I don't want to repost all the rules as I can't remember than all in detail, but I remember the feel and the intent.

The players were given cards at the beginning of the game. The higher the "expierence" of the character the more cards in your hand. When doing actions, you added the card's value to your character value. It could be tricky cause you don't draw cards every turn (at least that I recall). This adds some element of "random" meaning, that not just the highest person wins with stats, but also less random as the players can decide when it really counts, and lay out the high ranking cards.

If you wanted a twist on it, I could also combining some elements to others and getting away from just the pure numbers. I am really going out on a limb here and not well thought out, but I could see something akin to:

-> Players having different fighting styles on their character sheet either simply by a style like finesse fighter, or brute-strength brawler, or defensive fighter with riposte, or something like that, or something very specific, like skills like jab, slash, fient, parry, riposte,etc.

-> The cards would have options listed. Say each card has three options on it with different levels on it. Players have a trait to help them like spirit or something, that they could exhaust to trade in their hand if it was really bad.

Let me try to lay it out a bit more with an example.Setting (to go with what you have, modern day conspriacy stuff). Player A is a cop, as such he has the abilities Trained Hand-to-Hand (basically trained course work, whether that is boxing gym, police academy self-defense, or the local Y karate club), where as Player B the perp has Street-fighting. Other type of skills in the game could be Self-Defense. So basically you have three categories of fighting for hand to hand in this game - Streetfighting (like bar room brawling, your local toughs, or whatever), Self-Defense (this is what your mom took when there was a string of muggings), Trained Hand-to-Hand (this what boxers, or marital artists, or police or FBI would use).

Now this system is assuming two things. One you are not using hit-points, but some kind of wound system, like wounded, serious, mortal, dead (so lets say four levels for this example). In this system like ron mentioned, it is a total outcome. So you take your skill (lets assume skills are 1 to 3). The differance is how much damage you do. The card will tell you if you hit.

A typical card would be like this for the above system:

Attack
Streetfighting - Quick Jab +1
Trained Hand-to-Hand - Solid Blow +1
Self-Defense - Turn the Attack +3

Defense
Streetingfighting - Duck and Weave +3
Trained Hand-to-Hand - Dodge +2
Self-Defense - Ziged when you should have zagged -3

There would be a bunch of these cards, say the player's expierence determined how many they could have in hand. For the purpose of this example, lets say that each player had only one card, and that it was the example above.

Player A is a decent Cop - he has Trained Hand-to-Hand +2
Player B is a small time crook - he has Streetfighting +1

Player A puts down the card, Trained Hand to Hand +1, for a total of 3, should be pretty good. Player B though puts down his card, which is really good +3 for a total of +4 so he manages to dodge the attack.

Had the situation been, Player B small time crook with knife, and Player C, and a highly trained nurse in Self-Defense (to deal with the crack heads that come in the emergency room it would play out for the same card like this)

Player B streetfighting +1
Player C sefldefense +3,
Player B plays card, quick jab with the knife for a total of +2, but Player C only has this card, so she has to play it, -3 + 3 = 0, for a differance of 2. She is seriously wounded now, and gives up to the crook.

Obviously you would need more cards, and a mechanism to allow players to lose and redraw cards.

Another different but similar option is to just have cards but have numbers on them, but also put an extra for if they have the attribute on their character sheet. I could see a whole game built around the number 4 (for the four suits in a normal deck). Where there are different character attributes such as hereo, anti-hero, villan, misguided if you played a card of the right suit you that matched your attribute or fate you would get a bonus. Or something.

I know that the above was a bit rambly, but hopefully you get the idea that diceless doesn't have to mean no random, and it could mean less random. Where there is a random element to determine a "pool" or "hand" you draw from, but it is up to the players to decide how to utilize that pool to the maximum effictivness.

I could see the above even being used for a "gmless" or "shared narrative" type of game as well.