Incompatible Design Goals

[Zinegata]

Did anyone here play Lost Worlds? It is an old fighting book game. Each turn you choose a maneuver and your opponent chooses a maneuver and you flip back and forth to see how that worked out for each character and read out the restrictions each character is under. If your weapon has downward momentum you might not be able to use any Red maneuvers, if you are off balance you might not be able to use any Yellow and so on.

That's a pretty elegant and cool combat system. But mass combat basically doesn't work at all. And I sincerely doubt that any tabletop roleplaying game is going to have the desire to fit the kind of granularity and attack/defense comparison for four PCs and 6 monsters in order to get that kind of "reasonable" restrictions on what powers a character can invoke on each enemy. Better to simply generate the limits and let players storytell for why it is that they do or do not have an opening for a trip attack at any particular moment.

-Username17

I have. But it's not really that intuitive. Fun as a filler but that's it.

There is apparently a hentai version of this game in Japan though. And it's apprently very... popular in Japan. >_>

[Murtak]

I'm guessing that this relates to your concept of assumed/enforced dual-classing. However, when speaking of character creation, any two choices will impact the character as a whole, so one must consider both before choosing either. So although it does save write-up effort and page space, it isn't actually speeding up character creation, as far as I am reading this; that is, unless you had something specific in mind.

I disagree. If you spell out a hundred entries I have to read a hundred entries. That takes time, especially if nominally similar abilities differ in small and subtle ways (this inevitably seems to happen). It is also much easier to get an overview over the possible choices.

[Koumei]

Did anyone here play Lost Worlds?

No, but I played an almost-identical (mechanics-wise) one called Queen's Blade :3c

(None of those images are particularly worksafe)

[Zinegata]

Did anyone here play Lost Worlds?

No, but I played an almost-identical (mechanics-wise) one called Queen's Blade :3c

(None of those images are particularly worksafe)

That's the Japanese hentai version!

[mean_liar]

[Lost World provides] a pretty elegant and cool combat system. But mass combat basically doesn't work at all. And I sincerely doubt that any tabletop roleplaying game is going to have the desire to fit the kind of granularity and attack/defense comparison for four PCs and 6 monsters in order to get that kind of "reasonable" restrictions on what powers a character can invoke on each enemy. Better to simply generate the limits and let players storytell for why it is that they do or do not have an opening for a trip attack at any particular moment.

I disagree. M:tG manages to fit every single one of its billions of spell effects into five colors. Doing the same for combat actions is similarly possible, all without unnecessary granularity. The goal is to encourage smart, tactical actions without relying on a random WoF system, not to necessarily model legendary combat in minute detail.

You could do it thematically: Reckless, Tactical, Speedy, Cunning, Confounding. You could do it my characteristics of the attack: Speed, Maneuverability, Attack, Force, Defense, Resilience. Either way, you can put a few tags on something that provide both capabilities and vulnerabilities that encourage tactical exploitation.

It is not necessary to create a strict, multi-faceted model. It is only necessary to provide a reason to do X rather than Y when the opponent is in state Z, and creating that sort of condition with WoF is taking what could be interesting and compelling gameplay and reducing it to a dieroll.


EDIT -

That's the Japanese hentai version!

...and that's Koumei. Say 'hi', Koumei. She's awesome.

[NineInchNall]

But ... M:tG is random and Winds Of Fatey. That's why you shuffle your deck and only draw a limited number of cards.

[RiotGearEpsilon]

What is WoF and Winds Of Fate? Randomly generating what moves you can take each round?

[mean_liar]

Hm. Somewhat. Maybe it's a bad example. Maybe not though: there are a lot of things to it that aren't WoF though, such as being able to hold onto your cards from turn to turn.

Frank's proposed WoF mechanic has the random Awesome choice every round, whereas in M:tG there's a choice between holding Awesome cards you can't currently use (hoping for later use) or discarding them for cards you can use now, possibly drawing Awesome-for-now in the process. The emphasis isn't on "use it or lose it", but more about setting up a series of conditions that mean you can continually "use it" with accelerating definitions of what "it" is. You're molding conditions to generate and employ Awesome, not relying on a random mechanic to hand it to you.

If you had two separate decks, one Mundane and the other Awesome and you were drawing one Awesome card every turn and forced to play it or discard it back to the bottom of the Awesome pile, then it'd be closer to the Frank's WoF mechanic.

Still, that's not really my main point. My main point was that Frank likes to pimp the WoF as a method of providing Awesome moves without encouraging spamming of those same moves. I think that's a good design goal but the WoF implementation is an unideal way of achieving it.

If you're designing in the real world then it's not bad. It achieves the goal and removes a layer of design from combat interactions. It's not great, though, and it's definitely not ideal. In the abstract it's glossing over details that I think would provide a more engaging tactical game if they were included.


...


EDIT - Winds of Fate is a system proposed by Frank wherein a random die roll determines availability of an Awesome move that may or may not be entirely applicable, with the player having to decide in that moment (that may not come again) whether or not to employ said Awesome move.

[Doom]

Did anyone here play Lost Worlds?
-Username17

Wow, there's a blast from the past. I think I still have my stack of books from back then.

Yes, mass combat doesn't work well at all, even if you define 'mass' as 3 combatants. Magic doesn't work so good either (granted, they only had like 1 mage, but it was a bit of a mess to use).

I still remember this guy boasting how he never lost at Lost Worlds. Turns out, whenever he got down a few hit pionts, he always just ran away (the 'run away' rules, buried in the system, were fairly generous...did finally get him with a wild swing, though).

[RobbyPants]

Still, that's not really my main point. My main point was that Frank likes to pimp the WoF as a method of providing Awesome moves without encouraging spamming of those same moves. I think that's a good design goal but the WoF implementation is an unideal way of achieving it.

I'm curious: do you have any other ideas for providing awesome moves and discouraging spamming, without putting them on strict intervals?

[hogarth]

Did anyone here play Lost Worlds? It is an old fighting book game. Each turn you choose a maneuver and your opponent chooses a maneuver and you flip back and forth to see how that worked out for each character and read out the restrictions each character is under. If your weapon has downward momentum you might not be able to use any Red maneuvers, if you are off balance you might not be able to use any Yellow and so on.

Other systems to use the "attack X vs. defense Y" technique were Top Secret's martial arts system and (of course) the AD&D psionics system.

[RobbyPants]

I also saw some duel rules instituted for 2E D&D Combat & Tactics. I always found them interesting, but they were quite complicated compared to anything else used by that edition, so I never ended up trying them.

I just remember part of the process being each side secretly selecting an attack and defense, and then you'd compare them to see who got the bigger unpredictable secret benefit.



I suppose you could game the system if you were playing against Bart Simpson, who always chooses Rock.

"Good old rock. Nothing beats that!"

"Paper!"

"D'oh!"

[mean_liar]

I'm curious: do you have any other ideas for providing awesome moves and discouraging spamming, without putting them on strict intervals?

It's a structural solution bigger than combat.

Non-basic Maneuvers require Fatigue to use. Fatigue is similar to SDC (from Palladium) or Stun (from Shadowrun); it's a nonlethal measure of how winded you are. It doubles as fuel for Maneuvers as well as a tier of Hit Points.

You can execute your SuperManeuvers by using Fatigue, but that's also pulling from the same pool of resources enemy attacks are targeting. Nominal, non-critical hits target Fatigue as well, and as Fatigue degrades you suffer penalties. Running out of Fatigue is a rather large penalty but not unconsciousness (as SR does).

In a more abstract sense, you tie use of SuperManeuvers to a pool of resources you want to keep topped up but that your enemies are targeting. You want to protect it, so you're not spamming, but at the same time you want to use it in the right moment.

Additionally and if it seemed warranted, using a system similar to the Tome Edge system could define a condition in which one can make SuperManeuvers without accruing Fatigue costs, encouraging a sort of video game-type Super-Meter that doesn't require the use of vital resources while still requiring that you engage in combat without spamming SuperManeuvers.

[TheWorid]

I'm guessing that this relates to your concept of assumed/enforced dual-classing. However, when speaking of character creation, any two choices will impact the character as a whole, so one must consider both before choosing either. So although it does save write-up effort and page space, it isn't actually speeding up character creation, as far as I am reading this; that is, unless you had something specific in mind.

I disagree. If you spell out a hundred entries I have to read a hundred entries. That takes time, especially if nominally similar abilities differ in small and subtle ways (this inevitably seems to happen). It is also much easier to get an overview over the possible choices.

I'll give you that; two combined choices are easier to read and process than a longer list, and probably faster. I'm not against the two-column idea at all, just picking it apart a bit. My point was that because the total number of possible states does not change, and both choices are made at character creation, then the player is still effectively a single choice of the same complexity.

[TheWorid]

EDIT: Double post due to bad connection.

[RandomCasualty2]

Otherwise you'll get a 4E situation where someone spams the same move because they have Echoes of Thunder + Resound Thunding + Mark of Storm + Elemental Admixture attached to their At-Will, defeating the purpose of the system.

Add-on crap like that honestly shouldn't exist at all. When you're creating a power based game like 4E, you need it such that everything is a power, and there aren't any straight static increase abilities.

If you have something like Mark of Storm, it should totally be some minor action thing you have to place on someone first, similar to a hunter's quarry, as opposed to just some passive ability that always applies. That way you totally have to question if it's even worth using a minor action to throw that on your foe.

[RandomCasualty2]

Did anyone here play Lost Worlds?

No, but I played an almost-identical (mechanics-wise) one called Queen's Blade :3c

(None of those images are particularly worksafe)

Well... that game looks awesome.

[Username17]

Magic doesn't work so good either (granted, they only had like 1 mage, but it was a bit of a mess to use).

There was also a Ninja, who had gimmick cards that let him throw caltrops or itching powder and shit. It... didn't really work either.

Non-basic Maneuvers require Fatigue to use.

That's just a Drain system. It satisfactorily limits the number of mega moves people use (see Champions or Shadowrun), but it totally fails to prevent people from simply opening up with their biggest baddest attack. People open up with he biggest attack they are going to use and then use cheaper stuff until they are down to the at-wills. Sometimes people will drop themselves by blasting off an alpha strike near the end to try to end the fight, but basically people act exactly like they do in 4th edition D&D. Or Battletech for that matter.

What is WoF and Winds Of Fate? Randomly generating what moves you can take each round?

The basic concept is that you randomly generate what abilities can be used each round, yes. The idea is that you don't always have an opening to disarm your opponent, knock their feet out from under them, or push them off the cliff. But procedurally generating which of those effects are available each round against each opponent based on what kinds of attacks and defenses were used by, for, and against them would take a lot of time. So what you do instead is roll a damn die and then use your capacity as a fucking storyteller to come up with a reason why at any particular moment a disarm action was or wasn't an option.

Now obviously, you're going to want to cover some basics no matter what you roll. And you're going to want to keep choices manageable on each roll. It is possible, but not necessary to marry the concept to a charge casting phenomenon, either per-battle charges or per-adventure charges. Or some other scheme. So here's an example of a possible Hero power set for relatively low level:

WoF Roll	Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4	Super Move
1	Basic Attack	Defensive Strike	Parting Blow	Trip	Thicket of Blades
2	Basic Attack	Precise Strike	Clothesline	Beat Down	Heart Seeker
3	Basic Attack	Vital Strike	Bullrush	Push	Tide of Iron
4	Basic Attack	Distracting Blow	Heedless Charge	Disarm	Rage Dance
5	Basic Attack	Power Attack	Overrun	Sunder	Howl From Beyond
6	Choose

So you'll note that no matter what they roll, they still have the ability to do a basic attack if that's what they want to do. Also, there's always a move/strike option, but depending on how the Tide of Battle is treating them, they may be able to get their strike in at the beginning, middle, or end of that movement. But if you'd rather be Power Attacking than basic Attacking, then you can do that - if you get a 5 or 6.

-Username17

[Blicero]

What if sooperdooperspeshul moves only had their sooperestdooperestspeshulest effects on enemies that had been significantly weakened or were under some status condition?

So maybe Atomic Fire Blast would only do lotsa damage against the Dark Overlord if he had previously been hit with some weaker attacks that would presumably be under some WoF-esque mechanic to prevent spamming. And the rogue would only be able to Stab in the Face a giant who had already been stunned or slowed or whatever.

That way, battles have a natural progression that still isn't identical every time.

[Kaelik]

What if sooperdooperspeshul moves only had their sooperestdooperestspeshulest effects on enemies that had been significantly weakened or were under some status condition?

So maybe Atomic Fire Blast would only do lotsa damage against the Dark Overlord if he had previously been hit with some weaker attacks that would presumably be under some WoF-esque mechanic to prevent spamming. And the rogue would only be able to Stab in the Face a giant who had already been stunned or slowed or whatever.

That way, battles have a natural progression that still isn't identical every time.

You mean like a CAN?

[Username17]

You could certainly throw in a "Finishing Move" on the end of many or all WoF results. If you have a large enough CAN on an opponent, you can drop a finishing move on them. This would lead to finishing moves getting "all crazy." Hell, you could throw in some Animalities and shit in there.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

What if sooperdooperspeshul moves only had their sooperestdooperestspeshulest effects on enemies that had been significantly weakened or were under some status condition?

That's similar to what Frank proposed for TNE, where save-or-dies are unlikely to work unless the target has been softened already.

A drain system could work as long as blasting off a super move inevitably weakens all subsequent attacks you make--pretty much the same as the above but working on the attacker rather than the defender. Players will have to start predicting whether the damage penalties they'll take from using major attacks will be greater or less than the penalties their enemies will dish out if they don't.

You could even use some unholy combination of the two, and have very fine-grained control over when it makes sense for character to use their at-will super moves and when it makes sense to use their at-will normal moves.

The advantage of the Wheel of Fortune, however, is that you don't need to spend time worrying about all that tactical crap. Seriously.

[TheWorid]

You could even use some unholy combination of the two, and have very fine-grained control over when it makes sense for character to use their at-will super moves and when it makes sense to use their at-will normal moves.

The advantage of the Wheel of Fortune, however, is that you don't need to spend time worrying about all that tactical crap. Seriously.

While yes, that is to complicated for my tastes, is not the point of WoF to enhance "all that tactical crap"? If we didn't want tactical actions, we could just add up all of our modifiers and do opposed "win combat" checks.

[RandomCasualty2]

While yes, that is to complicated for my tastes, is not the point of WoF to enhance "all that tactical crap"? If we didn't want tactical actions, we could just add up all of our modifiers and do opposed "win combat" checks.

Well WoF is less about tactical and more just about variety. It makes combats more interesting by introducing spamguards, but it doesn't directly deal with any of the problems, save by limiting options. But you very well could have a must-use maneuver in each of your subgroups.

Overall, WoF is a pretty crude solution to add illusion of depth, but really, in a good game, you shouldn't really need that. Take a balanced game like Starcraft, and people use different units and strategies because they have advantage against what their opponent is currently doing. The real answer to making a good game isn't to just prevent people from spamming one move, but rather to make it so that spamming that one move won't be a very good strategy.

The problem is that making a game like that requires a lot of thought and is unfortunately not very compatible with the idea of adding new abilities, because they can disrupt balance, so you'd generally end up with archetypes with renamed abilities. So you'd have something like brute, finesse fighter, wizard and cleric. And you'd just call a giant beetle a brute, a skeleton a finesse fighter and a mind flayer would be a wizard.

[mean_liar]

Non-basic Maneuvers require Fatigue to use.

That's just a Drain system. It satisfactorily limits the number of mega moves people use (see Champions or Shadowrun), but it totally fails to prevent people from simply opening up with their biggest baddest attack. People open up with he biggest attack they are going to use and then use cheaper stuff until they are down to the at-wills. Sometimes people will drop themselves by blasting off an alpha strike near the end to try to end the fight, but basically people act exactly like they do in 4th edition D&D. Or Battletech for that matter.

You're making a string of assumptions here.

1. There is a "best attack"

If in any given situation you have a clear "best move", then you're dealing with a clearcut tactical situation or only have one move available to you that's the best.

In a clearcut tactical situation then why would you want to drag out the combat with non-lethal moves? Do you really want to force a fresh character to use his small-change moves against the Giant Stupid Bag-o-HPs in order to build up a Super meter, or rely on WoF to hand them the ideal move when there's apparently no reason to not have access to it? If WoF denies you some maneuvers in all situations then there's no situation where you can just pop off maneuver X just because, and that's a verisimilitude-killer.

If you only have one one-size-fits-all "best move" and you're going to just spam the shit out of it (past Rookie Mode), then the game's design sucks for bigger reasons than WoF v Drain.

I definitely don't like the idea of an otherwise-perfect ambush situation where you have to lead with a non-ideal attack because of a WoF roll.


2. This Best Attack is guaranteed to succeed, enough so that any drain suffered is inconsequential
3. There is no consequence to unleashing the Best Attack and having it not work; you simply move on to your 2nd-Best Attack

Rather than dealing with the larger questions that assumption #1 brings up, these are much easier to tackle, and addresses the 5min individual turn problem: players choose character actions simultaneously and secretly, then the moves are revealed and resolved. There's some table kibitzing, but it involves all players. Then, it's the resolution phase and things just go ahead a lot cleaner.

Non-surprise initiative/action resolution is determined AFTER maneuvers have been chosen for the round.

You reveal your Best Attack. Your enemy reveals Run Away Fast. You burn some Drain for nothing. Your enemy laughs.

Now you're not choosing to blast away because it's obvious you should; you've got to measure unknowns first. Maybe it works, but if it doesn't then you have a real problem.

The assumption that you can pop off a power move with a large assurance of success only exists in a system without risk. That lack of risk either comes because you know exactly what's happening or the move is so awesome it wins outright.


EDIT - re: Drain on the attacker

Yes, that's what I had in mind. The Drain effect wasn't just a number that went to zero, but something that carried deleterious penalties with it's degradation. If you burned Fatigue to blast away, then you're sucking wind for the rest of combat.