Help Wanted - Fans of Combat Mechanics

[Bilharzia]

Alright. I’ll check out the video. I don’t have anyone to play test my system with (which is kind of why im here). But I’m gonna keep posting in case someone else comes along in the next few who thinks it might be worth looking into. Failing that I’ll move on.

Edit - regarding “slowing down combat mechanics,” that depends on what you mean. I think the mechanics of the combat will move along very quickly - faster than say, a round of 1v1 combat in D&D. But the combat itself will last much longer because each moment of the combat is dealt with. The combat will tell its own story based on the math with the GM only adding flavor to each exchange.

I do not play d&d, there are many other games with better and more interesting combat mechanics, it is a very low bar to beat.

A fundamental problem that I can see in what you are trying to do is, for you:

rolling dice to resolve something results in adding to an abstraction, (eg. "momentum") ...
that abstraction (momentum) may later be used in another die roll which may then result in something happening.

This is what immediately strikes me, is what you are doing is layering abstraction upon abstraction, this is what makes it slow and confusing. What you could be doing is - make something happen - with each player action. How detailed that "something" is you can tune to how detailed you want the system. Having nothing tangible happen is one of the problems with what you are trying to do. The other problem you have is describing how the thing works, it is largely incomprehensible from the way you have written it. Sorry if I am blunt. My number one recommendation is to simply read and play more RPGs.

 

[Sam Crow]

I do not play d&d, there are many other games with better and more interesting combat mechanics, it is a very low bar to beat.

A fundamental problem that I can see in what you are trying to do is, for you:

rolling dice to resolve something results in adding to an abstraction, (eg. "momentum") ...
that abstraction (momentum) may later be used in another die roll which may then result in something happening.

This is what immediately strikes me, is what you are doing is layering abstraction upon abstraction, this is what makes it slow and confusing. What you could be doing is - make something happen - with each player action. How detailed that "something" is you can tune to how detailed you want the system. Having nothing tangible happen is one of the problems with what you are trying to do. The other problem you have is describing how the thing works, it is largely incomprehensible from the way you have written it. Sorry if I am blunt. My number one recommendation is to simply read and play more RPGs.

Not at all. You did exactly what I asked which is tell me if you think it’s a splat, so you’re on record.

 

[Bilharzia]

You can get more and better feedback and guidance from:

RPG Design: for Designers of Tabletop RPGs • r/RPGdesign

A gathering place for anyone, either casually or professionally, designing, hacking, or otherwise working with the mechanics of pen-and-paper...

old.reddit.com

and

RPG Creation: Friendly roleplaying game design discussion • r/RPGcreation

Discord: https://tinyurl.com/rRPGcreation A warm, inclusive place to discuss RPG design, RPG creation, game publishing, and related topics.

old.reddit.com

 

[pemerton]

@Sam Crow

I think your system is potentially interesting. I wouldn't worry too much at this stage about criticisms of your exposition - it could be improved but I found it clear enough and was able to get the general gist. Setting out the action and resolution process in dot point form might help. Or charts for the different defensive options (eg what gear is needed?; how is the withdrawal handled?; what posture can it be used in?; etc).

One thing I missed - does using Block force the character into defensive posture?

Another thing I missed - what is the significance of shifting between postures?

A third thing - how is action declaration handled?

And a suggestion: your system is close to, though not identical to, Burning Wheel's detailed melee resolution system, Fight! I would suggest you might want to look at that.

Some features of BW:

• action declaration is blind, mutual, and extends for 3 volleys (each volley normally has one or two actions);
• it is possible to change declared actions down the track, but this soaks actions;
• there are three "postures" - called "stances" in BW - aggressive, defensive and neutral: being in aggressive stance penalises defensive actions and augments attacks; vice versa for defensive stance; and neutral stance imposes no modifications;
• changing stances itself costs an action;
• BW doesn't have an analogue to your momentum, but it does have positioning - the rules for this have changed over editions, and I'm more familiar with the 2004 (Revised edition) version, which requires an opposed check at the top of each volley (which does not itself count as an action) to determine (depending on who tries to do what and who wins the check) whether the distance between fighters opens, closes or is maintained (weapon length is an important factor here),

 

[Jd Smith1]

Conceptual Summary

In every mortal combat, there’s a tale of terrible beauty so compelling that it stands, alone, as its own story.​

Here is where you lost me. If you have seen people die violently, there's no terrible beauty, and it is not compelling.

Beyond that, Aramis said it best: your jargon is far, far too thick. I used and enjoyed Phoenix Command, Millennium's End, and Riddle of Steel, BTW.

But I commend your efforts.

 

[Sam Crow]

@Sam Crow

I think your system is potentially interesting. I wouldn't worry too much at this stage about criticisms of your exposition - it could be improved but I found it clear enough and was able to get the general gist. Setting out the action and resolution process in dot point form might help. Or charts for the different defensive options (eg what gear is needed?; how is the withdrawal handled?; what posture can it be used in?; etc).

One thing I missed - does using Block force the character into defensive posture?

Another thing I missed - what is the significance of shifting between postures?

A third thing - how is action declaration handled?

And a suggestion: your system is close to, though not identical to, Burning Wheel's detailed melee resolution system, Fight! I would suggest you might want to look at that.

Some features of BW:

• action declaration is blind, mutual, and extends for 3 volleys (each volley normally has one or two actions);
• it is possible to change declared actions down the track, but this soaks actions;
• there are three "postures" - called "stances" in BW - aggressive, defensive and neutral: being in aggressive stance penalises defensive actions and augments attacks; vice versa for defensive stance; and neutral stance imposes no modifications;
• changing stances itself costs an action;
• BW doesn't have an analogue to your momentum, but it does have positioning - the rules for this have changed over editions, and I'm more familiar with the 2004 (Revised edition) version, which requires an opposed check at the top of each volley (which does not itself count as an action) to determine (depending on who tries to do what and who wins the check) whether the distance between fighters opens, closes or is maintained (weapon length is an important factor here),

Whew this is as close as I've gotten to something encouraging so far lol so thanks!

My plan is to have a post each for each of the maneuvers, concepts etc. and link to them in a ToC at the top of the thread. In fact at this stage I should probably replace the conceptual summary with a ToC and the mechanical summary with an FAQ and FLC (Frequently Leveled Criticisms) since they're so bad and really seem to set things off on the wrong foot.

I'll put posts that answer your questions in more detail but, for now:

1. Block doesn't put you into defensive posture.
2. Each posture has its own options and limitations. So if you switch between them you can or can't do this or that.
3. The winner of an exchange gets to declare and act first in the next exchange.

I've listened to a couple videos on Burning Wheel but haven't yet read Fight! I did watch the video recommended yesterday on Ubiquity, which has dice that would be perfect for what I'm trying to do.

Oh Edit - about the bullet points...for sure! I actually hope to do a cheat sheet in which each maneuver/posture/etc. has bullet points summarizing it for easy reference.

 

[Sam Crow]

Okay I've replaced the conceptual summary with a table of contents for now. (Tugs on collar). Hope that buys me some time.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Okay I've replaced the conceptual summary with a table of contents for now. (Tugs on collar). Hope that buys me some time.

Don't give up.

And also: don't expect an outpouring of love. Gamers are a tough audience.

 

[Sam Crow]

Don't give up.

And also: don't expect an outpouring of love. Gamers are a tough audience.

Haha I appreciate that! And yeah I literally basically said “If this sucks tell me.” So far the critique seems to have mostly to do with presentation, which I think I can fix. I think it’s too early to know if the whole thing is flawed at its foundation or if it’s too crunchy. I’m still confident it’s gonna be okay on that part.

 

[Sam Crow]

Attacking – Offensive Posture

Description

When you are ready and able to attack, you may enter offensive posture, and the very act of attacking puts you in offensive posture. As with defensive posture, offensive posture has its own options and limitations. They are:​

• Except for the counterattack, attacking is only possible from an offensive posture.​
• Momentum can only be built in offensive posture.​
• You cannot recover ardor or avoidance in offensive posture.​
• You cannot parry in offensive posture.​
• If you are successfully parried and then counterattacked, you remain in offensive posture during the counterattack. Therefore, you can’t parry a counterattack (because you’re still in offensive posture during the counterattack and you can’t parry in offensive posture).​
• You can block with a shield in offensive posture.​
• You can evade in offensive posture.​
• Simply by electing to stop attacking, you can switch to defensive posture from offensive posture at anytime except during the instant you are counterattacked.​
• Being attacked takes you out of offensive posture and into defensive posture. In order to go on the offensive again, you'll need to successfully defend an attack or wait for your attacker to disengage.​

Example A

Al and Bob are ready to fight. Al decides to engage Bob, who enters defensive posture. The pair exchange engagement for parry and Al wins, gaining momentum. Al can press the attack or decide he wants to back off and drop into defensive posture, forfeiting his momentum and the attack to Bob.

Example B

Al engages Bob and is successfully parried. Bob counterattacks. Al can only attempt to block (if he has a shield) or evade the counterattack because, at the moment he is counterattacked, he’s still in offensive posture. After the counterattack, Al is in defensive posture and Bob is in offensive posture.

Example C

Al has been pressing the attack for a while now and fatigue is beginning to catch up with him. To try and catch his breath, he drops into a defensive stance, forfeiting his momentum and the attack to Bob.

Notes

You can think of offensive posture as dramatically or as subtly as you like. It simply represents the changes – sometimes great, sometimes small – in your fighting stance when you’re on the hunt.

Fighters in offensive posture are trying to “control the fight." In watching a fight (e.g. MMA/boxing/HEMA), the fighter who is advancing is generally the one in offensive posture (think Conor MacGregor). As we’ll see though, you can fight and win using defensive posture as your basic strategy (think Floyd Mayweather).

Depending on the abilities of your fighter and the weapons he's using, you may be more or less comfortable on offense than defense by default.​

Next

Proceed to Attacking - Engagements or return to the Table of Contents.