Hey all! After browsing through this and RPG.net's boards, I decided that I like the idea of a combat system that allows for a bit more strategy than your standard "roll over x to hit, roll damage.. repeat". I was thinking about a success level system using d10s to roll under a skill. The amount of dice rolled is decided by the difficulty of the task; 1d10 - very hard, 5d10 - very easy, with 3d10 being the default average.

Anyway, in keeping with that basic premise, here's the combat system idea:

Characters get a pool of dice to roll (it's the same for everyone, 5)
They divide their 5d10s between Initiative, Accuracy, and Defense.

Character with the most success on Initiative acts first.
Accuracy is the attack roll, and each success adds damage depending on the weapon.
Successes on Defense negate an attacker's Accuracy successes (so they deal less or possibly no damage at all)

I see a few situations arising. If a character dumps all 5 dice into Initiative, they don't have any ability to attack/defend, so maybe that could be used for Movement too, where each success allows a few extra meters. A character dumping all his dice into Accuracy is putting all his effort into the attack, at the cost of leaving himself open, and so on.
Anyway, just wondering what people think about this.

Let's see. If I were gaming your system, I'd ignore initiative and put three in attack and two in defense.

If you put one in initiative, two in attack and two in defense, I'd beat you. Assuming Defense is neutral to initiative order. How does defense interact with initiative? Is defense neutral to initiative?

If you put one initiative and four in attack, you'd beat me.

If I put everything into attack and you put one into initiative, you'd beat me -- you'd hit me before I could use my super attack dice.

If I put everything into defense, I'd lose eventually. Fighting is about hitting to win.

It seems like initiative plus attack is the optimal strategy. Is that what you want?

I didn't want any one way to win out over any other. I was going for a risk vs. reward type strategy. Are there other important aspects to a combat scene I'm forgetting?

I can think of one.  Is all combat 1v1?  I doubt it.

In cases of XvY, where X and Y are greater than 1, real strategy starts to appear.  You could have the warrior charge the archer and put everything into high initiative and attack, so that the archer has to run away in order to shoot arrows again, but he risks being hit by the warrior if he runs, and risks being hit by the warrior if he stays.  While this is going on your own archer can be pouring arrows into the enemy archer, or something.  When there are multiple combatants, things like defending or moving around can be critical to strategy.  You just need to make sure that the rules support this kind of strategy, but at the same time don't favor any particular type of combat style (for example, don't make mages overpowered).  Does taking damage interrupt spellcasting?  High initiative, medium attack, no defense to counter nasty spells.  Can ranged weapons be used from melee?  Close to melee with ranged weapon users and do everything you can to hold them there while your comrades tear your enemy apart.  Are there high powered attack skills that take time to prepare, such as spells or gunpowder weapons or crossbows?  Pour everything into defense right before the attack goes off.  What about healing during combat?  That could influence strategy quite a bit, too.

I like the idea.  It's simple and easy to understand, yet it's complex and strategic.  You just need to hammer out the details of the cans and can'ts of combat, and special skills that affect combat.

Thought about it a little more. This system is for a cinematic action type game, where the players are rewarded for pulling off complex stunts.

Instead of Initiative, Accuracy and Defense, characters divide their 5d10 between up to 5 skills. Each skill can be used Defensively or Offensively. For Offensive uses, each skill that succeeds multiplies the attack's damage.
-So 1d10 Run, 2d10 Jump and 2d10 Kick would multiply the kick's base damage by 3 (once for each skill leading up to the attack).
-1d10 Run, 1d10 Jump, 2d10 Kick and 1d10 Punch would still multiply the Kick's damage by 3, but not the Punch's because the Punch is counted as a separate attack.

Multiple success don't do anything, the only reason to roll more than 1d10 for a skill in combat is to get a better chance at succeeding.
Characters could also unleash multiple attacks - 1d10 Punch, 1d10 Punch, 3d10 Kick, and each attack would do its base damage.

For Defensive uses, characters could for example, Run Defensively, Jump or Roll Defensively, even Shoot Defensively (distract enemies).
-So a character could use 2d10 Defensive Run, 2d10 Punch and 1d10 Kick for example.
Successful use of a Defensive skill would give the attacker's a penalty to hit.

And if the characters choose to, they can trade in Damage Multipliers for other special effects, like ending their turn by grabbing the enemy, or kicking the gun out of their hands.

So an overview:
Successes don't increase damage or anything, only Combat stunts do.
Most skills can be used Defensively or Offensively.
Players are rewarded for coming up with stunts and pulling them off.

Thoughts?

Thoughts?  I'm thinking I'm going to steal your idea of using actions either offensively or defensively.  Suppressive fire to keep an enemy pinned down (which would be an odd thing to do with a bow, considering that bows are shot, not fired), using melee attacks to force an enemy to retreat, etc. though I think I probably would have had something like this anyway, I just wouldn't have thought of it like this.

My question is, is there any difference between any of the actions?  Is a jump the same as a kick the same as a run the same as a punch the same as a roll?  If there's no difference then they're just names and have no strategic value, and are therefore only good for describing the action.  Is this what you want?  Or would you rather there be some strategic value to different moves?  Like rolling or running make it harder to be hit by ranged weapons, while melee attacks might do more damage (using your momentum against you).

It sounds like you mostly want a Narrative style combat, which is alright.  Gamists will hate your game because it lacks concrete rules for combat, but most other people should find it relaxed and easy to handle.  No complex rules, just think of what you want to do and roll to see if you succeed.  And combat can still get pretty intense when the outcome is uncertain and the players are trying to beat the enemies with ingenious moves (splashing ale in their face, then hitting them with a torch, for example, or the classic, throwing dirt in their eyes).

I've been working on a similar system and these are some of the things that I've come up against. I don't know if you have worked this out already, but when (or how) do actions occur in relation to each other?

If Player A is throwing 3 punches and Player B is blocking once how do those actions relate in time? Does Player A successfully land 2 punches before Player B blocks the third? Does Player B block the first punch and then allow the next two through, or does the single block work against all three?

How does that work with dodges or running? How does that work with multiple Offensive actions performed simultaneously (ie: Player A punches 3 times and Player B kicks twice). How and when do those actions intersect? Can the resultant effect of the first action change the outcome or possibility of the next action or are players locked into their set course of action no matter what?

I think that you are on the right track, there are just a lot of little variables that need to be addressed to refine the system. The main thing is just making sure that there isn't one strategy or pattern that is better in most or all situations because that undermines the idea of a open ended combat system like this.

Let me know what you come up with.

As far as the skills being different, they have to fit into the context of the situation, but they still act differently. I was thinking that using skills Defensively would penalize the attacker's Attack roll or rolls. So if someone is Running defensively, they're harder to shoot, so the Attacker's Shooting skill drops a point or two. Same with Jumping. Somebody could use Jump to put more momentum into an attack, or Jump could be used as an acrobatic somersault between two concrete beams while ten guys with SMGs fire away at them. Something like the latter would impose a penalty on their Shooting rolls.
I suppose to make them different, aside from altering the Defensive uses of them, the skills would still have to be explained and make sense. Running at a guy who's 10m away with a machinegun isn't going to help you dodge any bullets, but maybe a running start would help you tumble between his legs and get the drop on him from behind.

Basically, if the player can't explain how using a certain skill will aid him, then it doesn't aid him. Simple as that. If the GM accepts the explanation, it helps the character in some way

Egonblaidd wrote:
My question is, is there any difference between any of the actions?  Is a jump the same as a kick the same as a run the same as a punch the same as a roll?  If there's no difference then they're just names and have no strategic value, and are therefore only good for describing the action.  Is this what you want?  Or would you rather there be some strategic value to different moves?  Like rolling or running make it harder to be hit by ranged weapons, while melee attacks might do more damage (using your momentum against you).

mjbauer wrote:
I've been working on a similar system and these are some of the things that I've come up against. I don't know if you have worked this out already, but when (or how) do actions occur in relation to each other?

John wrote:
Hey all! After browsing through this and RPG.net's boards, I decided that I like the idea of a combat system that allows for a bit more strategy than your standard "roll over x to hit, roll damage.. repeat". I was thinking about a success level system using d10s to roll under a skill. The amount of dice rolled is decided by the difficulty of the task; 1d10 - very hard, 5d10 - very easy, with 3d10 being the default average.

Anyway, in keeping with that basic premise, here's the combat system idea:

Characters get a pool of dice to roll (it's the same for everyone, 5)
They divide their 5d10s between Initiative, Accuracy, and Defense.

Character with the most success on Initiative acts first.
Accuracy is the attack roll, and each success adds damage depending on the weapon.
Successes on Defense negate an attacker's Accuracy successes (so they deal less or possibly no damage at all)

I see a few situations arising. If a character dumps all 5 dice into Initiative, they don't have any ability to attack/defend, so maybe that could be used for Movement too, where each success allows a few extra meters. A character dumping all his dice into Accuracy is putting all his effort into the attack, at the cost of leaving himself open, and so on.
Anyway, just wondering what people think about this.

Sounds like this could be an interesting system. :)

I would suggest splitting up the five dice between three actions *every* round. Each action would take place at a different time but each player gets to decide what action he takes at each interval instead of planning the whole thing out. This would allow for interrupts... PCs would get special Hero/Action/Cinematic Points to boost their Initiative making it easier to make a combo. It could also be used to suddenly place their initiative next, thus allowing the PC to interrupt a bad guy's combo maneuver. In addition, these points could be used to up dice temporarily as usual. Combo moves need better juice though... Simply trading an attack for a bonus equal to what it could do by itself is not enough... not worth the risk, may as well attack three times at that point. Each should be worth double. Maybe more if the GM considers the action well described/thought out. Perhaps combos could be awarded additional bonuses for fitting in with a particular style that the character has?

This sounds like a good combat system. My suggestion would be that the players would have to declare their actions. The easiest way to do it would be to base initiative off a stat, factoring in the die roll if they choose Initiative as an action. After the order of actions is determined, the characters do their first attacks (assuming they're going combos), then going through the entire order and the subsequent attacks.

For example, assume that two characters are brawling. Player One declares that he wishes to Attack, Block and Attack again, allocating his his five dice 3/1/1. Player Two declares Initiative, Attack and Counter, at a 2/1/2 spread.

---
Initiative is determined.

Player Two wins initiative and makes his attack. Rolls two dice to determine if his attack lands.

Player One then makes his attack, but since Player Two is countering, it is more difficult to land a hit (since countering is essentially just defending, with a follow-up attack). Player One rolls three dice.

If Player Two successfully blocks the attack, he can attempt to make his counterattack, which is more difficult than a regular attack. Player Two rolls one die for his attack. *

After Player Two's counterattack, it proceeds to Player One's next attack. Since Player Two has no more actions, Player One skips the blocking and proceeds to his next action. Player One makes his attack. Player One rolls one die for his attack.

---

This way, a single round of combat actually has a few exchanges, and offers a new depth of strategy where you can try to anticipate your opponents actions, and if you're right then it helps you, but if you're wrong you can lose an action.

I would also suggest that if you wanted to incorporate special powers, that you would give a dice requirement to reflect that a special power takes more effort than a regular attack or other normal action.

*For counterattacks, my suggestion would be that it would count as a special maneuver, where in order to counter, the defending character rolls a die that counts as a boost to his own defense against attack. If he successfully defends, then the next die is rolled to make an attack. A counterattack would preempt a defensive technique because the logic is that it would be part of the same exchange as when the defender was attacked. If someone chooses to use the counter ability and the other character chooses not to make a melee attack, then the ability is essentially just a blocking maneuver with two dice.

All that being said, I am definitely going to incorporate this combat system into a game somewhere.

Hmm my 2 cents here:

As to when things go, with every D10 being an action why not have simultanious actions based on dice order? 

So determining hit order is easy for defense/attack and really makes the guessing of "what's the other guy going to do" really intense.  So say me and the other guy are duking it out in hand it to hand I could do this:

Dodge, Dodge, Strike, Block, Strike. 

At the same time the other guy's action sequence is revealed showing:

Strike, Dodge, Strike, Strike, Block.

So it'd resolve in order.  He strikes and I dodge.  (Opposed rolls or what have you).  We both dodge (Feeling each other out).  We both punch (Which might produce interesting extra damage or glancing hits),  He attacks me and I block (Defense), I hit and he blocks. 

So we both have a max of 5 actions, but you can take more "actions" to do it better.  Say using 5D10 to spray a room with suppression fire so for all 5 "actions" of that "round" everyone in my area of effect would be hit/effected.  Or continuing my boxing analogy:

Block, 3 Hit, Block. 

vs.

Dodge, Dodge, Strike, Block, Strike

The first action is obvious where neither does anything.  But then when I do a 3 "action" strike it's like winding up for a haymaker or other cool "Big" hit.  So you would compare the 3 actions the opponent does during my one "big" one to figure out what happens.  In this case A Ddoge, Strike, Block.  So that'd be 2 defenses and one counter to my 3 attacks.  You could simplify the system to make it so the attack gets through verses the small defense, or reduce it in some way because of the counter.  The details are yours but it's just a thought. :)