New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 75
  1. - Top - End - #31
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    I don't like it when a combat system uses the wrong words. For example, don't call a mechanic "mordhau" when you mean "coup de grace". I know it's very superficial, but there it is: a combat system must have proper names for things.


    If you refine this and take it a step further, you get verisimilitude: the relations between your in-game concepts must be (approximately) the same as the relations between the real-world concepts they are supposedly mapping to. That is, if a pike hedge repels horsemen in combat (and I believe it does), you want a "pike hege" to "repel" "horsemen", whatever those things are in your game.


    You can make a simple model of combat, as if making a giant rock-paper-scissors game: pike beats horse beats shot beats pike, but X, Y, Z. Horse is more vulnerable to rough terrain, shot requires more supplies, pike is unhappy when flanked. Of course, this works just as well with magic and ultratech in the mix, but you'll have to define the "real world" you are pretending to map to with your mechanics.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).
    Doctor Despair's and my all-natural approach to necromancy.

  2. - Top - End - #32
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    @erikun: can't speak for Fate, but AD&D has a fairly sophisticated positioning system which uses either inches (for miniatures) or in-world distance units (feet etc.). That it can be played on paper doesn't make it less so; you can play Go, or Chess, with pen and paper just as well.

    3.x. is equally sophisticated in some regards, but curiously failed to codify some common maneuvers like aforementioned interposing yourself between an attack and a target, so it isn't readily apparent how it can be done. (It can be done, but IIRC you have to look up rules for prepared actions, rules for cover, rules for obstructed space, rules for attacks of opportunity and rules for individual combat maneuvers and then put them together yourself.)
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  3. - Top - End - #33
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen_Feet View Post
    3.x. is equally sophisticated in some regards, but curiously failed to codify some common maneuvers like aforementioned interposing yourself between an attack and a target, so it isn't readily apparent how it can be done.
    I thought that that's basically what AOOs (combined with single attacks when you move) were for - though you can't do it as perfectly as you can in some systems.
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2017-03-28 at 02:51 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #34
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    For example, don't call a mechanic "mordhau" when you mean "coup de grace".
    Question that I don't actually know the answer to but is also makes a point. What does "coup de grace" mean? I've heard it used enough that I know what you are referring to, but the words are kind of nonsense. If I had to guess: "attack on helpless opponent" by context and "graceful overthrow" by the words.

  5. - Top - End - #35
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    Question that I don't actually know the answer to but is also makes a point. What does "coup de grace" mean? I've heard it used enough that I know what you are referring to, but the words are kind of nonsense. If I had to guess: "attack on helpless opponent" by context and "graceful overthrow" by the words.
    I would translate it as "gallant strike", as in, it's gallant to spare your opponent the horrible fate of slowly bleeding to death from a gut wound, so you give a mortally wounded opponent (or anyone, really, but let's be knightly about it) a quick death, which is the coup de grace.


    (Dammit, it's strike of mercy, not gallant strike. So close!)
    Last edited by ExLibrisMortis; 2017-03-28 at 05:21 PM.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).
    Doctor Despair's and my all-natural approach to necromancy.

  6. - Top - End - #36
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    First, thanks. Second, that may be thematic, but it still is not a direct statement of what it is. We have just learned what it means. I think renaming things for greater thematic coherence is a good idea. Can be a good idea. You can take it too far as well or just do it badly.

  7. - Top - End - #37
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    First, thanks. Second, that may be thematic, but it still is not a direct statement of what it is. We have just learned what it means. I think renaming things for greater thematic coherence is a good idea. Can be a good idea. You can take it too far as well or just do it badly.
    Umm, I'm not sure what you mean. If it's about what I said six posts up, it may be relevant to know that 'mordhau' is not the German equivalent of 'coup de grace'. It's an armoured fencing technique that involves bludgeoning your opponent with the pommel of your sword. My point is that you shouldn't rename things to random senseless cool words, not that you can't use different words to get different flavours.
    Last edited by ExLibrisMortis; 2017-03-28 at 05:43 PM.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).
    Doctor Despair's and my all-natural approach to necromancy.

  8. - Top - End - #38
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    What we have here is a breakdown in communication. Mostly on my end. I'll confess I know very little of fencing and misunderstood the point. That would probably fall under "bad thematic renaming". Of course for all I knew when I first heard the term, coup de grace could have been a type of croissant.

  9. - Top - End - #39
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by erikun View Post

    • Capable of attacking a specific target. If a sniper is attacking, there needs to be some method of attacking the sniper directly in order to stop them.
    If no one has a weapon capable of effectively engaging at the sniper's range, why should the system automatically allow the targets to return fire?
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  10. - Top - End - #40
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by ExLibrisMortis View Post
    I don't like it when a combat system uses the wrong words. For example, don't call a mechanic "mordhau" when you mean "coup de grace". I know it's very superficial, but there it is: a combat system must have proper names for things.


    If you refine this and take it a step further, you get verisimilitude: the relations between your in-game concepts must be (approximately) the same as the relations between the real-world concepts they are supposedly mapping to. That is, if a pike hedge repels horsemen in combat (and I believe it does), you want a "pike hege" to "repel" "horsemen", whatever those things are in your game.


    You can make a simple model of combat, as if making a giant rock-paper-scissors game: pike beats horse beats shot beats pike, but X, Y, Z. Horse is more vulnerable to rough terrain, shot requires more supplies, pike is unhappy when flanked. Of course, this works just as well with magic and ultratech in the mix, but you'll have to define the "real world" you are pretending to map to with your mechanics.
    Although I thoroughly enjoyed learning about "mordhau" and "coup de grace", I'm gonna touch on the other half of this post.

    As I write this, someone is in the other room is playing a video game which has this rock scissors paper style of interaction, where pikemen deal +50% damage to cavalry, but only take 50% damage from cavalry, or something like that. And it feels very... artificial. The units aren't designed to be better by virtue of how they function (pikes have longer reach or whatever), but because of seemingly arbitrarily inflated numbers. Sure, if it's historic units, and you understand the underlying reasons, it can be ok, I guess, but I have no basis to understand why, say, a Hydralisk might deal extra damage vs, say, an AT-AT. I want their relative effectiveness to be encoded in the way they operate, not tacked on +-X% damage modifiers.

    But maybe that's just me. Maybe most people are fine with the way it's often done, and it doesn't cause them any, for lack of a better phrase, cognitive dissonance.

    Then there's another thing which might be just me. A lot of systems implement rock scissors paper by having concepts like, "immunity to fire". My personal preference, in video games, was a video game that had the monsters be kind enough to take a single point of damage when they were "immune".

    This means that themed characters, like a Fire Mage, suddenly don't get to play, when they encounter something that is immune to their shtick.

    Personally, I hate everyone else sitting out while the net runner / face / heavy / whatever is doing their thing. No matter which of the three roles I'm in - GM, featured player, or inactive player - it just isn't fun for me when a group game... isn't.

    But I like "immunity to fire", because it discourages focused builds. I like the 2e D&D toolkit fighter, with his vast array of weapons, picking the right one for the job, so much more than the 3e min-maxed single combat style fighter. I like the "all the spells" wizard so much more than the focused fire mage / enchanter / whatever. I like having rock, paper, and scissors, and being able to choose the tool that's best for the job at hand.

  11. - Top - End - #41
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by jok View Post
    In my opinion RPGs don't realise the current technology enough. Everyone has a powerful computer
    In their pockets nowadays...

    A detailed and complex combat system has the problem that it is rules heavy and requires a lot of fiddling with little modifiers. An app should take care of this. I imagine it like this:
    Instead of little numbers the GM and the players just add predefined tags to the actions they are trying to to do. For example in a modern setting a shootout against some thugs in the streets. The GM sets general encounter tags like #lightrain #moonlessnight #flickeringillumination #mediumwind.
    Positioning and movement is still handled traditionally either theatre of mind or on a grid. On the players turn he decides to run behind a car and start spraying the thugs with his Uzi and after selecting his weapon from his digital char sheet he puts clicks the required tags #run15 #halfcover #drawuzi #fullauto #thug1 #thug2 #thug3 #distance20. The app now calculates the target number/dice pool and takes all into account and shows the players what to roll or rolls automatically. Then it calculates the effect of the hits and the damage done. This can be really detailed depending on ammo, amor, caliber, hit location...

    Basically give players and DMs tags to throw at things. Calculate crazy tables and interdependencies under the hood.

    Added bonus for the company: Since everyone needs the app to play the company might come up with subscriptions or another buissness model that allows it to profit from the game rules more then once.
    The problem with this approach is that inputs end up being more important than outputs. i.e. The designer spends so much time trying get the right number for each variable that the output (hit/miss the target; damage/not damage the target) that the overall outcome is wrong.

    This type of simulation only really works with long range gunnery duels between targets with limited ability to hide -WW2 naval combat is the only example I can think of. Although space ship combat is also possibly another one.

    If you want to simulate outcomes the better models use a target number based on the situation, and then apply a small number of modifiers, no more than 5. Usually 3 modifiers are enough.
    For example in a d20 environment. You might say:
    Target number is X.
    Easy situation - no modifier
    Moderate difficulty +2 to the target number
    Difficult: +4 to the target number
    Extreme difficulty: +8 to the target number.

  12. - Top - End - #42
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Imp

    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    Earth
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    I have been banging my head against the wall now for a long time trying to think about what I want the combat system to look like in a system I have been writing. Then I came to the realization that I've been having troubles not because I can't find mechanics to make the results I want, but because I don't really know what I want.

    So, assuming that combat is a major deal in the game in question, what does a good combat system need to have, in your eyes? These can be as abstract and theoretical or as concrete as you want.
    Speed. In combat, the fast can strike first and most often, but strength/stamina needs to play a role in some attacks, while it has a diminished effect versus slashing/piercing attacks. Magical attacks should fit one of those two, unless it's mental.

    For me, I think the following are non-negotiable:

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    1. There must be meaningfully different options that support different play preferences.
    Martials strike first. They have a "combat score" that enables them to not only strike first, but strike more than once within an action round. Multiple strikes do multiple damage. Mages need to concentrate their power so it's slow but can be as effective as multiple attacks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    2. There must be time or turns enough that a player can see something wrong with his choices and then rethink his tactics in order to win.
    Well, this is just giving players the chance to rethink their action based on what has already occurred.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    3. You must be able to do things that are cool and special and make the player feel powerful.
    Allowing multiple attacks and having a "called shot" effect that allows characters to disable/maim foes works here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vitruviansquid View Post
    4. It must not be clear who will win a combat before the first die is cast.
    Reputation as a stat: so & so fighter trained at ___ and was the very best and defeated ____ so everyone knows about him. Take his/her Reputation and roll versus the opponent's Rep to see who grabs situational advantage (bonuses). If you have a fighter who's killed many opponents, and this is known to his/her opponent, it creates a psychological advantage that can be mimicked by a graded mechanic.
    The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place.

  13. - Top - End - #43
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Lots of great responses to read through.

    I think some people are getting a bit hung up on my non-negotiable #4. The fact is, I simply worded it in a sloppy manner.

    Of course if a dragon fights a farmer, the fight should be decided before the first die is cast. What I meant was that you should not already know that a wizard will defeat a fighter by virtue of the wizard being a better class or a counter to the fighter or having a trick that the fighter cannot do anything against.

    On the topic of mordhau and coup de grace, I like the term "coup de grace" because it describes a class of action, and not a specific action. Describing a class of action is good because it allows the player or GM to fill in what exactly happened in a way that is appropriate to the context. When you describe specific actions, you run into situations where they may not make sense, like how in DnD 4e a fighter has an attack that trips opponents, and can somehow inexplicably use it on a serpent opponent. Of course don't name anything outrageously poorly so that you mix up the meaning, but I thought that extra consideration for naming was important to mention.

    On the topic of damage types and resistances, I think they definitely have the potential to make a mechanically interesting system. Unfortunately for most systems, their use of resistances and damage types are limited to making verisimulitude. I like the idea of damage types as a mechanic to do things like dissuade focused builds (as mentioned earlier), to make players feel good about putting the right tool in the right place, and give players some meaningful choices between different weapons (for example, swords might work against virtually anything while hammers are great against certain enemies but terrible against others, and such).
    It always amazes me how often people on forums would rather accuse you of misreading their posts with malice than re-explain their ideas with clarity.

  14. - Top - End - #44
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2010

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    In terms of #4, I tend to like a version of it that goes something like 'choices and events which can happen during combat should be important enough to overcome most power gaps that are expected to occur in play'.

    Personally I hate when systems use randomness to achieve that. I want it to come from cleverness and skill. The idea that 'I shouldn't be able to win against this foe, but I figured out how to do it anyways' is very appealing to me.

    A system where I could essentially give the GM a script with some precomputed default set of actions and still do as well as if I actually paid attention doesn't really make me feel that it's worth playing out or paying attention to the fight itself. In such a system, the meaningful gameplay seems to me to be before the fight actually begins - making sure to only pick fights where your character build guarantees a win.

    It doesn't have to be 'I could always lose' - even something where some choices end up being situationally more resource efficient or things like that it's enough. But there has to be an actual thing where me engaging mentally could improve the outcome in some form.

  15. - Top - End - #45
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    @Vitruviansquid: again, remember the difference of system versus scenario design.

    Think of Chess again. A Queen has play power of 9 and a Pawn has play power of 1. If those were the only two pieces on board, the Queen would win. But during course of normal play, where they aren't the only pieces, a Pawn can capture a Queen, and it is hard to say if the Queen will capture any specific Pawn.

    A roleplaying game is not set before the scenario designer (usually the GM) has picked which pieces to use, how many, and their initial positions. In any sufficiently non-random game, this will naturally lead to transparently unwinnable scenarios (f.ex. "the Fighter can't win because Wizard can do X"). Think carefully about whether this is something you need or want to fix on the system's side.
    "It's the fate of all things under the sky,
    to grow old and wither and die."

  16. - Top - End - #46
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    SamuraiGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    The Frozen North
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    I want a system based on attack roll vs a defense roll and armor is subtracted from damage

    I want a system with hit locations and injury mechanism where you can stun your opponent with heavy blows, cripple/maim by aiming for bodyparts. Knock somebody out by aiming for his head and where injury gives you penalties to your fighting abilities.

    I want a combat system where movement and positioning matters. Striking somebody from his flank or rear gives him penalty to defend and using a weapon with better reach matters.

    I want a system where fatigue and endurance play part, either as a resource to push yourself in battle or as a penatly when you get tired. The best is to use both.

    I would like to see maneuvers that you can use in combat...defensive strikes, deceptive attacks, charge etc. and where you can chose to go on the offensive and sacrifice some defense or go defensive and sacrifice some offence. These are not feats that have to be learned but everyone can use but you could get better at it as your character gets better.

    Environment should matter, like fighting on ice, knee deep in water or your opponent has higher ground. These can either give you bonus or penalty.

    A system where close combat hand to hand, melee combat and ranged combat go hand in hand. If I want to use a beat to bludgeon my opponents weapon aside and follow up with a kick in the knee then it should be allowed in the system. I want to be able to get past my opponent defense and go for a armed grapple like in Talhoffer's Fechtbuch (a 15th century fighting manual) and your shield gives you advantages against ranged attackers as you can block incoming missiles.
    Last edited by RazorChain; 2017-03-29 at 04:23 AM.

  17. - Top - End - #47
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly View Post
    The problem with this approach is that inputs end up being more important than outputs. i.e. The designer spends so much time trying get the right number for each variable that the output (hit/miss the target; damage/not damage the target) that the overall outcome is wrong.

    This type of simulation only really works with long range gunnery duels between targets with limited ability to hide -WW2 naval combat is the only example I can think of. Although space ship combat is also possibly another one.

    If you want to simulate outcomes the better models use a target number based on the situation, and then apply a small number of modifiers, no more than 5. Usually 3 modifiers are enough.
    For example in a d20 environment. You might say:
    Target number is X.
    Easy situation - no modifier
    Moderate difficulty +2 to the target number
    Difficult: +4 to the target number
    Extreme difficulty: +8 to the target number.
    Why is that a problem for the designer? This would be a selling point.
    A games like Shadowrun has potentially alot more then 5 modifiers. Between the environment, skills, magic, cyberware
    and wireless cyberspace for a given situation. And every potential modifier is a part of the setting and can have narrative importance. In my opinion Shadowrun is on the edge of too rule complex. Things like detailed hit locations and interesting criticals or critical malfunctions of gear or detailed wounds would bloat too much.
    The hypothetical app supported ruleset would allow for all of this and more, while keeping the required fiddling pretty low.

    A typical attack would need the following tags:
    State of attacker relative to target; targets; firemode/strike type; distance of targets; state of targets relative to attacker

  18. - Top - End - #48
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2015

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    I would not want to use the system you are describing with a phone. I would like a full sized keyboard and mouse for all that input. Even with clever use of tracking state, auto-completion and combined commands to update the system that is a lot of inputs. I mean you could do it but it would probably require a level of master to use quickly. And even then I'm not sure it would go as fast as one (more in your head) done mostly in your head with similar mastery.

    To Psikerlord: I forgot to say thanks for the link. Thanks, its an interesting idea, I'm already floating related ideas to see if any fit in my work.

  19. - Top - End - #49
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkSpray View Post
    Speed. In combat, the fast can strike first and most often, but strength/stamina needs to play a role in some attacks, while it has a diminished effect versus slashing/piercing attacks. Magical attacks should fit one of those two, unless it's mental.

    For me, I think the following are non-negotiable:


    Martials strike first. They have a "combat score" that enables them to not only strike first, but strike more than once within an action round. Multiple strikes do multiple damage. Mages need to concentrate their power so it's slow but can be as effective as multiple attacks.
    If you base initiative on the time it takes to perform an action, Telepaths* strike first, moving at the speed of thought. Then come the slow flesh bags, limited by the meat. Sure, then the casters, further limited by gathering external resources, can have a turn. Unless, of course, that's not how their casing mechanics work.

    If, on the other hand, you base turn order on combat experience, skilled fighters and combat mages* can better read the scene and act first, while academia mages like Quertus, or civilians like his player, go last.

    Actually, one of the combat mechanics I most enjoyed was from Shadowrun, where fast characters often got to act multiple times before regulars. Fast characters felt fast. So I certainly appreciate speed being able to make a character feel cool.

    But, honestly, when I read the first word of your post, I thought you meant resolution speed.

    * and chronomancers.

    Quote Originally Posted by PinkSpray View Post
    Allowing multiple attacks and having a "called shot" effect that allows characters to disable/maim foes works here.
    Does it? I guess it depends on what people feel makes a character feel "cool". I've tried a few times to start a thread on the subject. Here are a few things I've considered cool in combat:

    Spoiler: Shadowrun Initiative
    Show
    For me, Shadowrun iterative actions making fast characters feel fast felt cool. The pumped Street Samurai goes on 36, then on 26, then on 16, ... then some normals get to go, then (s)he goes again on 6. So much cooler than WoD Celerity, and other such belated iterative actions.


    Spoiler: D&D improv
    Show
    It felt really cool having my character use the ropes he was bound with as a makeshift garote to kill his captors. It really felt cool to have a monster that was too powerful to defeat in a head-on confrontation, and drop a boulder on it (this would obviously work in CoC, too).


    Spoiler: Over the top
    Show
    I enjoy it when other people add flavorful descriptions to their characters' actions, involving back flipping off chandeliers into tea cups before putting daggers through people's eyes or something. My best experience with this was not from Exalted, or 7 Seas, or any other system designed with this in mind, but from D&D, which gives no benefit to such characterization. People did it because they wanted to, rather than it being forced out of them by the mechanics. That was good times.

    Of course, my worst experience with it was also D&D, when the players were penalized for trying to make the game more fun with creative descriptions of their actions. I may have been the DM.


    Spoiler: Manipulation
    Show
    At the start of combat, Armus moves to protect someone tougher than himself (in D&D, that would be someone with better AC and more HP). If you can figure out why, you've seen through one of the likely 6 or so deceptions Armus will use to win a fight before it's even begun.

    I want combat to have a metagame. I want tactics and deceptions to matter.


    Spoiler: Cool Toys
    Show
    I love having cool toys. Lots of them. And I love the tactical minigame of choosing the beat tool for the job. But. If I'm in the mood to use a hammer, I want art Kat 90% of the encounters to be kind enough to look like a nail.

    That is, if I'm in the mood to watch things burn with my trusty flamethrower, I want to watch things burn! This means several things. For one, very few things in the setting should have immunity to fire (or immunity to ranged, it immunity to technology, or immunity to AoE, or evasion, or protection from red). Second - and this is general best practice for encounter and adventure design - I don't want everything I face that session to all happen to have such immunities. Lastly, it means I want to have 3+ encounters per session, so that even if one encounter won't burn like a good nail, I can still hammer most of the encounters to ash. Sure, it may have been more efficient to utilize a different, optimized tactic of picking the perfect tool, but it was still possible.

    But what does this mean for the system? Little, beyond perhaps that the ability to completely or even functionally eliminate a particular attack form shouldn't be common & trivial.

  20. - Top - End - #50
    Troll in the Playground
     
    NecromancerGirl

    Join Date
    Dec 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Although I thoroughly enjoyed learning about "mordhau" and "coup de grace", I'm gonna touch on the other half of this post.

    As I write this, someone is in the other room is playing a video game which has this rock scissors paper style of interaction, where pikemen deal +50% damage to cavalry, but only take 50% damage from cavalry, or something like that. And it feels very... artificial. The units aren't designed to be better by virtue of how they function (pikes have longer reach or whatever), but because of seemingly arbitrarily inflated numbers. Sure, if it's historic units, and you understand the underlying reasons, it can be ok, I guess, but I have no basis to understand why, say, a Hydralisk might deal extra damage vs, say, an AT-AT. I want their relative effectiveness to be encoded in the way they operate, not tacked on +-X% damage modifiers.
    I agree for TTRPGs, but the level of abstraction that only considers one variable "strength" is valid in some games (campaign-level rather than battle-level games). For a TTRPG, you probably need to figure out why pike beats horse, and implement that. In D&D, reach is a part of it (pikes have 3 squares reach), as is bracing (double damage when readied against a charge). It results in a good damage bonus, which, at an abstract level, is all you care about.
    Spoiler: Collectible nice things
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by Faily View Post
    Read ExLibrisMortis' post...

    WHY IS THERE NO LIKE BUTTON?!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keledrath View Post
    Libris: look at your allowed sources. I don't think any of your options were from those.
    My incarnate/crusader. A self-healing crowd-control melee build (ECL 8).
    My Ruby Knight Vindicator barsader. A party-buffing melee build (ECL 14).
    Doctor Despair's and my all-natural approach to necromancy.

  21. - Top - End - #51
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cluedrew View Post
    I would not want to use the system you are describing with a phone. I would like a full sized keyboard and mouse for all that input. Even with clever use of tracking state, auto-completion and combined commands to update the system that is a lot of inputs. I mean you could do it but it would probably require a level of master to use quickly. And even then I'm not sure it would go as fast as one (more in your head) done mostly in your head with similar mastery.

    To Psikerlord: I forgot to say thanks for the link. Thanks, its an interesting idea, I'm already floating related ideas to see if any fit in my work.
    I agree that a phone would probably be too small. Tablets or PC then. A decent WI-FI tablet for 100$ should do it.

    The virtual tabletop Fantasygrounds has alot of automatization for D&D 5e already build in. A game from the ground up build with app support in mind would open up alot of possibilities.

    One would have to be smart about the inputs and the UI and menus ofcause.

  22. - Top - End - #52
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Then there's another thing which might be just me. A lot of systems implement rock scissors paper by having concepts like, "immunity to fire". My personal preference, in video games, was a video game that had the monsters be kind enough to take a single point of damage when they were "immune".

    This means that themed characters, like a Fire Mage, suddenly don't get to play, when they encounter something that is immune to their shtick.

    Personally, I hate everyone else sitting out while the net runner / face / heavy / whatever is doing their thing. No matter which of the three roles I'm in - GM, featured player, or inactive player - it just isn't fun for me when a group game... isn't.

    But I like "immunity to fire", because it discourages focused builds. I like the 2e D&D toolkit fighter, with his vast array of weapons, picking the right one for the job, so much more than the 3e min-maxed single combat style fighter. I like the "all the spells" wizard so much more than the focused fire mage / enchanter / whatever. I like having rock, paper, and scissors, and being able to choose the tool that's best for the job at hand.
    So - more like Pokémon where attacking something with an element that they're strong against deals 1/2 damage, and x2 damage with something they're weak against? (Though even Pokémon has a few immunities - ghost vs normal/fighting & dark vs psychic.)

    Against a fire creature it'd be worth pulling out that water attack which you're sub-par with than continuing to use fire moves, but the fire moves wouldn't be totally useless either.

    Plus - in the case of Pokémon most of the elements have an obvious reason of being more/less effective rather than being totally for out of game balance reasons.

    (However - I'm not sure if I'd like a system which used the above system without it being a main pillar. It works in Pokémon because it's the primary pillar of the combat system, with a few lesser ones.)
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2017-03-29 at 03:41 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #53
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    Capable of attacking a specific target. If a sniper is attacking, there needs to be some method of attacking the sniper directly in order to stop them.
    If no one has a weapon capable of effectively engaging at the sniper's range, why should the system automatically allow the targets to return fire?
    They cannot.

    The list was for situations that the system must be able to resolve, if they come up and are relevant. If the party encounters a sniper on a ledge with no path up to it, and they don't have ranged weapons, then they have no way of attacking the sniper. (I made this specific example in my post.) Similarly, if the players are up on a ledge and the NPCs have no ranged weapons, then the NPCs would have no method of attacking any of the PCs.

    On the other hand, if the party is in an open room and there are a bunch of enemies there, then they should be free to run up and attack one of them. Doing so means that choices of targets and targeting priority is meanful for the players. There should not be some sort of "total enemy HP level", or some sort of "victory rolls" that the party needs to roll. If that sort of a situation happens - if attacking one enemy is roughly the same as attacking another, if there is no way to eliminate an enemy past "winning the fight" - then it stops being a sensible combat system for a RPG. It starts turning into some sort of board game or video game, where the goal isn't "what would my character do?" but "how do I score the most points against the enemy?"
    Quote Originally Posted by darthbobcat View Post
    There are no bad ideas, just bad execution.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Thank you to zimmerwald1915 for the Gustave avatar.
    The full set is here.



    Air Raccoon avatar provided by Ceika
    from the Request an OotS Style Avatar thread



    A big thanks to PrinceAquilaDei for the gryphon avatar!
    original image

  24. - Top - End - #54
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2011

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    So - more like Pokémon where attacking something with an element that they're strong against deals 1/2 damage, and x2 damage with something they're weak against? (Though even Pokémon has a few immunities - ghost vs normal/fighting & dark vs psychic.)

    Against a fire creature it'd be worth pulling out that water attack which you're sub-par with than continuing to use fire moves, but the fire moves wouldn't be totally useless either.

    Plus - in the case of Pokémon most of the elements have an obvious reason of being more/less effective rather than being totally for out of game balance reasons.

    (However - I'm not sure if I'd like a system which used the above system without it being a main pillar. It works in Pokémon because it's the primary pillar of the combat system, with a few lesser ones.)
    Pokémon, I'm told, encourages you to play exactly two elements, by its combination of resistances and resource management. Playing only one is stupid, because you will almost certainly lose if you encounter something with resistance to your element. Playing more than 2 is stupid, because then you have a hard time getting the energy to power your pets, and you defeat yourself.

    I want... Hmmm... The opposite? I want the most possible valid play styles. But, of those, I personally prefer having the full toolkit. Which is hard to do in Pokémon, or MtG, but easy to do in (2e) D&D.

  25. - Top - End - #55
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Quertus View Post
    Pokémon, I'm told, encourages you to play exactly two elements, by its combination of resistances and resource management. Playing only one is stupid, because you will almost certainly lose if you encounter something with resistance to your element. Playing more than 2 is stupid, because then you have a hard time getting the energy to power your pets, and you defeat yourself.
    Maybe the card game (never played it) but the video game encourages you to diversify.

  26. - Top - End - #56
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by jok View Post
    Why is that a problem for the designer? This would be a selling point.
    A games like Shadowrun has potentially alot more then 5 modifiers. Between the environment, skills, magic, cyberware
    and wireless cyberspace for a given situation. And every potential modifier is a part of the setting and can have narrative importance. In my opinion Shadowrun is on the edge of too rule complex. Things like detailed hit locations and interesting criticals or critical malfunctions of gear or detailed wounds would bloat too much.
    The hypothetical app supported ruleset would allow for all of this and more, while keeping the required fiddling pretty low.

    A typical attack would need the following tags:
    State of attacker relative to target; targets; firemode/strike type; distance of targets; state of targets relative to attacker
    The problem is that complex models are really bad at predicting outcomes, with the exception being physical models such as aerodynamic testing. And even then physical models only work well in stable controllable environments.

    The starting point for a model of combat is the skill of the attacker and defender, so a complex model just doesn't work. All your model will tell you is the model designers assumptions, which is what we see in economic and financial modelling, government spending models.
    Another problem for complex models is the exact interaction between specific variables. Lets say you are shooting and you have a +2 modifier for cover and a +2 modifier for rain. What Is the modifier for shooting at a target in cover when it is raining? Game designers will tell you +4, but it may be +2 (there is no extra benefit), +3 (there is a small additional benefiy), +4 (there is a linear relationship), or +5 (there is a synergic benefit).
    Unless you have all the possible combinations modelled perfectly then your system is wrong, and chaos theory takes your model into the weeds.

    The problem with the app isn't that the computer or the interface. The problem is the model by its very nature is incable of delivering realistic (even by fantasy RPG standerds) outcomes.
    Outcome based systems using a small number of modifiers get to the end result faster and more accurately than complex systems.
    Last edited by Pauly; 2017-03-29 at 07:55 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #57
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2014

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pauly View Post
    The problem is that complex models are really bad at predicting outcomes, with the exception being physical models such as aerodynamic testing. And even then physical models only work well in stable controllable environments.

    The starting point for a model of combat is the skill of the attacker and defender, so a complex model just doesn't work. All your model will tell you is the model designers assumptions, which is what we see in economic and financial modelling, government spending models.
    Another problem for complex models is the exact interaction between specific variables. Lets say you are shooting and you have a +2 modifier for cover and a +2 modifier for rain. What Is the modifier for shooting at a target in cover when it is raining? Game designers will tell you +4, but it may be +2 (there is no extra benefit), +3 (there is a small additional benefiy), +4 (there is a linear relationship), or +5 (there is a synergic benefit).
    Unless you have all the possible combinations modelled perfectly then your system is wrong, and chaos theory takes your model into the weeds.

    The problem with the app isn't that the computer or the interface. The problem is the model by its very nature is incable of delivering realistic (even by fantasy RPG standerds) outcomes.
    Outcome based systems using a small number of modifiers get to the end result faster and more accurately than complex systems.
    This was never intendet to simulate reality.
    Besides models for economics or weather are still used and are useful, even if they might be biased...

  28. - Top - End - #58
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2016

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by jok View Post
    This was never intendet to simulate reality.
    Besides models for economics or weather are still used and are useful, even if they might be biased...
    Complex models almost never beat 'the long term trend will continue', and even then if one gets it right many are wrong you are left with it being a blind squirrel finding a nut. And there are many cases of complex models being completely wrong.

    So unless a complex model can reliably provide a superior outcome to a simple model, then it is best use the simple model.

    That's before considering ease and speed of use. Many players don't want to spend their brain processing capacity on being aware of and and choosing between myriads of possible modifiers even if the heavy calculation is being done by the computer. The players still have to know the modifiers to make an informed decision.
    Compare that to if you do X it will be an easy shot for you, but you will be an easy target and if you do Y you will be a very difficult target, but your shooting will be moderately difficult.

  29. - Top - End - #59
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    SolithKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Right behind you!
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by jok View Post
    This was never intendet to simulate reality.
    Besides models for economics or weather are still used and are useful, even if they might be biased...
    The problem is that they ignore tons of variables - and those variables are often the most important things.

    Often someone will look back and see that one model worked - and ignore the three dozen which failed horribly. (Reminds me of basketball brackets.)
    Last edited by CharonsHelper; 2017-03-30 at 07:39 AM.

  30. - Top - End - #60
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What is necessary in a combat system?

    Quote Originally Posted by CharonsHelper View Post
    The problem is that they ignore tons of variables - and those variables are often the most important things.

    Often someone will look back and see that one model worked - and ignore the three dozen which failed horribly. (Reminds me of basketball brackets.)
    Most humans in general seem to have a very high "positive outcome" bias. It's not the 10 times that a tactic or prediction or method failed that they remember, it's the 1 time that succeeded that sticks in their head.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •