This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: [VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!  (Read 647 times)

Melinglor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 387
    • http://myspace.com/jollo
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« on: May 19, 2007, 05:33:34 PM »
Hi! I've had this little idea kicking around in my brain for a month or so, and I'm looking to explore whether it can gro to be a big idea. Maybe even a whole-game idea. So this thread is an exploration of that.

I first detailed this idea (stolen in its essential form from Vincent Baker. actually) in this thread. I've been fiddling with it a bit, and I think I've come up with a rough model good enough to take a test drive.

So the basic premise/goal is this: to create a combat-centric RPG with meaningful and fun tactical options that doesn't rely on D&D's movement-and-positioning Battle Grid model. More abstract, more descriptive, and very quick and high-energy.

So this means:

  • Tactics that rely on broad, abstract categories of choices instead of an exhaustive list of maneuvers
  • Greatly abstracting positioning and location, so you can meaningfully position yourself relative to other characters without relying on grid position or measuring movement
  • Results that are easily and quickly interpretable so fights are like "Hut! Ho! Hah!"


Here's my draft. Consider it a mock-up to test the concept, not a final model or anything:

Attributes: I came up with four: Presence, Wits, Deftness, and Brawn. You get, say, nine points do distribute, minimum 1, maximum 4.

There'll probably be other traits and skills and stuff, but for now let's leave it at that, and focus on combat. Other actions, such as persuasion using Presence plus Diplomacy or whatever, will be resolved in a straight test, with modifiers for circumstance and stuff. But combat has its own system.

Combat:

You've got three combat stats: Attack (ATT), Defense, (DEF) and Maneuver (MAN). You choose your fighting style by applying an attribute to each Combat Stat. Not all can be applied to all, and you can't use the same attribute for all three. Right now I'm thinking Brawn or Deftness for ATT, Brawn, Deftness or Wits for DEF, and Deftness or Wits for MAN. I considered allowing Presence for ATT or MAN (like, an intimidating attack or "outta my way!" jockeying around), but for the mement I'm dropping it. It'd be nice and symmetrical to have three for each Com Stat, but it seems tenuous and I do like having a completely noncombat stat to allow some focus on other RP/storytelling areas.

Now, when you fight, you apply dice equal to the relevant Attribute to each Combat Stat, plus any extras from other abilities or equipment. Then you assign a pol of "free dice" to any stat(s) you want. Right now I'm using a pool of three. HEre's where you strike the tactical balance you want between different battlefield priorities. You also attach a goal each round to ATT and MAN (your goal for DEF is simply "don't get hurt," or more precisely, "oppose your opponent's ATT goal.").

So each round, all combatants declare goals, then assign dice, and roll! ATT opposes DEF and vice versa, and MAN opposes MAN. I want it quick, so I'm going success-counting instead of addition. Also in the interest of quickness, I'm using D6's with 1s counting as "success" (which is made even quicker and cooler by all those "Skull Dice" I own). So more 1s on ATT than opposing DEF, and you injure the guy or whatever. if MAN beats opposing MAn, you accomplish your maneuver.

FOR ATT goals, all I've come up with is Kill, Knock Out, and Disarm. (for Health or Wounds or whatot, for now I'm doing a simple "three strikes and you're out.") For MAN goals, I came up with: Guard, MPass, Corner, Escape, and Flank. The first four form opposig pairs--if someone successfully Guards your target (enemy combatant or item or doorway or whatever) you've got to make a Pass maneuver to reach it. If someone Corners you, you can make NO Maneuver except Escape (you can still attack and defend and stuff). Flanking is merely positioning for a better attack. . .so the amount of points you win by would be dice on your next ATT roll.

I'm envisioning lots of great descriptive text Cronar lunges to the throne, twisting cunningly like a jungle cat past the Undead guard, to plunge his sword into the vile sorceror's heart!" Also, note that combat is 100% simultaneous. How's it look? Fun? Mechanically sound? Totally fucked up? Looking forward to comments.

I also ran a sample combat to test drive the thing, which I'll post later today.

Peace,
-Joel
 

-E.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 1198
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #1 on: May 19, 2007, 09:12:59 PM »
Quote from: Melinglor
How's it look? Fun? Mechanically sound? Totally fucked up? Looking forward to comments.


I don't think I quite get it from the description (I get the general idea, but not the nuance).

My first thoughts:

1) The fun in a great many RPG scenarios really depend on concrete details about the situation -- I'm thinking about players who want to make clever use of terrain. IME abstract systems that work *great* in your head fall apart in real rpg's because the players are trying to do things with them that the system doesn't model, leaving 2 bad choices: a) forbid the action (or rule that it makes no difference in the system) b) make a judgment call without a rules framework -- which can be equally unsatisfying

2) Very abstract systems often don't work in entertaining ways for many-on-one combats. In a great deal of RPG genres players expect to be able to engage multiple opponents at a slight disadvantage. If your system forces a linear split, you're likely to make many-on-one fights completely overwhelming. Whether or not this is "realistic," it's probably not what most folks want in a game.

I'd expect to have more specific feedback.

Cheers,
-E.
 

Melinglor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 387
    • http://myspace.com/jollo
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2007, 03:29:01 AM »
Thanks, E, that's helpful. Let me first address your two observations:

1) I understand your concern, and let me assure you that I DO want to make use of "concrete details about the situation." My method of handling it is to design a system that has broad and flexible categories of action (and ones that don't depend on precise measurements), rather than laying out every minute detail. As opposed to D&D's approach of measuring everything and trying to list out every possible maneuver.

I'm trying to keep my maneuver list small, so they can cover a wide variety of situations. For instance, "clever use of terrain" would be a great job for a Flanking maneuver--with perhaps an extra die or whatnot for the terrain in question (high ground or whatever). Hell, you could apply that to all the Maneuvers--swinging from a chandelier for a bonus to Escape, or using narrow spaces to benefit your Cornering. speaking of which, something like D&D's Trip Attack could be handled with Cornering--you're standing over your prone opponent restricting his movement, so he's got to scramble or roll away to regain his mobility. Or maybe the trip would be a Flanking attempt to get him on the ground and drive home a crushing blow. Sky's the limit. Basically, I want to build a simple scaffolding that the whole imagined situation can hang on, with enough nuance to give tactical meaning and narrative flexibility.

2) I'm aware of the "many-on-one" problem, and I honestly don't have a good solution to that right now. I definitely want to do something about it though; it would suck to keep the "linear split," as you say. Perhaps a slight penalty each to multiple attackers, or making one char the "primary attacker" with the others contributing, like, half their dice or something (and still tracking who's actually landing the hits and such). I'm thinkin'.

I'm sorry you're having a hard time seeing my vision as I explained it (and believe me, that in itself is useful to know!). Let me relate the sample combat I ran as a test drive and perhaps it'll become more clear.

The two genres that spring readily to mind for this system are Swashbuckling and Sword and Sorcery. So I designed one combatant from each genre, put 'em in a jar and shook it. Here they are:

Thog the Barbarian

Presence 2
Wits 2
Deftness 1
Brawn 4

Weapon: Broadsword, +2 ATT, -1 DEF

ATT (Brawn) 6
DEF (B) 3
MAN (W) 2

Raphael the Swashbuckler

P 2
W 2
D 3
B 2

Weapon: Rapier, +1 ATT and (+1 DEF or +1 MAN)

ATT (D) 4
DEF (W) 2 (3)
MAN (D) 3 (4)

So we've got two combatants with pretty different fighting styles. Raph's got more options and hence more decisions to make--whether to use his Rapier on defense or maneuver, on top of assigning free dice. So, the combat lasted 7 or 8 rounds--first round, misses/deflections on both sides, with no successes on MAN either. Second round, Raph gets a Flank on Thog, but misses with the follow-up attack. Thog Corner's Raph, and next round wounds him--one strike out of three!--but Raphael disarms the Barbarian.

Now this is interesting because normally Raph could Guard the fallen weapon to prevent Thog from regaining it--but in this case he's cornered, so he can't. However, I realized that Thog had to abandon the Corner to retrieve the weapon--which led me to a new rule, a Maneuver that is Unopposed (any action against a combatant is ALWAYS opposed) automatically succeeds, but you have to assign a Free Die to MAn to do it. So Thog breaks off and automatically retrieves his sword, and Raph automatically Escapes the corner.

And the games begin anew! Raph abandons his disarming tactics and attacks to kill--and hits! It's now 1 and 1. But Thog cannily positions himself for a Flank, and next round it pays off with a hit! Now Raph's pretty desperate; one hit and he's down, so he's got to devote some attention to defense. Both fighters miss next round. They're both setting Flank as their MAN goal, but no dice. Next Raph shifts dice over to ATT in a last-ditch effort, and succeeds! But at a cost--Thog hews him down just as he runs the brute through. Double kill!

Game-mechanical notes: Well, first off I noticed a lot of whiff factor. Even the 7-9 ATT dice Thog tended to roll were often coming up zero. At first I thought this could be fine. . .abainst equal opponents at least, lots of "close call! You all had me!" and such is pretty cool stuff. ANd one thing I am determined to emphasize in this game is that failure on a roll does not equal incompetence. You're still heroic when you clask in a flurry of blades gaining and losing no ground. But the more I thought aout it, when you fail by dint of rolling NO ones at all (as opposed to "I rolled a 1, but he rolled a 1 and blocked me), you're not actually being beaten by the opponent's roll. You'd still be unsuccessful if you were attacking a defenseless commoner withg 1 DEF die. SO a system that generates more "successes" is probably in order. I thought about D4s (one reason I chose 1s as a success is so you could scale it), but who owns like a dozen D4s? I suspect folks aren't probably willing to hoard and use gobs of the little caltrops. I think I might hafe to go to D3s--use Fudge Dice and count the Greens. That would give me about the ratio I want.

The "shuffle Free dice between ATT, DEF and MAN" thing seems to work pretty well. Raph started out pretty even in all of them, trying all sorts of fancy maneuvers. As he grew more desperate, he abandoned MAN in favor of DEF, then finally pumped most of it into ATT for a final blow. Thog on the other hand, had plenhty ATT power, so he could bolster his weaker DEF and MAN scores, until he too was desperate and went all out. The numbers may need tweaking on dice distribution, but we'll see what emerges when I fix the success rate--see above.

On that note, it was pretty easy to build a combat monster who could roll up to 9 dice on attack--on D4s or D3s Raph would have been serious trouble. I may have to lessen the basic Attribute dice. Hell, even lowering the maximum to 3 might not hurt--you could have like, "competent, Heroic and Epic."

So, how does this look in the fiction? I think to some degree the combat actions speak for themselves--just add narration to taste. For (say) Swashbuckling, it's like, "Raphael makes a daring lunge with his rapier--he takes a deep cut in the shoulder for his trouble, but sends his foe's blade spinning from his hands!" For S&S, you go "Thog, bleeding from a dozen cuts, summons all the power in his mighty thews for a last, desperate stroke--hewing his foe's head even as hateful steel drives home into his own heart." If it comes off right, it should sound almost like you're just making up cool stuff to happen--only you're supported by a system that registers clear gain and loss, and has an interpretation speed sufficient to keep play snap-crackle-popping.

One thing that does occur to me now, though--since events are simultaneous, who narrates them? You could just have the owner of each combatant play out their part, but you'd lose the spontanaety and flow of narration. Perhaps some criteria for winning narration independent of successes rolled--like high die describes? (Or with Fudge Dice, tally the reds. Hey, that's pretty elegant!) Folks would still speak their own characters' lines, but the cinematic "blocking" could be shared around. Just a thought.

Is all that painting a clearer picture of what I want, E? WHat do you think of it now?

Peace,
-Joel
 

Lee Short

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • L
  • Posts: 79
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2007, 10:59:28 AM »
Consider something like expanding the number of skills:

HEAVY WEAPONS  (always based on Brawn)
LIGHT WEAPONS (always based on Deftness)
MISSILE WEAPONS (always based on Deftness)

DODGE (always based on Deftness)
PARRY (always based on Wits)

JUMP (always based on Deftness)
MANEUVER (Wits)

That gives you the same basic choice of attacking with Brawn or Deftness, but some circumstances will favor some tactics.
 

Melinglor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 387
    • http://myspace.com/jollo
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2007, 12:17:41 PM »
Hi, Lee!

Hmm. Well, you do bring up something that I had forgotten to mention, which is that I haven't found a way to account for Missile weapons.

Not sure what to do about that; you can use a bow to keep people at bay, maybe? And they can maneuver to close distance with you? I guess I could also introduce distance on a very simple level and have things still work out: Close, Medium, and Far or something (In a small room would everyone would be Close, in larger spaces some people could be Medium--need a better word--away; you would only encounter Far distances outdoors and stuff.

For general point--I had thought about something like this. . .the idea I had kicked around was something like requiring Brawn or Deftness or whatever for the most powerful weapons. . .use whichever you want for most fighting, but the Hyperphallic Ubersword needs Brawn to wield, and the same with Deftness for the Mastwerork delicately balanced ultrakeen rapier. or Something.

I'm not sure I wanna distinguish between, say, Dodge and Parry as categories for this game; I'd rather leave that up to narration. But again, something like "Nimble-footed: gain one die (or a re-roll, or something) when using Deftness for defense" wouldn't be bad.

Peace,
-Joel
 

beejazz

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • b
  • Posts: 3190
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #5 on: May 22, 2007, 03:46:59 AM »
Ah, yeah... ranged weapons and maneuvers is rough.

I like the suppressive fire idea. I think it'd work best with modern-age projectiles if you were to use that idea... somehow I just don't see arrows as very suppressive.

dansebie

  • Guest
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #6 on: May 22, 2007, 06:18:48 AM »
You really ought to check out Spirit of the Century for some tips on this. It doesn't have a fancy dice assignment mechanism, but it does do abstract positioning and maneuvers not selected from a list (but still restricted by a scene and the characters in it).

This post over at rpg.net gives a nice example of how it works out in play.

James J Skach

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5007
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #7 on: May 22, 2007, 10:50:33 AM »
OK...after re-reading everything a few times, and letting it digest...

Can you translate:
Quote
"Cronar lunges to the throne, twisting cunningly like a jungle cat past the Undead guard, to plunge his sword into the vile sorceror's heart!"

or any of the other examples you gave in later posts, into mechanical terms?

What's the process for doing so?

And if it's simultaneuous, are you describing intent, rolling, and then describing effect? So it's the Intent, Initiation, Execution (roll), Effect approach? So in the above quoted example, if Cronar fails, the vile sorceror (who must have opposed?) gets to describe?

Just a couple off the top of my pointed head.

EDIT: And after reading beejazz's thread on defense - how many maneuvers are allowed? I mean, what's the limit of the description? Is it simply a GM call or is there a number of maneuvers you can do? Did I just miss that?
The rules are my slave, not my master. - Old Geezer

The RPG Haven - Talking About RPGs

Melinglor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 387
    • http://myspace.com/jollo
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #8 on: May 22, 2007, 03:43:54 PM »
OW! That head of yours is sharp!

For starters: you get one maneuver. Basically you get to declare one intent each for ATT and MAN, with your DEF intent always being "to defend." (Hmm, I suppose I could require you to specify "defend against who," but that would probably be needlessly strict.) So you're trying to do one thing, mechanically, with you Maneuver, though descriptively it could include a whole slew of ducking, dodging, hopping on tables, whatever.

So let's break it down:

Quote
"Cronar lunges to the throne, twisting cunningly like a jungle cat past the Undead guard, to plunge his sword into the vile sorceror's heart!"

We've got Cronar, Sorceror, and Guard, here. The Guard has already (let's say) successfully Guarded the Sorceror last round, So top of the round, they all declare intent: Say Cronar's intents are: ATT: Kill Sorceror, MAN: Pass Guard. The Guard's intents are: ATT: Kill Cronar, MAN: Guard Sorceror. Let's say the Sorceror's intent is Complete the Ritual. I haven't worked stuff like this out yet, but we can probably assume that a non-combat action would take the place of ATT, and if it requires sustained stationary action, it would cancel out MAN as well.

So when all is declared, folks move their dice around. Say Cronar puts one die in ATT (which is already quite high) and two in MAN. The Guard puts all three in MAN to block him. And the Sorceror puts two in Ritual and one in DEF. And when they're ready, they roll! They announce their succees, like "Two in Attack, Zero in defense, one in Maneuver." And compare. So like, say the guard lands gets 1 success on ATT but so does Cronar on DEF. He doesn't touch him. Further, he gets 0 on MAN to Cronar's 2. So Cronar passes him. Cronar gets 3 on his ATT vs. the wizard's 1 on DEF, so in goes the blade. For something like the ritual, I'm guessing you'd probably base it on successes needed, so let's say he needed 3 and rolled 2--Cronar stopped the proceedings just in time.

One thing worth noting: If the Gard hadn't Guarded last round, he'd be rolling this round to establish the guard, so Cronar wouldn't have to roll pass--he could concentrate on Flanking the Sorceror or whatever. And if he beats the MAN then he passed the guy just fine, but if the Guard wins MAN then the Guard maneuver's in place and Cronar can't reach the Sorceror. Not sure if his attack just fizzles or if he can turn around and attack the Gard or what. In any case, once a combatant is already Guarding, then they're rolling to maintain the Guard and the other guy has to roll Pass to get by. I'm thinking this should probably apply to Cornering too.

(All of the above was worked out just now when I examined the situation. So thanks for helping me fine-tune.)

Now, in my rough system, I was thinking "three strikes and you're out" for wound levels. Which would mean if he was previously uninjured, the Sorceror would still be alive. Or maybe Cronar's got a +1 vs. Sorcerors sword or something. 'Course you'd know whether he was dead or not when you narrated, so that'd be incorporated.

Speaking of: who has narration rights? Well, that's a tricky issue. I addressed this at the end of my response to -E, but I'm not entirely sure which way to go. With generally two goals per participant per round, and the possibility of multiple combatants with divergent allegiances, it's hard to say who the "winner" is for a round's action. So that means of assigning rights is no good, it seems. One method would be to assign it by a different criteria, like "high die narrates." That way you'd be narrating your successes at some times and your failures at others. Or you could just have everyone describe their own actions, but it could get confusing as to order: "Do I narrate the Guard's unsuccesful attack now, or do you narrate charging forward first?" Tricky.

I like the idea of one person narrating the round. The Cronar example pretty much includes everything you need for the round's action. . .if the guard had injured Cronar in the process, I'd just add a clause like "shrugging off the bite of its ghostly steel," but that's all you need. If the Sorceror's player (GM, or whoever) wants the Sorceror to have any dying words, he just speaks them--I dont want to trample on people playing their own characters. But sharing around what is essentially the cinematic blocking fits with the streamlined, "keep it hopping" feel I want for this game, and means everyone still gets a chance to describe cool stuff.

Thoughts?

Peace,
-Joel

PS Thanks for the SotC tip, dansebie. . .I'll look into that!

PPS What I'm picturing, Beejazz, is more like holding someone at bay with a drawn bow/loaded crossbow--"Don't move or I'll shoot!" But it's s till a pretty rough idea (like everything here!.
 

Melinglor

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 387
    • http://myspace.com/jollo
[VERY preliminary game design] Abstract Tactics Away!
« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2007, 04:22:49 AM »
OK, I think I've got some refinements to share and start kicking the crap out of, but first, loose ends. . .

E, do you get the "picture" of what play should look like now? And do my replies to your points 1) and 2) sufficiently answer those concerns?

And how about you, James? Did I "translate" well enough?

Peace,
-Joel

[EDIT] Oh, and while I'm at it--do you actually like the system, or at least the nacent ideas behind it?