Status effects in RPGs: 100% success, variable cost?

[Avoraciopoctules]

I occasionally check in on various indie game dev blogs. Today I ran into a bunch of posts about an upcoming RPG, and one stood out.

http://zeboyd.com/2013/07/15/an-idea-fo ... r-heroine/

In the context of videogame RPGs, status effects tend to be way too unreliable, not viable as a strategy when you face rote fight after rote fight and need to get through efficiently. In tabletop RPGs filler fights are hopefully rarer, but a dedicated debuffer is still kind of lame if there's a significant risk of failing to do anything.

This blog post proposed a system where trying to [Poison] or [Stun] always works, but the cost goes up as targets get more resistance to it. In the context of a single encounter, repeatedly applying short-term stuff like [Stun] costs more MP-equivalent with each use to discourage stunlocking.

What are the advantages and disadvantages of something like this in a combat focused tabletop game? I know that stunlocking a player's only controlled aspect of the game is a bad idea, so there might be problems on the adversarial side if the opposition plays by the same rules.

[fectin]

"Now, for the low, low price of more bookkeeping, you too can be less effective and have less predictable results!"

[Kaelik]

Seems like you would just alternate the stun. Stun one person, then a different person.

Or, the way that is currently phrased... you could just have two people who alternate stunning the one enemy, or people cycle stuns.

But frankly, I have no idea why you would want to discourage stunlocking, because... that is the only thing to do with stuns. Stunning for one turn is just a shorter stunlock.

[Avoraciopoctules]

It's situational, but I could see stuns as primarily existing to shut down enemy combos at particular points. Of course, that requires knowledge of enemy patterns, or for the game to blatantly tell you "Enemy B is charging up!"

[codeGlaze]

Stunlocking is a completely viable "thing". Especially when it's "just" a stun. Once you start adding damage to the stunning attack I could see people starting to lose their shit.

[Josh_Kablack]

The problem is that "repeatedly in a single encounter" just does not mesh well with "tabletop RPG".

As 4e showed us, taking 4 average hits and hitting an average of 50% of the time for 8-round (non optimized, non-healing, non-dogpile) combats for groups of 4-6 PCs take up way too long at the table to adjudicate and feel sluggish.

So in tabletop, combats need to average notably fewer than 8 total rounds. This is a sliding scale and depends on the complexity of actions and the time to resolve them. An oldschool system where you can either Move or Attack once resolves much quicker than a more recent system where you are expected to spend multiple action types, split attacks and potentially resolve zone or control and damage over time abilities. Yet a spend your action to stun an opponent for 1 round power is a round where neither of you are dealing damage and thereby extending the combat. So if such abilities are common in the game, they can be expected to increase the average combat time, and that needs to be taken into account when designing things -- so as to ensure that combat resolves in a reasonable amount of realtime for the gamers around the table.

So in any system I actually have time to play, combats are likely topping out at around 5 rounds, even when some of those rounds are just spent trading actions with the opposition to slow things down and allow teammates time to position and charge super-meters and such.

And in that kind of combat paradigm, there really aren't many windows in many-on-many fights where there will be opportunity to repeatedly stun-juggle anyone over multiple rounds.

....


Although the basic concept of "resistance to status effects" just means a monster costs more mana to hit with that status effect is certainly interesting and workable okay if implemented otherwise. The big issue is flavor text which makes it believable, and the secondary issue is implementing it in a way which doesn't result in bookkeeping nightmares.

[DSMatticus]

But frankly, I have no idea why you would want to discourage stunlocking, because... that is the only thing to do with stuns. Stunning for one turn is just a shorter stunlock.

A stunlock is a chain of stuns. Calling one stun used once a stunlock is like calling one dude a crowd. The strictest definition is a chain of stuns that, while possibly not infinite, lasts "as long as needed." That's what they're getting at. If they don't prevent stunlocking, nobody will care about any of their boss fights (unless it's a duo like Biggie and Smalls or a multi-part monster or whatever) because bosses autolose. If you try to discourage stunlocking with a flat MP cost, then stunning will either never be worth the MP cost (trap option) or always be worth the MP cost (you failed). If they escalate the cost through repeated uses (and ramp it back down as a cool-off), then they can make stunning worth it until it's not and then not worth it until it is and you get to use stuns and not be dumb but don't get to stunlock and autowin. Of course, solving the problem of when to stun and when to not stun is just a bunch of not fun equations, so I can't say I like the idea.

Although the basic concept of "resistance to status effects" just means a monster costs more mana to hit with that status effect is certainly interesting and workable okay if implemented otherwise. The big issue is flavor text which makes it believable, and the secondary issue is implementing it in a way which doesn't result in bookkeeping nightmares.

The idea is to balance status effects with the resource management minigame instead of chance of failure. That is trading die rolls for bookkeeping. I don't know what your bookkeeping nightmare threshold is, but this is one or more steps closer to it whatever it is. I don't think it's particularly interesting bookkeeping either, though I also don't like seeing all or nothing actions being balanced by huge failure chances. I'd personally go with intermediate results so you don't have to grumble (at least, not as loudly) when a stun fizzles.

[Drachasor]

I don't really see how disablers like stunning should be a useful tool against a meaningful challenge. It tends to make encounters more boring than anything else. And it also tends to lead to actions that do NOTHING, which isn't a whole lot of fun.

I'd rather see something a bit more akin to Star Wars SAGA's condition track. If you are trying to stun someone, and they are at unhurt, then you'll probably just impose a mild penalty on them. There are several ways to go about this. One could link conditions together into chains; Dazzled -> Dazed -> Staggered -> Stunned (that's not meant to use D&D conditions really). Perhaps rolling "damage" when you inflict a condition, and the enemy has a threshold. Each multiple of that threshold in damage you deal knocks them down to the next level of severity.

I'm sure there are dozens of approaches to do such a thing. Basically though, I don't see the merit in stuns and other disablers having a chance of working on a significant enemy right off the bat. It's more interesting, imho, if the following principles are used:

1. You need to work with others to land one against a worthy foe (ideally this should be organic cooperation).

2. Or the Foe needs to already be weakened (helps end encounters when they get tedious).

3. You can use them effectively against weak creatures (like minions).

4. Even "failing" just imposes a lesser problem and/or at least helps allies hurt the bad guy depending on how well you do.

5. Related to the above, the system needs to naturally scale as levels/whatever go higher. So using the same spell on a weak enemy will give you a bigger result than using it on a average enemy which is more notable than the result on a strong enemy.

I'm working on a system like this at the moment. In general it is designed to get rid of the "do nothing" rounds that happen due to bad rolling. Rolling bad doesn't mean you do nothing, but instead that you just do less and it inherently assists other members of the party against the same enemy/enemies.

[Ice9]

It's an interesting idea. I don't think the bookkeeping would be too bad, but it only works with certain styles of resource management - mana, and to a lesser and more granular extent, charges. It doesn't work at all with WoF or at-will abilities, for example.

I don't think it's a particularly difficult fit flavor-wise though:
Mana - it takes more magical power to break through the resistance.
Endurance - you have to hit them more/harder and that's more tiring.
Opportunity - it takes more tries / a better position.


An alternate system if you dislike whiffing is to invert the order - make your roll for success first, and then pick a move you can do with that margin. For example:
* Knockdown - Difficulty 2
* Unbalancing Maneuver - Difficulty 2
* Winding Slam - Difficulty 5
* Disarming Strike - Difficulty 5
* Stunning Blow - Difficulty 8

If you get a margin of 6 on your "do painful stuff" check (could be a factor of the attack result, or a separate roll), then you can select any of the first four. If you had a margin of 3, you could only pick from the first two.