Hello All,

I'm in the middle of testing a new Initiative system for a game I'm working on, and I was hoping to get some comments on the actual mechanics from the esteemed contributors of this forum. This is my first time posting to the forge, if I put this in the wrong place or have done anything taboo I apologize in advance (Don't hurt me :-)

With the mechanic I'm trying to get away from the you-go-I-go initiative type system. I've tried to capture the flow of battle of actual combat, but at the same time trying to keep the mechanic abstract but allow for multiple tactics.

I've been inspired by two sources I'd like to briefly mention. My manuever rules have been inspired in part by the elegant way The Riddle of Steel handles Terrain rules, and my Strategy system was influenced by a computer game I used to play as a teenager (it was essentially just a "this Strategy beats that", Rock/Paper/Scissors, mechanic, but it gave me ideas).

I'm sorry the post is a bit long, I've actually cut a few things (such as advanced manuevers that can be selected). This is a very rought draft. I'm just trying to get as much feedback as possible on the basics and the fundamentals. The game mechanic currently is a low roll d20 system, and I'd describe it as simulationist game (while I agree that the combat system itself is a bit abstract, I feel that a simulationist game can be abstract and at the same time realistic, again just my personal thought, feel free to throw stones) just so you understand what you are looking at.

Also, the game is designed for Medieval Low Fantasy role-playing (although I think the system might also do a good job at depicting swashbuckler era type combat). I'd go into more detail but I'm currently under an NDA (this is for a commerical publication). I've managed to do some in house testing and the mechanic goes out for blind testing (about 4 groups) this week.

I also posted this over at rpg.net (a slightly briefer version), for those that frequent both sights.

Thanks Again!

-Claymore

Dynamic Combat

The Combat Round
Your typical combat round lasts between 3-5 seconds.

Combat Phases
There are three separate phases during combat, the Action phase, the Close Combat phase, and the End phase. During the Action phase, all actions are performed in order of Initiative (Agility+Intuition, modified by armour), from the highest to the lowest value. All fights in the Close Combat phases are considered to resolve simultaneously, with each strategy chosen dicating when a character acts within each fight. The End phase is mainly for bookeeping purposes, any action that takes a full round occurs during the phase (such as picking a lock).

Action Phase
During the Action phase characters perform movement, fire missile weapons, and cast spells. There is a delay after an action is declared and when it resolves equal to the Initiative cost. Should the cost bring your Initiative total below 0, the action resolves at the start of the next round during the action phase, on your initiative score - the negative accrued during the pervious turn.

For Example:
Max the archer declares he wants to take 1 step, draw, ready, aim, then fire his bow. The step costs 1 point, drawing and knocking the arrow costs 2 points, reading the bow costs another 6 points, aiming costs another 2 , and firing the bow costs 1 more point. Max has a Initiative of 10 (the average). Therefore Max Steps on 9, draws on 8, Readies on 2 aims until 0, and fires at 9 during the next Action phase (his modified Initiative total).

Cost Examples
Actions Cost
Step 1 per 3 Feet
Run 1 per 5 Feet
Sprint 1 per 8 feet
Charge 1 per 5 feet*
Cast a Spell **
Draw Arrow 1
Ready Sbow 6
Ready Lbow 10
Ready Cbow **
Aim Bow 2 per +1, not to exceed +5
Fire Bow 1
Draw Weapon 2
Notes:
You can only engage an enemy by taking a Step or Charge maneuver.
You must declare an Aggressive strategy if you Charge.
A character can not take more than two steps and cast a spell or fire a missile weapon, and may not run or sprint at all.

Engaging an Opponent
Any time you have entered an enemy characters reach range, you are considered to be engaged with that adversary. Should your opponent have a longer weapon than you, he may attempt to keep you at bay by using reach to his advantage. Each side makes a contested Reflexes test, with the person with the longer reach getting +2 to the test for each point of reach he has over his opponent. If the engager is successful he may move inside his opponent's weapon reach. If he fails he is kept at bay (at his opponent's weapon reach).

Once a character has engaged (or been engaged), the only action he can attempt is to attempt a disengage. All engaged characters participate in the close combat phase.

Disengaging
A character can attempt disengage from combat provided:

1) He has not moved yet during the turn.

2) He did not declare an Aggressive strategy in the previous round.

Each character involved makes a contested Reflexes roll. Any characters who have charged this phase get +3 to pressing the engagement. If any of the disengaging character's opponents wins the test you must stay in combat for the round. If you succeed you may use any Initiative points left to move at a running pace away from the combat. If you fail the disengaging test you are locked into combat for the current round and your Reflexes test made after declaring Strategies is made at -3.

Close Combat Phase
Immediately after the action phase resolves the close Combat Phase starts. Any character currently engaged in close combat must choose a combat strategy they wish to employ during the turn. The 3 combat strategies are:

Aggressive
Defensive
Feint

Strategies can either be declared by playing a quick game of Rock (Defense), Paper (Feint), Scissors (Aggressive), or if you prefer you can use index cards with the strategies written on them (or dice, or for that matter anything else you can think of, as long as everyone understands what a particular Strategy is represented by).

After Strategies have been revealed, each combatant makes a contested Reflexes test with the outcome of the strategy based upon who wins the contest. If a tie occurs or neither character makes his Reflexes test, use the tie/over result for the Strategies being employed. If both combatants have chosen Defense or Feint, there is no need to roll, both combatants just circle for the round. Nothing else happens. If a character fails to draw his weapon during the action phase, or needs to draw another one, the Reflexes test is made at -3.

Aggressive vs. Aggressive
Winner: The winner gets to make an attack at +3. The loser may abort his attack and attempt to protect himself with a -3 to his defense. If the loser did not abort and is still standing, he may now counterstrike, with the winner of the roll getting a normal defense check.
Tie: Both characters make a simultaneous strike at +3, with no defense (ouch).

Aggressive vs. Defensive
Agresser Wins: The aggressor gets to make a normal attack at the Defender.
Defender Wins: The Defender may either:
Make his defense check at +3
Make a counterstrike on a successful defense check
Tie/over: As if Defender wins

Defense vs. Defense
Both opponents circle, nothing Happens.

Aggressive vs. Feint
Aggressor Wins: The Agressor makes an attack at +3
Feinter Wins: Feint throws off attack, the Agressor makes his attack at -3.
Tie/Over: As if Agressor Wins

Feint vs. Defense
Feinter Wins: Feinter throws Defender's timing off. The Defender makes his defense test at -3.
Defender Wins: Defender sees through the feint. The Feinter attacks at -3.
Tie/Over: As if Feinter Wins.

(Note: I'm not trying to simulate every blow swung, it can be assumed that during each round a series of blows is exchanged back and forth. What we are determining is the outcome of the strategy involved.)

Reach and Combat Strategies
(Note: Reach will have an important effect on combat strategy. I will be adding this to a future draft).

Multiple Attackers
Sometimes a character will get engaged by more than one enemy. When this occurs the outnumbered character may attempt to maneuver out of the way of those he doesn't want to fight, and try to fight the battle one foe at a time. If a character wishes to maneuver, he must declare so before combat strategies are chosen and revealed. The character must also declare which opponent(s) he will fight (you must pick at least one engaged adversary). Those not singled out may attempt to attack the outnumbered character anyways, but must declare an Aggressive strategy. Once strategies are declared, the character the attacker chose to meet along with any other characters engaged in the melee that declared Aggressive Strategies make opposed Reflexes tests along with the outnumbered character. Note that no more than 4 characters may attempt to engage a single character at a time under normal circumstances.

The outnumbered character's Reflexes test vs. the character he chose to fight is at -1, plus an additional -1 per opponent the character is trying to avoid (thus a character trying to evade 3 opponents would be at -4 to his maneuver test vs his chosen opponent).

Against any others trying to engage the character, the reflexes test is modified by the chart below based upon the terrain condition as as well as how many foes are tying to engage him.

Condition Modifier Chart
3 or More Opponents -1
Close Quarters -3
Open Terrain 0
Dense terrain +1 (tables, chairs)
Very Dense Terrain +3 (a forest)
Example:
James is surrounded by by 3 foes, an axeman, and two swordsmen. James decides to fight the Axeman and attempts to avoid the two swordsmen. Strategies are now declared (with both swordsmen declaring Aggressive so they can attempt to get an attack in). Everyone makes a contested Reflexes test. Against the axeman, James Initiative is reduced by -3 (-1 + another -1 per additional opponent). Against the other two, the test is made at -1 (no advantagous terrain circumstances exist, and James is being attacked by 3 people). James rolls a 9, since his Reflexes is 13, he makes the roll by 4. Therefore, against the axeman, he has made his roll by 1 (4 outcome -3), and against the two swordsmen his outcome is 3 (4-1). The Axeman rolls a 12, failing hi test by 2 (10 reflexes), and the swordsmen roll an 11 (failing the test), and a 6, getting an outcome of 4 (again, 10 Reflexes), and beating James outcome by 1. James has successfully evaded 1, but the other two have both succeeded in their strategy tests.

Splitting Combat ability
When fighting more than one foe you must split your combat ability against them. Any reactions (such as a counterstrike) are made at the same skill level that was used for the action.

Example:
Both the Axeman and the swordsman chose aggressive Strategies. James chose defense. He must split his Combat ability of 17 if he decides to block both attacks. James assigns an 8 to one swordsman and a 9 to the axeman. If James succeeds in his defense against the axeman, his counterstrike is made at skill 9 (he opted to counterstrike rather than get +3 to his defense against the attack).

The End Phase
Any actions considered to take a full round (such as picking a lock) occur during the phase. Once all actions have been resolved, start a new combat round.








Copyright 2004 MPI

Hi, Clay, welcome to the Forge!

There's - whew - a lot in that to respond to. I should note that you may need to check the definition of "indie" as the Forge sets it down; if you're under an NDA then you may actually have to stick to abstract theory here and keep actual mechanics to your own site. I'm under that stricture myself. If in doubt, check with Ron.

On the mechanics, I think my main comment is that although it looks functional, it's a lot of attention devoted to the detail of timing, involving at least two distinct currencies (action points, Reflex checks) and both RPS and die-roll mechanics, all to determine - in essence - who strikes first, and how. Which is not intrinsically a bad thing, but it indicates some warning signs:

1) Layered currencies like this one frequently open themselves up to exchange-rate issues. If, for example, the +1 Agility to get you an extra Action point is worth a lot more than the +1 Reflexes to improve your Reflex checks by that amount, then you get trouble. Or, if guessing correctly in the RPS is as decisive as a huge cost in character points, then the character-building process gets sidelined. Trimming out layers can frequently help with this.

[For example, you might cut out the RPS and integrate attack/defend/feint into the action step. You lose the guessing game element, or may have to change it, but it may be worthwhile if that element is just one too many complications. Or you can preserve the guessing game element in that context somehow; I've used "cross your fingers under the table" together with a call of "Attack" to indicate Feint, in a similar setup, for example.]

2) How this sheer detail balances with the other design elements is again delicate. If the damage procedure is as detailed, for instance, then you may find players losing track of what's going on, due to sidetracking. If a single successful attack is insufficiently lethal (obviously, this varies to taste) then it's a lot of effort to track the timing of something which doesn't matter all that much, who strikes first.

3) Leaving the close combat to the end of the sequence is a warning bell for me because it puts different methods into use to track the timing on missile/spell and melee interactions. As an example, let's say you have a point-blank shot range category with the bow - reasonable enough - and a character skilled enough that he won't miss at that range - also reasonable. Your stated average Init (ten) and the costs on draw (1pt) and fire (1pt), if a bow only needs one "ready" step at the beginning, means that a high-initiative character could conceivably put five or six arrows into a close-combat opponent while they close the range in order to get in their one close-combat roll. Even if the intent was draw-ready-fire (or ready-draw-fire) as one bowshot, a really high Initiative could result in two arrows per round - and there's no way whatsoever to achieve two close-combat rolls per round. If the two are equivalently lethal, you have a problem. This is a detail, but the root cause - two different ways to track similar things - is the issue, not fixing the detail.

As a cross-reference, I recommend that you check out Feng Shui, by Atlas Games. The "shot" initiative system that game uses is similar to yours and significantly more polished, so even if you decide there are elements to it you dislike, I'm sure there are insights in it that you might be able to use.

Hope that helps,

- Eric

Harlequin wrote: Hi, Clay, welcome to the Forge!

Harlequin wrote:
There's - whew - a lot in that to respond to. I should note that you may need to check the definition of "indie" as the Forge sets it down; if you're under an NDA then you may actually have to stick to abstract theory here and keep actual mechanics to your own site. I'm under that stricture myself. If in doubt, check with Ron.

Harlequin wrote:
3) Leaving the close combat to the end of the sequence is a warning bell for me because it puts different methods into use to track the timing on missile/spell and melee interactions. As an example, let's say you have a point-blank shot range category with the bow - reasonable enough - and a character skilled enough that he won't miss at that range - also reasonable. Your stated average Init (ten) and the costs on draw (1pt) and fire (1pt), if a bow only needs one "ready" step at the beginning, means that a high-initiative character could conceivably put five or six arrows into a close-combat opponent while they close the range in order to get in their one close-combat roll. Even if the intent was draw-ready-fire (or ready-draw-fire) as one bowshot, a really high Initiative could result in two arrows per round - and there's no way whatsoever to achieve two close-combat rolls per round. If the two are equivalently lethal, you have a problem. This is a detail, but the root cause - two different ways to track similar things - is the issue, not fixing the detail.

I kinda like the system, and it looks like it would be pretty fun to play, but I also think the AP system seems a bit out of place. Do you really need that level of detail? I'd just toss it. my 2 cents.

Bracken
BTW I have been using your RoS conversion rules in my BW campign for about 4 months now. Just wanted to let you know.

Claymore wrote:
I am considering just ditching the whole action point concept (or perhaps provide an advanced option for it) and simply saying you move/fire on your initiative, and once all characters have moved/fired, close combat begins. This would make things go quite a bit faster, at the sacrifice of some detail. It would also mean that under normal circumstances, bow and spells are always launched before close combat, which is something I'm a tad uncomfortable with. Opinions?

Again, thanks so much for your reply. Very good feedback ;-)

Claymore

The NDA thing has nothing to do with permission from the other end of your team - it has to do with permission from the Forge and its moderators. Please check with them if that's an issue.

As to ditching the option point thing, once again you might want to look at merging things rather than eliminating them entirely.

For example, perhaps the "Aggressive" option (I'd put this on a card, personally) is assumed to include movement (advancing to range as needed), ditto for Defensive (the option to retreat is at the defensive player's discretion, perhaps assuming he wins the roll). Then add, I dunno, "Missile" as another category, with the same kinds of interactions as you've got above... vs. Aggressive (bowman gets one shot at penalties for onrushing target, then the aggressor gets close combat at bonuses), vs. Feint/Deceptive (which can close without getting shot if it wins the Reflex roll, but fails to close if not), and so forth. Spell could get its own but, assuming you're using quasi-D&D magic, is perhaps better handled using the Missile category for damaging stuff and the appropriate category for everything else (Aggressive for touch attacks, Feint for mind-affecting spells, etc), and put some of the burden on the group to pull the descriptions out.

Timing becomes implicit in the modifiers/effects, done this way. Which is not at all a bad way to go.

The suggestion to file spell use under the most-appropriate nonmagical option, so as to minimize options overall, is the less-simmy way to handle this sort of thing; the full-on sim version might have a great many conceivable options and details of how they interact. Nasty because it scales up in volume as the square of the number of options you give, but doable... Jolly Roger Games' excellent Swashbuckler! RPG has some twenty or so individual moves (cut, lunge, parry, riposte) with details of (a) which one may be performed following which, and (b) what advantage/disadvantage it gives, when used against each of the other nineteen or so conceivable options. By keeping that latter to a single die roll modifier, Swashbuckler! succeeds at requiring lookup only on a single (big) master table for this trick.

Or, if you found that you were leaving the combat phase to the end of the action-point sequence purely to accomodate things like multiple opponents, perhaps you should rethink your take on that, and keep the action-point stuff. (Your "engaged/disengaged state" thing makes me think that you could base a really interesting multiple-opponents mechanic on it, personally... roll (easy) to disengage from one of the two - at least until he takes the two Steps it takes to catch up, which is the interval you've got to try and take out his friend. Or roll (harder) to disengage from both of them so as to flee.) IMO either methodology has the potential to be solid, taken alone, if you make it all smooth enough.

- Eric

Harlequin wrote: The NDA thing has nothing to do with permission from the other end of your team - it has to do with permission from the Forge and its moderators. Please check with them if that's an issue.

Harlequin wrote:
Or, if you found that you were leaving the combat phase to the end of the action-point sequence purely to accomodate things like multiple opponents, perhaps you should rethink your take on that, and keep the action-point stuff. (Your "engaged/disengaged state" thing makes me think that you could base a really interesting multiple-opponents mechanic on it, personally... roll (easy) to disengage from one of the two - at least until he takes the two Steps it takes to catch up, which is the interval you've got to try and take out his friend. Or roll (harder) to disengage from both of them so as to flee.) IMO either methodology has the potential to be solid, taken alone, if you make it all smooth enough.
- Eric

Followup to that last, a simpler phrasing for multiple-foes using the AP system:

Step/Disengage - When engaged with multiple foes, a Step plus a successful [Agility? roll] can put one of them between you and the others, causing the others to be out of line with you and unable to attack until (d4+1) AP have been spent maneuvering around your immediate opponent. The difficulty of the roll is based on the number of foes you're "bumping" out of current concern [table here], which can be, at most, all-but-one of your current opponents. (You need not evade this many; putting one of three out of line but leaving the other two is easier than evading two of the three.) Unevaded opponents can, of course, keep up with your one Step by using one of their own.

It's awfully fine-grained, but so's the rest of your AP system. This would at least be consistent.

- Eric

Crossposted in previous post. If you want to have the strategies represent entire "periods of combat" then I'd suggest the move to include strategies like "Missile fire" as comparable to the others, per the first half of my above. That way it's not even representing a single arrow; you're drawing and firing as often as seems appropriate during that period, and the roll is your result.

- Eric

Harlequin wrote: Crossposted in previous post. If you want to have the strategies represent entire "periods of combat" then I'd suggest the move to include strategies like "Missile fire" as comparable to the others, per the first half of my above. That way it's not even representing a single arrow; you're drawing and firing as often as seems appropriate during that period, and the roll is your result.

- Eric

Hiya,

Quick independent note: it turns out George (Claymore) is half-owner of the company designing this game, so his NDA is "with himself" so to speak.

Which means it's an independent game. Which means, carry on, carry on.

Best,
Ron

Roight.

As to the above - I'd say that in-combat bow fire is subject to less variation than is encapsulated in each of your other categories, personally, having done some of both (SCA archery, SCA/olympic fencing). Yes, you've got your hold-for-opportunity, your aim-precisely (not happening into melee, BTW), your fire-as-fast-as-you-can substrategies... but in my experience those are more constrained by circumstance, and less different from one another, than the decision-tree under Defend. (Evade, flee, cover behind objects, parry & riposte, etc.)

Maybe each of them could have suboptions like you've got for Defend, with slight variations in effect but all covered in the RPS game by the overall heading.

- Eric