I recently started working on a system based on Japanese style computer games, which are in turn based of traditional mythology and of course, dungeons and dragons. Now, I'm not particularly interested in mimicking the systems of these sorts of games too closely (I feel no need to have stats like POW and HP, for instance), so I created a basic resolution thats task-oriented (players state what there character does and then roll to see if they succeed. success is then narrated by the GM) The system is complete, but as of yet there are no sub-systems, say for controlling time variable and such.

What I'm looking for is a way to handle combat in a traditional way (evocative of video-RPGs) while keeping the core mechanic.

Here's a summary of the system.

Characters have a level from 1 to 10. Any action that the character's perform has a base value of their level. The player then gets a limited number of Advantages (like skills or positive attributes) to increase their die pool. They then roll all the dice in their pool. Each die that comes up over their current Karma (which is rated from 5 to 1) each die that comes up over this value doubles the characters base value. The idea here is that there will be vast differences between various power levels (extreme scaling) and that the numbers will be large and largely unpredictable at higher levels. Also, keeping your Karma as close to 1 as possible is suppose to be a major incentive for the players. Finally, players add their current Endurance (which is a cross between fatigue, hit points and saving throws that decrease with any form of physical stress) to the base value and this determines the character's final degree of success.

Now, how would you handle combat so its at least evocative of tactical, video-gamey play and how would you handle timing in conflicts like combat. Ideally special rolls and systems would be kept to minimum and additional statistics (ones that aren't Level, Karma, Endurance or Advantages) would be necessary to determine the outcome of events.

Hi, Nolan!

Could you give some examples of the "tactical, video-gamey play" you're looking for? 

Also, tell us why you like the combat resolution system you've described there so much, and how this coolness might tie into the tactics. 

-JT

Well, Final Fantasy 12 is a perfect example. When developing your character you carefully (or blindly) select how you'll progress and then have to choose how to use in combat. One battle in the game for example, hinges on keeping players from using their most potent attacks so the monster doesn't use its own death attack. Another battle requires the player to use only one character at a time and so on.

In addition, more traditional systems, like the job system in FF2 or FF Tactics, give a player a real visceral sense of "cool, I can do X now!"

As far as why I like it? Well, its home base for a lot of players familiar with these types of video games, so it asks them to only extend their comfort zone, not leave it, while at the same time it allows for the type of mechanics level exploration that many players find appealing. Finally, its not the approach taken by war game based combat systems (like D&D) or real world simulation ones (GURPS, Cyberpunk/Fuzion) or more heavily narrative ones (of which I can't think of an example). Exalted also tries to emulate this, but only partially, because its inspirations are more mixed (I would say abashed).

Also, when playing in a video game world the combat is one of things that people like. The things that they don't like are often those things that the medium requires (a given degree of linear game play, limitations on available character, lack of direct human contact, etc...). I think by moving the good things of the milieu from the screen and to the table would be fun and would allow players to essentially explore worlds they're familiar with in new ways. While making that transition though, I want to at least maintain the parts that work.

You know, I spent some time writing out my opinions on what pen and paper RPGs tend to do which prevents their tactics from working like Final Fantasy, and on what someone could do to actually get that kind of real variation out of combat.  But it was turning into a rant, and getting a bit off the topic of this thread, and so I just PM'd it to you.

Instead, to address your question more specifically, that is, how to implement the combat mechanic you already have going there into your strategy RPG, I have another question.  What is it about the mechanic that you've come up with there (i.e., rolling [Level + Advantages] pool versus Karma target number, successes result in doubling) that you think feels like Final Fantasy 12?

The last issue you asked about in your first post was timing.  You mentioned Exalted, so I'm going to assume here that you know the ins and outs of Exalted 2nd Edition timing.  Is there a specific reason you don't want to do something similar to that?  It does the ATB gauge alright, but I'm sure you could think of something that works even better for your game.

In my current project, instead of rolling for whether they hit or not each round, players roll for how long it would take them to get their next successful meaningful hit.  It's only "meaningful" if it actually has an effect on the enemy (losing HP is not meaningful, so like you, I don't use HP).  In that sense, it's a bit like FF12, in that you're not micromanaging every single little piddling attempt to swing your sword.  You only have to count the ones that count, and assume otherwise that the characters are obeying their Gambits.  Would you be up for something weird like that?

-JT

The problem IMO with that approach is that a video game can have a combat system that is as complicated as the RAM and CPU can handle which is quite complicated and real time to boot!

So to really get a video-gamey feel, you either have a clunky, long to resolved system à la D&D 3E, or you get pretty much anything that isn't video gamey at all :o/

If I ever get a better idea, I'll tell.

Final fantasy's system is heavily turn based no? If so, it could be manageable IMO. Just have a turn-based system with some sort of combo moves. Think of it as a linked test. If you succeed them all, you unlock a special move. If no, the only count as normal action/attacks.

Ok, here are some loose suggestions. Dunno how useful they are.

Ditch timing.

You have a task based system? Treat combat as a series of normal tasks. Attach some serious risk to each task involving combat. Maybe it's opening oneself for a counter-attack, or just some fixed damage risk, or maybe the player needs to put something important for the character on the line, or whatever.

Then, whoever wants to act, narrates the action and rolls the dice, just like that. Whichever player reacts first gets the action. The group can discuss their order of actions and work it out, planning tactically, or just go for rolling madness. Either way, you act more, you risk more.

Tasks continue until the players hit some victory trigger - either accumulating enough successes or fulfilling some alternative, scenario-based condition.

And if nobody acts, or everyone hesitates, the opponents simply advance their agenda. Say, the monsters destroy the village, cause nobody showed initiative and tried to stop them.

I'd expect it to create a pretty dynamic Active Time Battle feel, without complicating things with counting ticks and stuff.

As for the "cool, I can do X now!" part, well, you could give the players some special abilities that simply let them do X, possibly a limited number of times per session. Say, an ability to kill/immobilize/charm/mug/whatever an opponent of certain type, just like that. An ability to learn the special victory condition, or an ability to ask for one of "GM's secrets" to be revelaled once per session. An ability to act with no risk in combat, or to mitigate the consequences of inaction. This kind of stuff, and possibly also skills that allow for re-rolls, counter-counters, double actions with no additional risk or whatever. You could add limitations like "only in this environment", "only against this type of opponents", "only with this type of weapon" or the like, for greater variance.

The idea is that you don't delve into mechanical complications too much. You have such and such situation, you have these buttons to push.

Actually, I think such a game could benefit from streamlining the resolution and reducing the math to the minimum. I'd probably go for something along the lines of "draw X cards and look for combinations of symbols for such and such effect". 999 damage caps and stuff might be a signature of Final Fantasy, but at systems that try to handle this tend to be cumbersome. I'd say, instead of considering the hidden mechanics of the engine, focus on how the play experience actually feels for the guy holding the pad. A chain of immediate choices and instant audiovisual feedback.

Dark Knight LVL 5
Once per session break an innocent heart to kill a single opponent without any rolls.

Paladin LVL 4
Once per session automatically cancel any attack, directed against anyone, and make the attacker fall in love with you.

Black Mage LVL 3
Once per session make something - anything, whether solid like a bridge or abstract like hope - burn.

How does this sound? Is there enough "cool, I can do X now!" in these?

Well, if you just wanted to emulate the crunchy bits from a platform RPG, Final Fantasy Tactics is actually pretty simple to do.

The attacker rolls percentile die against the defender's defense value, hoping to roll above it. If they do, great, the attack hits. If they don't, they 'trigger' the defender's defense (whatever that happens to be, and if the defense is applicable) - which can be bad.

Of course, a system like this isn't actually very good without some tweaking, IMHO, because just about everything hinges on the defender's defense value. There's nothing an attacker can do to reduce, say, a 95% chance to parry - they just have to roll and hope for the best.

Jason:

I don't think my mechanic feels like FF 12 at all. Something that I didn't seem to make clear is that my core mechanic there (which you summarized well) is not a combat mechanic. I was thinking about the idea of making a game based off of "video game fantasy" (which goes beyond FF into Disgaea, the Mana series, Dragon Warrior, etc...) and how they feel and how you could translate that into an RPG.

What I wanted was to translate the feel of combat progression in those style of games into the way that everything progressed. Numbers get big, people of varying degree of ability have vastly different proficiencies, etc... the karma mechanic is external to whole scaling thing, and is there to strongly encourage pro-active play (you'll note that I don't say much about how karma works, because its a little off topic).

Now onto Exalted timing. I mentioned Exalted because I feel its so abashed as to be ineffective. Is it anime action? Wuxia? Video game emulation? It doesn't know and neither do I. According to it its suppose to be mostly inspired by Tanith Lee and the Bible, but... that only complicates matters.

Bastoche:
The thing is, I don't think you need to preserve the mechanic in order to preserve the feel nor do I think you need to preserve the mechanics in order to recreate pen and paper mechanics that will create the kind of tactical combat that I think would be evocative of this style of play. What I want is something that isn't playing a video game or just emulating it, but instead, a fully realized table top experience that feels in many ways (hopeful the right ones) like the video games do. "Oh cool, I can do that now!" is a big part of that feel, but so is, "Oh, so thats how I beat that!." I'm sure there are plenty of others to.

Filip:
I like your general thinking. I would still like to have a way to formalize priority. Maybe something like this: highest Karma has priority and can act. They resolve their action but based on how risky it is, they raise everyone else's "effective karma" when someone else's effective karma exceed there's, then that player would gain priority and get to act. Ideally, I think I want the system to be one in which only the players roll (like SAGA or the variant mechanic in the 3e Unearthed Arcana), so priority would pass in between players and enemy's would have triggers that said, if player ever does X then X happens to their character.

Thanks a lot for your advice, it really got me thinking.

As to your second post, all I can only say that I think your a genius, and I wish I had thought of that. Have you noticed that you managed to somehow turn video game inspired powers into something both evocative and sort of poetic?

Grinning Moon:
See above about not wanting to do direct emulation.

Also, new thought, what do you think about to mechanical modes of play: one being the kind of run around and fight things free form play that most VRPGs consist of and the other being something representing Cinematics.

What I was thinking was that players could request a Cinematic, which would allow them to step outside the normal rules of the game to do some scene framing/plot control style stuff but in a competitive manner with the GM. Maybe doing this would eat up Karma or some such.

Nolan,

To make sure we're on the same page,

Goal: Achieve a much greater level of variation in combat.
    * Big gaps in power level
    * Diversity in required tactics/strategy
Reasoning: Other tabletops don't do this well.
    * Some are not even attempting to do this
    * Others are abashed at doing it
Plan: To make some fundamental design decisions.
    * Timing and Resolution mechanic (to give feel of consoles)
    * Character traits (to emphasize variation in combat)

Is my focus here on tactical/power level variation off base?  It was a comment made in your second post which I've latched onto as what to me is the most concrete way you've expressed the feel.  Rather, at least it's the description I've identified the most with.  "Feel" is a hard thing to communicate, and is very subjective.  If the tactical diversity is a big component of your feel, I'd like to focus on that.  Perhaps you'd like to get the core mechanics settled beforehand.  But one could argue the reverse.

To me, some of the things which make these types of games crunchy are the vastly different resistances and vulnerabilities characters/enemies can have.  One has to think about what spells or equipment can provide these resistances.  And some effects that provide powerful advantages also can be disadvantageous, like Reflect.  Things like this can screw over a whole strategy.  If an enemy is inflicting Mute with every attack, should I set up a gambit to Echo a character, or should I just let everyone get Muted and go with physical attacks?  But what if the enemy is resistant to physical attacks, and this resistance can be brought down with a Fire effect?  Should I take out his pet first, which keeps healing him?

See, I think it might be cool to build a solid way to handle all these contingencies.  But do you want to make a system that is able to handle all that?  If so, how tightly would the arbitration of what traits an opponent has tie into how difficult that opponent is as a challenge? 

And how important would differences in timing be - i.e., how important is it that a given player gets a turn within a "fair" amount of time, and how important is it that the system allow for faster characters to get more turns than slower characters? 

-JT

Jason:

Yes, I think you've stated some of the goals very well. In general I like Filip's take on timing, in addition to my follow up post about Priority. So, assume for now that the game will:

a) Use the system I described in my original post (Roll XD, where X is the number of applicable Advantages you possess, each die over Karma= x2 Base Value/Level, finally, add current Endurance)

b) All of play will be handle with player X having Priority, at any given moment only the player with Priority can act.

c) NPCs/Monsters/everything not controlled as a PC will be dice-less. If a monster attacks, the PC makes a defense roll to resolve the attack. If the PC attacks, the PC makes an attack roll to resolve the attack.

d) Players will have reliable, powerful and very limited use abilities that they accrue as they develop in level.

So what really remains to be discussed is how to make sure combat is tactical. Note that all of the above is negotiable, but only if the new solutions are clearly better/necessary.

I like the idea of vulnerabilities and contingent actions. What it brings to mind is something where every basically has the the contingency spell, and that they must plan carefully how they'll use. Perhaps as players level they gain Reaction Slots that say "if x occurs, then I get to do X." These slots would have to be modular so that they could be changed during play, but doing so should be costly.

So in answer to your question:

See, I think it might be cool to build a solid way to handle all these contingencies.  But do you want to make a system that is able to handle all that?  If so, how tightly would the arbitration of what traits an opponent has tie into how difficult that opponent is as a challenge?

Your thoughts on priority are interesting - I've been thinking about a game with similar structure of actions, and now I wonder whether something like that would be needed in that design.

As to your current problems:

1) Since only the players roll the dice, you don't really need many stats for the opposition. Possibly, there's no need for them at all. The problem with most games that tried to emulate japanese console rpgs I've seen so far was that monster creation toolkits they included required a lot of effort from the GM. Here, however, the system for creating encounters could be heavily streamlined.

Jason points at resistances/vulnerabilities. I think the encounter could easily be created by picking some, and then determining how many successes are needed to win. Possibly, also a single value for the risk connected with combat. This would reduce encounter creation to just a few decisions, without any need for distributing points, calculating secondary values and other tedious stuff.

2) So, maybe there are always two ways to defeat an encounter. The players could attack it until enough successes is accumulated (obviously, they don't have to know this value, and certainly they won't know the resistances/vulnerabilities until they hit them), or they could look for an alternative way to defeat it, via various actions. For each encounter write-up, you could have an alternative win condition, possibly in multiple steps. This would be always viable, regardless of party setup.

Say, during the fight with a golem, if someone searches nearby debris successfully a key will be found. Then, if one examines the back of the golem's head, a keyhole will be discovered. The remaining two steps would be to jump onto the golem (say, a dragoon could do that without any rolls) and to turn the key (possibly, a thief character wouldn't need a roll, or could do without the key). This would deactivate the golem.

The players could have an option to ask for a hint - in such a case, the next step of the alternative win condition would be revealed, but the final reward for defeating the encounter would be partially reduced.

3) Consider having some story consequences for losing each encounter, not engaging the opponents immediately or running away. I.e. if the opposition is not defeated right here, right now, something bad happens. Maybe if the players run away from the golem, a rival party will use the commotion to sneak into the ruins and steal the crystal the players were after. Or, if the players don't stop the dragon right here, right now, the monster will burn a nearby town to ashes.

It should be clear for the players that each encounter has such consequences, and some hints about the possible negative outcome could be good - however, knowing all the details upfront probably wouldn't be necessary. Basically, it could go like: "An encounter! Defeat the golem, or you fail to obtain the crystal!" or "An encounter! Defeat the dragon or the town is at risk!" or the like.

So, a complete encounter write up could look like this:

An ancient golem guards the ruins.
Strengths/weaknesses: automaton type traits (vulnerable to lighting effects, immune to poison, life and death effects); resistant to fire and cold.
Endurance: 500
Risk: 50 End or an item gets smashed
Alternative win conditions:
Step 1: Examine its head to discover a keyhole (scan spell = no roll).
Step 2: Search the debris to find a key (scan spell or treasure hunter trait = no roll).
Step 3: Jump onto the golem (dragoon trait = no roll).
Step 4: Turn the key to deactivate (thief trait = no roll).
Exp: 750 (-150 per hint)
Failure: The party fails to obtain the crystal and it falls into wrong hands.

Have you noticed that you managed to somehow turn video game inspired powers into something both evocative and sort of poetic?

What I fear about this approach is it becoming to much about the accumulation of numbers and not about a logical sequence of results. Like, saying it takes X successes to defeat this guy. I really want to do away with that. Instead, it should read: Once a player has managed to significantly wound the creature, X will happen. Really, baddies could be reduced to a series of if/then statements. If this type of blow is dealt, if this type of information is sought, etc... The way you could maintain tactical tension is by having every attempted action have meaningful results (but not arbitrarily successful ones), like, lets say that a character attacks Creature X with a deadly blow, the creatures description could read: If hit with a deadly or better blow but not killed, the creature will use its teleportation to switch places with a like creature within 100'.

What I'm worrying about now is how you would create such monsters. First idea that springs to mind is to have a massive list of possible if/thens that would be added to a base model if/then. This would be sustainable for a long time but might have serious problems in terms of balance, which may or may not be a direct issue, since their are ways that a system can circumvent balance issues.

Here's Jason's rant that he PM'd me. I agreed with a lot of what he said and thought I'd repost it here for others to consider.

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

(No subject)
« Sent to: masqueradeball on: February 15, 2008, 12:31:31 pm »
« You have forwarded or responded to this message. »
Reply with quote Reply Remove this message
Hey, I sent you this in PM because it's a long rant, and it might be incoherent.

So, combat-oriented fantasy games currently on the market do not meet your desired level of strategy (crunchiness?).  I feel the same way.  Sorry if I'm ranting here, but here are some thoughts on trying to create the strategy level of Final Fantasy.

It would seem that games that rely on number maximization for their crunchiness inevitably fall into a phenomenon one could call "number-padding," which makes fights monotonous.  Rarely in D&D or Exalted do you get fights which force you outright to change tactics.  It's not that the mechanics don't exist, it's that most combat challenges suggested by the systems do not assume players will want to be forced to think of another option besides beating it to shit with attacks and spells, and healing if necessary.

Even the resource allocation there is number-padded.  The D&D system in particular has set up not-so-fun ways of recovering resources (spell slots, ammunition, even HP), and not-so-fun ways of suffering from spent resources.  FF12 is also a culprit (I walk around in circles to get MP!) but I can let that slide because of everything else they're doing right.

Real fun, IMHO, takes effort and thought.  But players have to know that effort and thought are required, or else they'll be lazy, or worse, afraid to do something stupid by trying to be smart.  You have to be explicit that there IS a way to beat this enemy, it just isn't the normal way.  I would hope that once players get in the mindset, they'll be happy you made them think.  Help them into this mindset.

I say that instead of having a bunch of numbers, which abstract everything, you make things explicit and numberless.  Like, instead of saying "he's got 30L soak and 15 hardness" (or DR 40 or whatever) you could say "There's no way your sword could cut through this Warstrider."  Of course, use other words.  You don't have to be that explicit.  Sometimes letting players put 2 and 2 together is fun, but I've also had players who by default assumed that this 2 and the other 2 were unrelated facts until the DM/ST told them otherwise.

You should let the players know, in the rules of the system itself, that you are definitely narrowing their options here - but make sure they know they can still win or else they'll just avoid conflict.  Narrow their options down to the point that every battle has to be fought differently.  But, when narrowing down their options in taking down a fight, do not leave only one tactical combination of actions as the only option.  The players may feel railroaded if they're not able to be creative in taking an enemy down.  So yeah, there's a balance to be struck here.

-JT