Okay, I started working on my new game, which I've decided to call Fantasy Ballbreaker (FB). At least, for now.

I'm hoping to get some criticism and feedback on this idea. Also, if there's a game out there that's already doing this, and better, then I'd like to know that as well. I play a lot of games, but not all of them.

There are six classes in FB:

• Fighter
• Fighter/Thief
• Thief
• Thief/Mage
• Mage
• Mage/Fighter

Character creation is blah blah blah. Something about Strength and Dexterity. And there are swords and spells and whatnot.

Here's what I'm trying to do with the system:

When you fight, you roll a number of d6s equal to your Combat score (or your Magic score, if you're casting a spell, et cetera). But when you execute an action in tandem with another character, you add to your chances of success. Both players announce the tactic that they're going to employ, and then the round begins.

Example: Fighter and Thief are in a fight with an ogre. If the fighter attacks, he rolls 4 dice, because his combat score is 4. Then something happens. He hits, he misses. But if the fighter and the thief want to execute a tactical assault, the chances go up. The fighter and thief decide that they're going to do a Distract/Backstab maneuver. This means that the fighter makes a lot of noise during the attack, and the thief steps in to do a backstab.

[img]http://www.dread-rpg.com/fb.jpg[/img]

This is the layout of the classes. Each class has a diametric opposite. The opposite of the fighter (focus on combat) is the mage/thief (focus on magic/stealth).

The distance from your tactical partner on this chart determines the number of extra dice that you get. For each step away from your class, you get an extra die, to a maximum of 3. For example, if you are a fighter, and you're working with the fighter/mage, you each get an extra die when executing a tactical maneuver together. If you're working with the mage, you get 2 extra dice. And if it's the mage/thief, you both get 3 extra dice.

There are also going to be special maneuvers for three people, for four, and so forth. The challenge is that these must be chosen prior to combat, and once combat begins, you're locked into it. If the mage's fireball spell doesn't kill the ogre, and the fighter's supposed to charge in and kill the necromancer, then the ogre's still going to be there, all burned and pissed-off.

It's also possible to do non-combat maneuvers, such as good cop/bad cop interrogations, or non-combat spellcasting.

So, that's where I'm at with this sudden brainstorm. Hopefully, I've explained this all in a way that makes sense. What are your thoughts/questions/criticisms?

Thanks,
Rafael

Hi Rafael,

That's a pretty awesome idea of for a teamwork based game.  I for generally good fighty-game kind of stuff, I'd recommend Agon, Burning Wheel & Beast Hunters right now as possible reference sources.

Is it possible to do triple team manuevers (or more)?  For example, I'm thinking of a 3 party group who fill the basic niches of Fighter, Mage and Thief- do they just get trade off paired moves or can they pull a 3 person manuever?

Also, is there any reason to NOT do a team combo?  Like, is it limited in the types of manuevers compared to doing single actions?  Or would you basically only do single actions if you absolutely had to get more stuff done in a single "round"?  Or would it be better to split up when fighting multiple opponents?

For example, a tactical drawback I could imagine with manuevers involving the mage would probably be about protecting the mage- maybe any damage incurred goes to the protector for that round?

Chris

Hi, Chris,

Long time, no see, man.

Chris_Chinn wrote: Is it possible to do triple team manuevers (or more)?  For example, I'm thinking of a 3 party group who fill the basic niches of Fighter, Mage and Thief- do they just get trade off paired moves or can they pull a 3 person manuever?

Chris_Chinn wrote: Also, is there any reason to NOT do a team combo?  Like, is it limited in the types of manuevers compared to doing single actions?  Or would you basically only do single actions if you absolutely had to get more stuff done in a single "round"?  Or would it be better to split up when fighting multiple opponents?

Chris_Chinn wrote: IFor example, a tactical drawback I could imagine with manuevers involving the mage would probably be about protecting the mage- maybe any damage incurred goes to the protector for that round?

Hey,

Are the combo manuevers going to be generally mapped out (Attack, Attack, Defend) or specific ("Guardian Block Pincer Move")?

Generic leaves more room for creativity in tactics (Tunnels & Troll's Saving Rolls being a prime example, though Beast Hunters would be the recent incarnation), while specific gives great color and might set up crunchy tactics based on knowing the system (Exalted & D&D being the two exemplar examples).

Obviously the latter is hell of a lot more work in terms of balancing and writing.

Also, some older videogames come to mind as having fun team combo attacks- Rival Schools (and it's sequel, Project Justice), Chrono Trigger, and the many Capcom team fighting games (Marvel vs. Capcom, etc.).

You might get some neat ideas from those as well.

Chris

Love the general idea. I recommend considering non-combat roles as well; I've always felt that understanding the roles of fighter, thief and mage in terms of combat is lessening the interest of all involved character concepts. Those character types work best when combat, and especially individual swings and parries, are only considered in a larger mission-oriented framework. Trying to make a thief be "as efficient" as fighter in a fight is just stupid and ends up with the 3rd edition special strike -thief that's really just a fighter that hits hard in special circumstances and has all the thief skills as well, except when the GM cripples them with adventure design. The magic-user seems to end up some kind of semi-omnipotent god in the same context. It'd be much more interesting if you could move your perspective up above individual clashes of arms, perhaps with an understanding that the class that does those clashes of arms best is the eponymous fighter, and the best way for other classes to contribute is via other, closely related venues. Then you wouldn't have to struggle with the fictional discrepancy that results from a fighter and a thief being more efficient in a fight than two fighters. Who should, you know, be good at fighting and stuff.

That's what I immediately thought of your approach, anyway. Making a fighting game is cool as well, of course; if I were in your boots I'd consider swapping the fighter/thief/mage with some semi-imaginary schools of martial arts or some such thing for a fighting game, but that's just because I'm annoyed by the aforementioned issue of fighters not having any niche protection whatsoever. If the character classes were all different brands of fighter It'd seem more natural that their perceived equivalency centers on deeds of violence.

Chris_Chinn wrote: Are the combo manuevers going to be generally mapped out (Attack, Attack, Defend) or specific ("Guardian Block Pincer Move")? Generic leaves more room for creativity in tactics (Tunnels & Troll's Saving Rolls being a prime example, though Beast Hunters would be the recent incarnation), while specific gives great color and might set up crunchy tactics based on knowing the system (Exalted & D&D being the two exemplar examples). Obviously the latter is hell of a lot more work in terms of balancing and writing.

Chris_Chinn wrote: Also, some older videogames come to mind as having fun team combo attacks- Rival Schools (and it's sequel, Project Justice), Chrono Trigger, and the many Capcom team fighting games (Marvel vs. Capcom, etc.). You might get some neat ideas from those as well.

Eero wrote: The magic-user seems to end up some kind of semi-omnipotent god in the same context. It'd be much more interesting if you could move your perspective up above individual clashes of arms, perhaps with an understanding that the class that does those clashes of arms best is the eponymous fighter, and the best way for other classes to contribute is via other, closely related venues. Then you wouldn't have to struggle with the fictional discrepancy that results from a fighter and a thief being more efficient in a fight than two fighters. Who should, you know, be good at fighting and stuff.

Oh, don't get confused by my personal hang-ups, there. It's just that whenever I think about generic fantasy gaming in terms of fighter/mage/thieves I start thinking about '80s stuff like Quest for Glory, say, which do these separate-yet-equal roles with much more flair than the combat-oriented games nowadays. In the games of that era it was clear that being a "thief" very much meant that you weren't supposed to fight as well as a fighter, as there wasn't a clearly enshrined set of critical strike rules or whatever in place. The balance of classes was achieved by having the thief work on a strategic level: he could use his skills to pick and choose fights, gain advantages of equipment, planning and surprise over his enemies, or even outright avoid or postpone fights. So even if the thief never was the equal of a fighter in terms of hitting hard or having tactical options, he'd be "balanced" by not having to face as difficult fights as the fighter had to.

All that has little to do with your game, however. You could take it into consideration by moving from the bout level to conflict level in your consideration, if you wanted to: instead of having a fighter and a thief executing a "backstabbing maneuver" by pincering an enemy or whatever, you could have the thief provide route and security information or distractions for the fighter, making sure the fights he goes into are the right ones and that he'll have the tactical advantage in terms of disinformation, confusion and surprise when he finally strikes. This could work mechanically just like you outlined, by generating generic bonus dice, the only difference being that instead of looking at individual split-second fight decisions you'd look at the whole mission in chunks of tactical decision-making opportunities. The underlying mechanics are the same, but the fiction works better to my taste when the aid provided by a thief is not about gallivating in the battlefield and, somehow, being more efficient about it than a fighter. Same goes for the mage, of course.

On the other hand, there definitely is cultural support for having "thief" mean a fighter who hits hard in specific set-up conditions and "mage" mean a fighter who operates tactical scale artillery, so I wouldn't be too worried about it in your boots, if that's the kind of flavour you want for your game. In both cases the underlying structural assumptions are rather clever, and I'll be following the development with interest.

Hi, Eero,

That's a really good way to put it -- they're all fighters, really, just with different areas of expertise (direct combat, stealth, sorcery). I'm not even going to be using the words 'fighter', 'thief', or 'mage', actually. Their titles are tied into the setting, so hopefully the baggage associated with those titles won't be associated with the final product.

But I really like the idea that the thief's role isn't necessarily defined by backstabbing and sneaky fighting. The thief is kind of a trickster in this game, so I wonder if one of his maneuvers could be subterfuge of some kind. For instance, giving the impression that he's a military scout, calling enemy information back to a much larger army (in order to intimidate/panic his enemies). Or maybe he could pretend to be injured, waiting for an enemy to come in for the kill, then gutting him with a hidden dagger or something. Dirty fighting, in other words. Mind games. Hell, even setting battlefield traps. In all the chaos, they don't notice him sprinkling the ground behind them with grease and caltrops.