Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074067On the other hand, if only a random (and changing!) subset of all outnumberers gets to attack each round, it creates a more dynamic mental imagery of battle on its own. Some attackers possibly don't get to attack because they're being outmaneuvered by the single fighter, some hesitate or might tie their shoelaces - or whatever.

"Outmaneuvered", you say?

Funny you should use that word, as the Mythras combat actions include:

Quote from: MythrasOutmanoeuvre
The character can engage multiple opponents in a group opposed roll of Evade skills. Those who fail to beat his roll cannot attack him that Combat Round.

Quote from: MythrasA character facing multiple opponents can use movement to limit the number which can attack him at any one moment in time. This works by constantly shifting position, forcing some foes to start running around the flanks of their companions to re-establish reach or lines of attack, generally causing them to interfere with one another. Outmanoeuvring requires that the character has room to move about, and is not pinned in a confining area. It also assumes that the character is engaged with the entire group of foes, rather than a specific individual.

An example of outmanoeuvring in action would be a group of guards trying to arrest a drunken barbarian in a tavern. The warrior could manoeuvre around the tables, chairs, and roof supports to block the majority of his foes whilst he whittles them down one by one.

Outmanoeuvring requires that the character engages his opponents in a group opposed roll of Evade skills. Every participant, both the manoeuvring character and those foes who wish to corner him, must spend an Action Point. Then they each roll once, and those who fail to beat the manoeuvring character's roll cannot attack him for the remainder of that Combat Round, being blocked by their allies or terrain features.

If the manoeuvring character beats all of his opponents he has the choice of safely engaging a single foe for the rest of the round or Withdrawing from the fight completely.

As you can probably guess from how this rule is written, Mythras is primarily designed as a TOTM system; I'm not sure how you would easily handle this in a map-and-minis combat.

For background on the general rules involved, Mythras uses a round-robin initiative system with each character getting (INT+DEX)/12, rounded up, Action Points per round, so 2 for an average person, but most PCs will have 3 AP/round and you must spend 1 AP to attack or to defend against an incoming attack.  Thus, attempting to outmaneuver, or pursuing someone who it outmaneuvering, requires you to give up one of 2 or 3 opportunities to attack or defend in that round, so there's some benefit to it even if you completely blow your Evade roll.  (If you're outmaneuvering 6 foes and they all beat your Evade, that still leaves them with 6 fewer AP to spend on attacking you.)

Characters on the losing side of an Evade contest for Outmaneuvering still have their remaining AP available and can use them for actions other than attacking the outmaneuvering character, so (if it's a PC who gets outmaneuvered) they're still not completely sidelined.

Trying to solve a similar (but not identical) issue that bugs me in typical RPG combat, I've been experimenting with an alternate form of "initiative" where the "initiative" roll is a mix of the usual readiness to act and also awareness of the full situation and navigating the numbers of foes and allies in the environment.  (My primary interest is having a great deal of uncertainty as to when a character would be able to resolve an action.  Necessarily, such a goal related to a combat is going to hit some of the same problems you are dealing with.)

For your purposes, I would describe the relevant pieces as it being possible for an initiative roll to leave a person unable to act in a given round.  Since it is somewhat of a declare, roll, resolve sequence, a person that fails "initiative" is in the midst of attempting whatever action they have selected, and thus if not interfered with, may continue next round with a bonus.  Number of allies attacking a given target is a penalty to this initiative, if you decide to do a direct attack, but may not be if you choose an indirect, supporting action.  ("I'll run to the doorway, turn, and block it with readied axe, to cut off his escape route."  There is no direct effect on the target this round, but may be in his choice of actions and success chances next round.)

Though I have to say that there are player handling time and sequencing issues that make me question whether the approach will be worth the cost or not.

Quote from: nDervish;1074988As you can probably guess from how this rule is written, Mythras is primarily designed as a TOTM system; I'm not sure how you would easily handle this in a map-and-minis combat.

I am somewhat aware of Mythras, having done some research. Also, I am a big fan of all things d100, especially CoC, which is the best RPG overall, imho. But I'm pursuing a bit of a different philosophy: that the players generally (but not entirely) can't choose specific maneuvers or outcomes because it is assumed their character will choose the best move and you can't force any move if the opportunity isn't there anyway. So most things are subsumed under the attack roll.

But nothing wrong with Mythras whatsoever. I think it's a bit slower than my game but more detailed - so it's a trade-off, making it solely a matter of personal preference.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1075002Trying to solve a similar (but not identical) issue that bugs me in typical RPG combat, I've been experimenting with an alternate form of "initiative" where the "initiative" roll is a mix of the usual readiness to act and also awareness of the full situation and navigating the numbers of foes and allies in the environment.  (My primary interest is having a great deal of uncertainty as to when a character would be able to resolve an action.  Necessarily, such a goal related to a combat is going to hit some of the same problems you are dealing with.)

Didn't want to touch on it since it doesn't have anything to do with the topic of the thread but what bothered me always about initiative is that some actions should always be faster than others. CoC/BRP does something like that but it wasn't consequent enough for me. I basically have 3 types actions/action speeds: action that can be reliably interrupted by the strike of a sword (ex: running the whole round), actions that can be reliable interrupted with a readied arrow/gun (ex: melee attack) and action that CANNOT be reliably interrupted with a readied gun (ex: another readied gun).

I add uncertainty to that through metacurrency where a protagonist's fist punch suddenly can be as fast as someone holding a readied gun to his head (fist punch bumped up one category). But not necessarily.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074410I think I said it before but I guess I need to stress it again: I have been in battles where our party attacked the final orc or whatever from all sides. And I wish there had been a rule in place that had kept me from attacking.

Well you could just choose not to attack the orc.

Do you really need a rule to prevent you from doing the thing that you say you don't actually want to do in the first place?

That won't work well, I'm afraid. A substantial part of the trad games community wants to take the optimal tactical decision and I largely share that sentiment. Suppose a player was to hold back deliberately and a fellow PC was to die over it.. that would make for great feelings at the table... no, the design challenge is to skillfully create a system that still produces cinematic results (as much as possible) when players take the optimum tactical decisions.

Also, I can't simulate the decision not to attack because an RPG generally doesn't model all the details that could make a melee participant (supporter) hesitate for a round. It's not a decision that a player can take; it's a decision that the PC has to take.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1075038I am somewhat aware of Mythras, having done some research. Also, I am a big fan of all things d100, especially CoC, which is the best RPG overall, imho. But I'm pursuing a bit of a different philosophy: that the players generally (but not entirely) can't choose specific maneuvers or outcomes because it is assumed their character will choose the best move and you can't force any move if the opportunity isn't there anyway. So most things are subsumed under the attack roll.

Definitely a reasonable (and faster-playing!) approach.  I tend to think that the combat Special Effects are a bit too open as well, and have theorized about things like randomly selecting three SEs for the player to choose from, as the ones which the situation presents openings for, rather than allowing any SE at any time.  But that's largely tangential to the topic at hand - you could implement a mechanic similar to the Mythras "Outmaneuver" (which strikes me as being intended to produce exactly the kind of effects you're asking about in this thread) without needing to do anything remotely resembling its combat Special Effects.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1075142That won't work well, I'm afraid.

Certainly if you can't stop yourself from attacking even when some part of you wishes you wouldn't or couldn't attack then no, it won't work.

QuoteAlso, I can't simulate the decision not to attack because an RPG generally doesn't model all the details that could make a melee participant (supporter) hesitate for a round. It's not a decision that a player can take; it's a decision that the PC has to take.

You will have to unpack this. I don't follow how you the player can't decide to hesitate. Just don't declare an action that round.

Here's an example of how that could work in most game systems. If I as the GM don't allow you more than a few seconds to declare an action then any hesitation in you the player declaring an action equals (and results in) a hesitation in PC action. Player hesitation can map quite nicely to character hesitation.

As far as trying to get combat to simulate what happens in fiction, in my experience many systems generate output results much like fiction. But the process doesn't necessarily feel like fiction. One major reason for this is that when a player rolls the dice to attack and a miss feels to most players like their guy swung and missed rather than that their guy was prevented from getting an opportunity to attack by being blocked by another character, by hesitating as they look for an opening, etc. The problem isn't generating a result similar to fiction. The problem is creating a system that makes combat feel to a player like some specific type of fiction. To my mind this is as much (and probably more) an issue of how the player conceives of their character's actions and the results thereof than it is of how the system manages combat.

Quote from: nDervish;1075155Definitely a reasonable (and faster-playing!) approach.  I tend to think that the combat Special Effects are a bit too open as well, and have theorized about things like randomly selecting three SEs for the player to choose from, as the ones which the situation presents openings for, rather than allowing any SE at any time.  But that's largely tangential to the topic at hand - you could implement a mechanic similar to the Mythras "Outmaneuver" (which strikes me as being intended to produce exactly the kind of effects you're asking about in this thread) without needing to do anything remotely resembling its combat Special Effects.

We'll talk about this more in future threads on cinematic combat, which I structure as Attack Sequences (1 v 1), 1 v Many and hits/general combat events.
I should add that I do have a finished system already, the Quickstart is on my game's website. Since it's in BETA state, however, I'm presenting the underlying logic to see which holes people can poke in it and see if (better) alternative solutions exist. I still got some time left to do heavy tinkering before starting the crowdfunding phase in earnest. But if there's going to be a bigger rewrite, it's got to start soon because there's implications for testing, etc.

Quote from: Bren;1075219Certainly if you can't stop yourself from attacking even when some part of you wishes you wouldn't or couldn't attack then no, it won't work.

Well, you don't have like the underlying logic but it is what it is. The design challenge for me is the publish a combat system that produces the most cinematic results (in somewhat detailed, mechanics-generated results as opposed to narrative games) under optimal tactical choices.

Quote from: Bren;1075219You will have to unpack this. I don't follow how you the player can't decide to hesitate. Just don't declare an action that round.

Suppose the reasons for not attacking are fear of getting in your allies way depending on his stance or based on a brief side-step he made (small enough to not be represented change square/hexfield). Suppose you hesitate because the lone enemy has given you a brief glance that tells you to be careful. Or suppose it depends on enemy body tension. Suppose the enemy just made a side-step and now the angle between you and your ally is less favorable now. Suppose an ally next makes a motion that he's about to attack but it turns out to be a feint only. Suppose your character thinks about some tactic to get into the enemy's back.

Just a few details that come to mind that might make a character hesitate which we don't model in our combat rules. We're abstracting out so many things that impact the decision not to attack. That's why I am abstracting out why a character chooses not to attack this turn, I only model whether he does or not.

Quote from: Bren;1075219Here's an example of how that could work in most game systems. If I as the GM don't allow you more than a few seconds to declare an action then any hesitation in you the player declaring an action equals (and results in) a hesitation in PC action. Player hesitation can map quite nicely to character hesitation.

I don't think that's much of a challenge though, I'm afraid. Once the players get used to it, they will always declare an attack unless there is something to lose for them by doing so. Also, how would this work with GM's mooks surrounding a lone PC? It doesn't seem like a viable solution.

Quote from: Bren;1075219As far as trying to get combat to simulate what happens in fiction, in my experience many systems generate output results much like fiction. But the process doesn't necessarily feel like fiction.

Process is definitely a factor and you could say that this thread is about process in 1 v Many situations. Yes. But it's not just process. It's also a question of which details are mechanically-driven and which ones are filled in by the GM. In both D&D and PbtA, although very different approaches, the details are left to the GM. Okay, your PC just lost 12 hitpoints - what does that even mean? It's not very evocative of specific imagery. Compare that to Hârnmaster or the Criticals in, say, Rolemaster or WFRP. These provide detail to varying degrees.

Quote from: Bren;1075219One major reason for this is that when a player rolls the dice to attack and a miss feels to most players like their guy swung and missed rather than that their guy was prevented from getting an opportunity to attack by being blocked by another character, by hesitating as they look for an opening, etc.

Absolutely but I don't know of any good way to do this. Sure, you can put players under time pressure and say they're hesitating if they don't declare quickly enough and I have done so in games. But in a 1-on-1 it's pretty clear what the action is. You could ask for attack specifics but that would call for special rules for each attack type with all its associated complexity/speed issues.

And, btw, part of the feel of combat is the characters feeling the pressure to take the optimal tactical choice, so the players should face the same challenge.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1075238Just a few details that come to mind that might make a character hesitate which we don't model in our combat rules. We're abstracting out so many things that impact the decision not to attack. That's why I am abstracting out why a character chooses not to attack this turn, I only model whether he does or not.

I'm hesitant about whether you can get the correct player feel of combat with a heavily abstracted system.

QuoteI don't think that's much of a challenge though, I'm afraid. Once the players get used to it, they will always declare an attack unless there is something to lose for them by doing so.

That's not been my experience as a GM. Obviously some of that will depend on how tactically minded one's players are and whether they are dedicated or casual gamers, but another important factor is how abstract is the combat system in use. Especially whether or not "attack"or "don't attack" is a binary decision. Now I haven't played a system that abstract in a long, long time. A number of systems provide more tactical variety (and hence non-binary choices) in the type of attack and defense available. I'm sure one reason I see pretty significant player hesitation is that I use systems with non-binary combat choices, hence the players need to consider more options when deciding on an action.

QuoteAlso, how would this work with GM's mooks surrounding a lone PC? It doesn't seem like a viable solution.[/quote}That's a different issue. And, depending on the system, potentially a non-issue. Several systems allow combined actions so that multiple attackers only require a single attack roll (e.g. any of the various D6 systems or Barbarians of Lemuria and its off-shoot Honor & Intrigue).

A second solution is for the GM to do the rolling for the "mooks" behind a screen and narrate the outcome e.g. 6 mooks "attack" but it turns out that only one hits. The GM might narrate that as 4 mooks hesitating, 2 mooks attacking in sequence with only one mook hitting. Thus avoiding the narration of a round robin of six attacks, most of which are likely to miss anyhow since the attackers are mooks. (Obviously this method won't work if the GM practice is to roll all attacks in the open.)

QuoteProcess is definitely a factor and you could say that this thread is about process in 1 v Many situations. Yes. But it's not just process. It's also a question of which details are mechanically-driven and which ones are filled in by the GM. In both D&D and PbtA, although very different approaches, the details are left to the GM. Okay, your PC just lost 12 hitpoints - what does that even mean? It's not very evocative of specific imagery. Compare that to Hârnmaster or the Criticals in, say, Rolemaster or WFRP. These provide detail to varying degrees.

I'm curious what the mechanically driven details will look like and whether that provides any difference in the player experience. Without knowing what sort of detail you expect to output I can't tell whether the process might significantly change or improve anything from a player look and feel perspective.

QuoteAbsolutely but I don't know of any good way to do this. Sure, you can put players under time pressure and say they're hesitating if they don't declare quickly enough and I have done so in games. But in a 1-on-1 it's pretty clear what the action is.

As I said, this is heavily system dependent. Honor & Intrigue, for example, has well over a dozen possible attack maneuvers with various pros, cons, and effects for each maneuver.

Quote from: Bren;1075361That's not been my experience as a GM. Obviously some of that will depend on how tactically minded one's players are and whether they are dedicated or casual gamers, but another important factor is how abstract is the combat system in use. Especially whether or not "attack"or "don't attack" is a binary decision. Now I haven't played a system that abstract in a long, long time. A number of systems provide more tactical variety (and hence non-binary choices) in the type of attack and defense available. I'm sure one reason I see pretty significant player hesitation is that I use systems with non-binary combat choices, hence the players need to consider more options when deciding on an action.

My experience with combat systems with tactical options is that either one or two best-of-breed options become quickly apparent or a couple of rules of thumb regarding which option to use when do.

Quote from: Bren;1075361That's a different issue. And, depending on the system, potentially a non-issue. Several systems allow combined actions so that multiple attackers only require a single attack roll (e.g. any of the various D6 systems or Barbarians of Lemuria and its off-shoot Honor & Intrigue).

Sure but then you're relegating who of them gets to attack to narration based on GM discretion, similar to what's done narrative games with their higher abstraction level.

Quote from: Bren;1075361A second solution is for the GM to do the rolling for the "mooks" behind a screen and narrate the outcome e.g. 6 mooks "attack" but it turns out that only one hits. The GM might narrate that as 4 mooks hesitating, 2 mooks attacking in sequence with only one mook hitting. Thus avoiding the narration of a round robin of six attacks, most of which are likely to miss anyhow since the attackers are mooks. (Obviously this method won't work if the GM practice is to roll all attacks in the open.)

Well, this is pretty much the standard RPG solution, like in D&D (for example), except behind the screen. And sure, it could be done to speed up combat against mooks/minions/rabble, I suppose. I'll consider that as an optional rule.

Quote from: Bren;1075361I'm curious what the mechanically driven details will look like and whether that provides any difference in the player experience. Without knowing what sort of detail you expect to output I can't tell whether the process might significantly change or improve anything from a player look and feel perspective.

The link to my game's website is in my signature. That said, different players have different preferences so there's probably a variety of responses.

Quote from: Bren;1075361As I said, this is heavily system dependent. Honor & Intrigue, for example, has well over a dozen possible attack maneuvers with various pros, cons, and effects for each maneuver.

Sure but we're talking a different (still viable) game philosophy here. What I aim at in my game instead is less tactical options (though there will be more to come via the Traits subsystem) for the sake of speedier resolution and instead mechanically generated outcomes that are typical for cinematic combat (losing initiative, stun, getting under pressure by the attacker, counterattacking, etc.). The ebb and flow of attacks plus these outcomes then creates a mechanically generated story of the battle, to be narrated by the GM.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1075450My experience with combat systems with tactical options is that either one or two best-of-breed options become quickly apparent or a couple of rules of thumb regarding which option to use when do.

That has not been at all been my experience in Honor & Intrigue nor has it usually been the case in Star Wars D6. I agree for low level characters in Runequest, though not for Rune Level characters.

QuoteSure but then you're relegating who of them gets to attack to narration based on GM discretion, similar to what's done narrative games with their higher abstraction level.

No, not really. The group makes a single attack. That is rules based, not narrative. The GM may narrate who hit, but for true mooks it's irrelevant whether mook #3 or mook #2 was the one that actually hit you. If fact in most cinematic action, the audience frequently can't even tell which mook was the one that made the hit. (Unless they rewatch the scene or use freeze frame or slow motion). They only see how many hits were made.

QuoteWell, this is pretty much the standard RPG solution, like in D&D (for example), except behind the screen. And sure, it could be done to speed up combat against mooks/minions/rabble, I suppose. I'll consider that as an optional rule.

I agree it is neither a novel nor an earthshaking solution.

QuoteThe link to my game's website is in my signature. That said, different players have different preferences so there's probably a variety of responses.

Yeah, personally I'm not sure I really feel that there is a problem that needs to be solved. Which may mean I'm not the target audience for your mechanics.

QuoteSure but we're talking a different (still viable) game philosophy here. What I aim at in my game instead is less tactical options (though there will be more to come via the Traits subsystem) for the sake of speedier resolution and instead mechanically generated outcomes that are typical for cinematic combat (losing initiative, stun, getting under pressure by the attacker, counterattacking, etc.). The ebb and flow of attacks plus these outcomes then creates a mechanically generated story of the battle, to be narrated by the GM.

The highlighted outcome are all or mostly present in the systems I typically run. Possibly one reason I'm not really seeing the problem that you are seeing. I do agree with you that I want my combat system to output results that tell me how the winning side won rather than simply (as some narrative systems do) telling me that the winning side one and then leaving the how to narration by GM or player(s). That is probably the main reason I've never warmed up to the Robin Laws/Greg Stafford HeroQuest system.

My personal view is:

1. To heck with most movies and even more of most TV shows' combat choreography. It mostly sucks and is stupid and dumb, mostly. I don't want to emulate it. I wish instead that they did a better job more often of doing scenes that made some sense.

2. Being cinematic is a dumb goal. Being dramatic is a slightly less dumb goal, but still kind of dumb unless the game situation calls for it. Many people in a game world may actually enjoy dramatics themselves, in some cases even with a worthwhile intelligent purpose and effect. After all, if you as leader challenge or accept challenges with dangerous-looking foes and beat them in dramatic single combat, you're liable to reap much reward in terms of reputation, respect, morale, etc.

3. Your comments about gamey-ness and round-robin actions by foes, and foes hesitating and getting in each others' way, I think are good points but to me are not about "not feeling cinematic" but are about making sense and having the game do a good job giving the experience of the situation that's supposedly happening in the game world.

4. The main thing that seems to me to be missing from the experiences as you mentioned it would be a map and good tactical rules where foes do in fact get in each other's way due to the map and the rules for movement, facing, terrain and reach and limits on what you can do and move at the same time, etc. The Fantasy Trip has a good simple-ish combat system that does a decent job of that. (GURPS does an even better job but is also rather more detailed and uses 1-second turns.)

5. The part about delays and hesitation may be more up to the GM roleplaying the NPCs appropriately, taking into consideration what they are aware of, how brave they are, how coordinated and quick all be leaping into action all the time, etc. I actually try to model that as GM, but GM discretion can also do it, if you have a good GM who is sensitive to such things.

Quote from: Skarg;1075565My personal view is:

1. To heck with most movies and even more of most TV shows' combat choreography. It mostly sucks and is stupid and dumb, mostly. I don't want to emulate it. I wish instead that they did a better job more often of doing scenes that made some sense.

Good fight choreography is so rare - like effective armour - that I really notice and appreciate it when I see it.

Quote from: Bren;1075529No, not really. The group makes a single attack. That is rules based, not narrative. The GM may narrate who hit, but for true mooks it's irrelevant whether mook #3 or mook #2 was the one that actually hit you. If fact in most cinematic action, the audience frequently can't even tell which mook was the one that made the hit. (Unless they rewatch the scene or use freeze frame or slow motion). They only see how many hits were made.

In many entertaining mook fights, however, some or all mooks are visually distinct. It helps to tell a unique story.

Quote from: Bren;1075529The highlighted outcome are all or mostly present in the systems I typically run. Possibly one reason I'm not really seeing the problem that you are seeing.

The difference is in the overall faithfulness in recreation, which might become more clear in parts 2 and 3 of my observations of cinematic combat.

Quote from: Bren;1075529I do agree with you that I want my combat system to output results that tell me how the winning side won rather than simply (as some narrative systems do) telling me that the winning side one and then leaving the how to narration by GM or player(s). That is probably the main reason I've never warmed up to the Robin Laws/Greg Stafford HeroQuest system.

Yeah, it's part of why I could never get into D&D. That and a few other things like static defense (AC), hitpoints conflating luck and health, etc.

Quote from: Skarg;1075565My personal view is:

1. To heck with most movies and even more of most TV shows' combat choreography. It mostly sucks and is stupid and dumb, mostly. I don't want to emulate it. I wish instead that they did a better job more often of doing scenes that made some sense.

2. Being cinematic is a dumb goal. Being dramatic is a slightly less dumb goal, but still kind of dumb unless the game situation calls for it. Many people in a game world may actually enjoy dramatics themselves, in some cases even with a worthwhile intelligent purpose and effect. After all, if you as leader challenge or accept challenges with dangerous-looking foes and beat them in dramatic single combat, you're liable to reap much reward in terms of reputation, respect, morale, etc.

'Dem are fighting words, dear sir. I would like you to realize that Star Wars hasn't become so popular because its space combat (and, actually, its physical combat) was so realistic. It hasn't even become so popular in spite of it.
And clearly, the Lord of the Rings movies contain plenty of "dumb" fighting scenes too. The genre is called (sci-)fantasy and it's way more popular than realistic hard sci-fi or medieval historical drama.
The same goes, btw, for realistic RPG systems - which remain a niche.

I couldn't care less about cinematic combat.

However, not everyone being able to attack a lone opponent is realistic/verisimilar as well.  It just makes sense.

Mythras has the Outmaneuvre action which allows a combatant to move in such a way that opponents must win in an opposed roll if they want to attack the combatant that round.

Should be easy to implement in D&D or other systems.