A modest in-combat resource management scheme.

[JonSetanta]

That's totally the opposite example of what you were going for. He fights some dudes, then does something impressive, then he fights some more dudes and does another impressive thing. His mega stunts very clearly have some sort of opportunity limiter on them.

Perhaps I am wrong but you're connecting plot and the need to fill a hero's (invisible) Mook-hits-to-finisher meter.
What I'm implying is that Legolas (among other heros) didn't need to do anything special at the time or maybe even didn't want to (elf prince, etc, they work in mysterious narcissistic ways); the orcs were a more immediate threat.
That's different from can't do it, which is what you're suggesting.

Wasting time or building suspense =/= needing to kill minions to pull a badass move.

[zeruslord]

My main issue with it is that regardless of what it's meant to simulate, the players at the table, unless very carefully trained, will feel like they have lost control of their character. Also, it leads to problems like the 4e Grapple powers, where moves that should be available at any moment are instead limited. In addition, it leads to a "Roll for Awesome" situation, and if you fail your Awesome Roll, then you can't do any of your character's signature moves.

[Psychic Robot]

You know, maybe the problem isn't so much that combat needs to be fixed. Rather, it's that combat is too much of a focus.

With all these threads on how to "fix" combat in D&D, I'm almost convinced that "fuck it, fix the RNG and let fighters auto-attack" is the solution. I mean, I know that's a bad attitude for people who want to play fighters and kill things, but it's kind of depressing how much we focus on combat working.

Sigh.

EDIT: Isn't the Fantastic! system basically 4e, but with "daily powers" replaced with "adventure powers"? I mean, I'm assuming that you care about using daily powers, but bear with me here.

[zeruslord]

Combat has always been a focus of the rules and part of the story, which is a symptom of the way that games have evolved. In order for this to change, the default plot needs to be changed and an actually functional set of social rules needs to be created.

Fantastic! is planned to have far more powers per class, per class "path", and per character than 4e and should be able to avoid the problems that 4e has with pure cookie cutter characters.

[Psychic Robot]

I forgot that Fantastic! is being made by people who know how the system works and who aren't looking to rape people into buying their product.

[Draco_Argentum]

You could, for example, throw out increasingly large numbers of moderately to highly specific abilities at the lower chances and general abilities at the more probable end. So when you're fighting tree people you'll be throwing a bunch of fire darts and occasionally busting loose with a defoliance spray spell.

Whacky stunt shit needs to get spaced out through the battle or it doesn't feel like a whacky stunt. And the game suffers when that happens.

-Username17

Still sounds like a simple heuristic could pick the correct move to use from the ones you rolled that turn. IMO thats the problem that needs to be fixed.

[Neeeek]

It just occurred to me that the winds of fate play has issues regarding the ability to plan ahead. If you have to roll to see what the best action will be in the next round, then you are going to slow down the game by a significant amount.

[Elennsar]

If knowing that using a given move is the best move for the situation is a problem, maybe we need more complicated situations, rather than "I have a fire power and this thing is vulnerable to fire."?

[Username17]

In any battle there are only a couple of things you can do. You can:

• Move your team closer to the victory condition (exspample: "Hoody Hoo! I shoot him with my crossbow!")
• Move the other team farther from their victory condition (exspample: "Cure Light wounds! Go team Cleric!")
• Improve your team's ability to move closer to the victory condition on further actions (exspample: "H-h-ha-ha-a-a-as-s-ste!"
• Worsen the enemy's ability to move towards the victory condition on further actions (exspample: "Dim Vision, bitches!")

So to an extent, a very large extent, you can imagine that there will probably be some sort of rubric one could use to figure out what the optimal course of action is in any circumstances, regardless of situation. After all, we know that buffs, insta-kills, and debuffs are better the earlier in a combat it is, and steady grinding abilities are better the later in a combat it is. That's not news to anyone, so one can in fact surmise that once a character has determined their strategy that there is a best move in whatever situation they find themselves.

If one of your team mates gets to do all kinds of crazy shit on a dazed opponent because of his psychic powers, then you'll probably want to use your best available dazing maneuver on a tough enemy regardless of what else they do. Once you've made that concession to team work, you know what you're going to open up the combat with even if you have access to dozens or hundreds of special attacks.

In short, the problem with the tactical wargame aspect of almost all RPGs is precisely the fact that people know what they are going to do so far ahead of time. In D&D you can generally give standing orders for a character several turns in advance, and then go to the store. In larger battles, you might be able to come back with a bag of funyuns and some pepsi before your program ran out or became inappropriate. That's the problem.

It just occurred to me that the winds of fate play has issues regarding the ability to plan ahead.

Yes. Exactly. The thing that puts a player's tactical skill and personal input into the game in a meaningful fashion is when the tactical situation changes radically enough between their turns that they can't plan out their actions far in advance. In the AD&D model where everyone just lines up and autoattacks, you can plan your turns out five or ten rounds in advance - but there's no real purpose served in anyone really being there or controlling their characters.

If you have to roll to see what the best action will be in the next round, then you are going to slow down the game by a significant amount.

Any time you put meaningful choice into the game, it's going to slow things down. You can speed things up by just having everyone flip coins to see who wins the battle right at the start.

-Username17

[Elennsar]

In short, the problem with the tactical wargame aspect of almost all RPGs is precisely the fact that people know what they are going to do so far ahead of time. In D&D you can generally give standing orders for a character several turns in advance, and then go to the store. In larger battles, you might be able to come back with a bag of funyuns and some pepsi before your program ran out or became inappropriate. That's the problem.

I think part of the problem, maybe most of the problem, is that the other guy can't really put you in a position where "Oh fuck what do I do" that means you have to look at the wreckage of your plans and come up with something.

That's not good. If we wanted a game that we could ensure players won most of the time, and that was the top priority, it might be okay.

But barring "whoa, look at that overkill", that's really boring.

Of course, if characters -lose-, we have all sorts of other problems, as discused in multiple places and not necessary or desirable to repeat here.

But if all Team PC has to worry about is -their- side doing 1-4 (or worse, 1, 3, 4), and the monster or NPC is unable to effectively do any of those, you get truly meaningless tactical decisions because your only question is whether you win quickly and/or with minimal resources spent, or whether you "waste" resources and/or time.

Legolas may not be in any -serious- danger from the orcs, but he -does- have to deal with them - he can't just brush them off as totally irrelevant...making sure they're not threatening him (which is not hard, but does require certain actions and/or avoiding others, even with Shoot Enemy In the Face) is apparently relevant to his success or failure.

I really think we need some of that.

Actual tension. Actual need to concentrate on the situation on a given round.

[Tsuzua]

I think part of the problem, maybe most of the problem, is that the other guy can't really put you in a position where "Oh fuck what do I do" that means you have to look at the wreckage of your plans and come up with something.

A counters and anti-counters system might be a good way to make combat more interesting. Basically you'll have powers that set up a main strategy, powers that mess up others strategies, and powers that keep your strategy from being messed up or a backup strategy.

For example, Sir Goodsalot main strategy is to run up and stab people in the face with his Holy Sword. He has powers that help it such as charge or smite evil. He has an ability that lets him temporary silence casters if they try to instantly teleport away so they can't pull teleport dodge and nuke on him. Lastly, he has Righteous Anger that makes him incredibly strong but only to break out of bonds, roots, and other snares. If he can't stab in the face such as fighting a ghost, he can shoot alright holy bolts.

He'll have more powers and abilities than this. So if he fights a thrallherder, he might want to plan to have his resist mind control ability up instead of his spiked armor that he uses when he fights squid monsters. Thrallherders have piecing mind shield attacks that cost more resources or cast buffs for their minions when they can't directly hurt their enemy.

This is the way I generally play High Power (700+ point) Hero games where the main focus of combats is to figure out your opponent's strategy and stop it while keeping him from doing the same to yours. It has the downsides of making combat longer (since it has to last long enough for tactics to matter) and can really backfire if you guess completely wrong and stay wrong. It also requires the GM to keep metagame knowledge out since he knows what the PCs can do.

This approach to combat also makes replenish mechanics matter less since it'll be harder to cheese if there are counter powers. Charging up pre-combat makes you weak to energy drains or mana burns is an example.

[shau]

In short, the problem with the tactical wargame aspect of almost all RPGs is precisely the fact that people know what they are going to do so far ahead of time. In D&D you can generally give standing orders for a character several turns in advance, and then go to the store. In larger battles, you might be able to come back with a bag of funyuns and some pepsi before your program ran out or became inappropriate. That's the problem.

I don't see how this changes in winds of fate. You just go from using your fire power when you encounter a group of deadly strawmen to using your strongest fire based power based on random die rolls, which will sometimes be burning hands and sometimes cataclysmic inferno.

If one of your team mates gets to do all kinds of crazy shit on a dazed opponent because of his psychic powers, then you'll probably want to use your best available dazing maneuver on a tough enemy regardless of what else they do. Once you've made that concession to team work, you know what you're going to open up the combat with even if you have access to dozens or hundreds of special attacks.

Why do you dislike this? If there's anything rpg combat should provide incentives for it is the team coming together to be stronger than they could be individually. People love tricked out wizards that make them look like superstars. They hate it when they drop a super combo on themselves and wreck the enemies' shit singlehandedly. If there is any system that is going to prevent "Player/class/feat x is overpowered/underpowered/munchkin drama, it is a system in which people team up for Killer Combos or combine their power to form Voltron.

I don't even know if that can happen in Winds of Fate. Do I have any incentive to set Bob's character to do something cool? For all I know he is not even going to draw the punish dazed enemies power, and then I have wasted my turn. It's probably better if I just do what I want to do without thinking about the other people at the table.

[Username17]

Do I have any incentive to set Bob's character to do something cool? For all I know he is not even going to draw the punish dazed enemies power, and then I have wasted my turn. It's probably better if I just do what I want to do without thinking about the other people at the table.

Do I have any incentive to set Bob's character to do something cool? For all I know he is not even going to hit with the punish dazed enemies power, and then I have wasted my turn. It's probably better if I just do what I want to do without thinking about the other people at the table.

-Username17

[shau]

Do I have any incentive to set Bob's character to do something cool? For all I know he is not even going to hit with the punish dazed enemies power, and then I have wasted my turn. It's probably better if I just do what I want to do without thinking about the other people at the table.

-Username17

What? Is winds of fate supposed to replace the roll to hit?

The point I am trying to make that attempting to fight as a team in the winds of fate system is really goddamn hard if not impossible. In most systems they are fairly obvious synergies. If Bob's a skilled archer it makes perfect sense for me to throw down a spell which turns the ground into mud so that everyone is slowed and ranged guys get free attacks. If Bob is a melee guy then it makes sense to throw out a fog spell which hoses ranged attacker but leaves melee guys unaffected. But if Bob changes from melee to ranged randomly then I might as well use my shoot opponent in the face spell, because either of those two options could have screwed my teammates.

Winds of fate presents a game in which nobody knows what their teammates are going to do because they don't even know what they are going to do. That causes real problems in creating even the simplest of team strategies. That could be fine if there was a great payoff to this system but I have no idea what it is. You want to move away from a system in which everyone spams their ultra attacks and then finishes the fight with bitchslaps, which is good, but you have just switched to a system in which GaiGaoGar sometimes destroys everything with Hell and Heaven in the first round and sometimes never uses it for no real reason.

[RandomCasualty2]

So to an extent, a very large extent, you can imagine that there will probably be some sort of rubric one could use to figure out what the optimal course of action is in any circumstances, regardless of situation. After all, we know that buffs, insta-kills, and debuffs are better the earlier in a combat it is, and steady grinding abilities are better the later in a combat it is. That's not news to anyone, so one can in fact surmise that once a character has determined their strategy that there is a best move in whatever situation they find themselves.

Well, the idea is to not get a best move for every situation, but rather one that has to adapt to your foes. If you're fighting glass cannons for instance, it's probably better to save the buffs and go straight to grind, since the extra damage that you're going to get from the buffs isn't really needed.

Further D&D isn't counter based enough, but is more about doing your own schtick and hoping it works.

Basically it amounts to the following:

-Specialization needs to be seriously curbed. Rogues can't just be a one trick sneak attack pony where your only strategy is "try to get sneak attack, then spam out as many attacks as you can." Because that's just too one dimensional.

-Characters need to actually switch roles depending on situation. 4E has shown us that the basic model of roles is boring and predictable as hell. A character shouldn't be "the damage dealer" and that's it. No, in fact everyone should get their shot at taking different roles. Sometimes the wizard should be casting protective pentagram instead of fireballs, and sometimes the cleric is going to be blasting undead instead of healing them.

-Abilities need strong interaction and be meaningfully powerful. It should be a lot more beneficial to remove or counter a foe's "Striking Dragon Stance" rather than just relying on your other abilities to power through it. And everyone needs moves to target abilities on the enemy.

-4E had it right when they wanted more monsters on the battlefield. One monster just can't do much. You really need a group of monsters by default with mixed ability sets to keep things interesting. You also need some kind of easily used FF-style Scan ability to tell what monster can do what. Because to plan tactics you need information. If you don't know what anything can do, then it's just a guessing game.

[Username17]

What? Is winds of fate supposed to replace the roll to hit?

No. However if your combo is based on you performing a maneuver and then Bob landing his Psychic Thresher attack afterwards, this combo is just as broken (if not more so) if the Psychic Thresher fails to land as if Bob is for whatever reason unable to use the Psychic Thresher in the first place.

So you stating that you may as well not take an action that would combo with Bob landing a Psychic Thresher afterwards because Bob might be mechanically forced to use a different ability is functionally equivalent to you stating that you may as well not that the same action because Bob is mechanically capable of not landing the attack if he uses it. You're performing an action because there is a chance that it will combo with a future action that Bob may well take, any future event that may keep it from working, whether it be a Tide of Battle roll, a to-hit roll, or just plain a non-zero chance that enemy forces will incapacitate Bob before his next turn should all factor into your calculus when determining whether or not an attempted combo is worth doing. But as long as all of these chances are neither zero nor 100% they have to be evaluated probabilistically. Not absolutely.

Well, the idea is to not get a best move for every situation, but rather one that has to adapt to your foes.

Good points, but I'd extend that to having to adapt to "the situation" which includes more than just the foes themselves. The world should have real reasons why there are battles on stark cliffs and real consequences for throwing people off of them. That alone would make all those stupid push and pull moves powerful and interesting.

The 4e D&D authors keep ranting about how you need to put battles in big cinematic death traps for no reason. And they are half right. Those kinds of battlefields are a lot more interesting and dynamic than featureless plains and crap. But the thing is that it falls to world building even more than stunt rules to actually bring that to the fore without having it feel stupid.

Characters need to actually switch roles depending on situation.

Absotively. Peoples abilities need to be useful in many situations, but beyond that need to be differently useful in different situations. The guy who telekinetically throws people around can go ahead and be a defensive character when everyone is slogging around in a swampy bog, but when people are clawing their way up a mountain trail he's a deadly sniper. It's a simple example, but the game should be thinking that far ahead and more.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

Good points, but I'd extend that to having to adapt to "the situation" which includes more than just the foes themselves. The world should have real reasons why there are battles on stark cliffs and real consequences for throwing people off of them. That alone would make all those stupid push and pull moves powerful and interesting.

The 4e D&D authors keep ranting about how you need to put battles in big cinematic death traps for no reason. And they are half right. Those kinds of battlefields are a lot more interesting and dynamic than featureless plains and crap. But the thing is that it falls to world building even more than stunt rules to actually bring that to the fore without having it feel stupid.

Yeah, terrain has to be a big factor. One of the reasons I hate common flight in 3.5 is because it basically reduces any battlefield you have to an empty plain. It's okay for one guy to be able to fly and ignore terrain, but when the whole group can do it, it really just kills the game.

Using cover, high ground and difficult terrain needs to be a big deal in the game.

We may even want to have certain sites as a whole have various properties that applies modifiers to various actions that force adaption. Maybe fire attack spells don't quite work as well in the Caves of Eternal Frost. So the fire mage has to resort more to fire based buffs or counterspells than pure damage when he happens to be in that area.

Some maneuvers, especially mobility based ones, probably shouldn't be able to be used on difficult terrain. Like you can't use lightning dodge when you're standing in a swamp.

Definitely situations need to be as varied as possible, both in opposition and terrain that really mixes up the tactics.

[Neeeek]

So you stating that you may as well not take an action that would combo with Bob landing a Psychic Thresher afterwards because Bob might be mechanically forced to use a different ability is functionally equivalent to you stating that you may as well not that the same action because Bob is mechanically capable of not landing the attack if he uses it.

Not necessarily. In the winds of change system, characters could have "set up" moves that could, for example, guarantee access to certain moves by their allies or themselves at some later point. Buffs that grant bonus points on the rolls, debuffs that render someone open to certain types of attacks, negating the need to roll for winds at all when attacking them, that sort of thing. That would encourage more teamwork than most existing systems. This isn't a negative for a winds system, of course.

[shau]

You're performing an action because there is a chance that it will combo with a future action that Bob may well take, any future event that may keep it from working, whether it be a Tide of Battle roll, a to-hit roll, or just plain a non-zero chance that enemy forces will incapacitate Bob before his next turn should all factor into your calculus when determining whether or not an attempted combo is worth doing. But as long as all of these chances are neither zero nor 100% they have to be evaluated probabilistically. Not absolutely.

Um..okay.

So let's assume that a chance to hit is 75 percent since that seemed to be a popular number for a to hit chance in another thread. Let's also assume that an opponent being "stunned" does not mean that they are easier to hit, so that Bob also has a 75 percent hit chance. Let's ignore Bob getting killed or incapacitated right now. That means a 56 percent hit chance if I did that right (.75 x .75). That's pretty risky, but it still happens more often than not and at least if I whiff Bob is no worse off than he would have been if I had spent my turn doing something else.

Now let's go with the winds of fate system. I forget if you wanted different powers based on dice or if a high roll just gave you even more awesome powers while still allowing you to use lesser powers. Let me assume the former at least for this. Now both me and Bob have our miss chances, but we also have to actually have the right power set (about 17 percent chance for a six sided die). That means the possibility of the combo going off is about 1.6 percent (.75 x .75 x .17 x.17). That's ass. There is seriously no logical reason to expect you can pull that off and players will never try something as complicated as a two man combo in such a system. Even if we assume I already drew a set of powers with stun and I am trying to decide what to do with it the odds of a combo still blow. (about a 9.5 percent chance.)

Absotively. Peoples abilities need to be useful in many situations, but beyond that need to be differently useful in different situations. The guy who telekinetically throws people around can go ahead and be a defensive character when everyone is slogging around in a swampy bog, but when people are clawing their way up a mountain trail he's a deadly sniper. It's a simple example, but the game should be thinking that far ahead and more.

Now this I really agree with. I think a system in which people can use their powers differently based on the situation would be great.

[Tsuzua]

So you stating that you may as well not take an action that would combo with Bob landing a Psychic Thresher afterwards because Bob might be mechanically forced to use a different ability is functionally equivalent to you stating that you may as well not that the same action because Bob is mechanically capable of not landing the attack if he uses it. You're performing an action because there is a chance that it will combo with a future action that Bob may well take, any future event that may keep it from working, whether it be a Tide of Battle roll, a to-hit roll, or just plain a non-zero chance that enemy forces will incapacitate Bob before his next turn should all factor into your calculus when determining whether or not an attempted combo is worth doing. But as long as all of these chances are neither zero nor 100% they have to be evaluated probabilistically. Not absolutely.

Winds of Fate would reduce the chances of team combo attacks since it adds another chance of failure. If you have only 50% chance of having any given move at any given time, then combo successes are halved if everything else stays the same. So unless you can guaranteed a certain move or changing to-hits and the like to compensate, you're going to reduce the chance for combos. Even really simple combos like reduce a guy's chance to be hit so you can use your hard to aim haymaker attack are affected.

There's also the perception issue where attacking and missing means that your tried to do something and just failed versus not being able to do something at all. Wanting to dodge the dragon's breath and failing your dodge roll means you attempted the likely best course of action and failed. This is different from having to take the breath like a punk because you didn't get Dodge on your Winds of Fate roll. Both have the same net effect (you get hammered by the breath), but one has you deciding and failing versus you passively taking it. Players having agency is a good thing since otherwise there's not much point for them.

One fix would be to allow hands so you can hold onto certain moves for later. It slows down refreshing moves so there's a trade-off.

Also with Winds of Fate, assuming you know you're going to get into a fight soon, you can just jerk off behind a door till you get your Ultimate Move, kick down the door and unload it, just like the charging system. You might also get the Ultimate again next turn for an even better alpha strike than the charging system allows. Having a hand mechanic would make this worse, but even if you can't hold moves, it's still possible.

[the_taken]

I've been sorta skimming this topic since page 2, but I think I've got the gist of it.

1. Kronauts Going Tsupah Sayen 3 before a fight starts and decapitation Mickey Mouse in one move is not cool. It won't happen in a set story cause the author has total control, so Mickey gets to fission out in a short monologue. But with a co-operative story telling game, the players can totally know that the big boss is behind door number 3.
2. Having your moves be randomly available can be exciting, but has the potential to be extremely frustrating with bad luck, or emulates #1 with a lucky stream of Spirit Bomb Spam.
3. Rest cycles to recharge make 5 minute work days with Spirit Bomb Spam. Having all moves, sucky and super, ready at any time does the same thing.
4. We don't want a charge up system cause every single fight will involve charging up to 9000 and then using the super move
5. Coloured token juggling creates a slippery slope effect, and super move cycling.
   Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, ICE CREAM!

So where does that leave us?

[Crissa]

I sorta miss the 2e flight rules. You were limited in actions you could take while using it, the dragon would take forever to turn around and come back for another flame pass and so had a very good reason to land and dispatch the heroes or peasants. Else they'd just run away from the fire or there'd be nothing left to eat.

But no one seems to want to keep track of speed and heading.

-Crissa

[JonSetanta]

Coloured token juggling creates a slippery slope effect, and super move cycling.

Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, Bubbles Blast, Fire Surround, Thunder Crash, Tiara Action, ICE CREAM!

So where does that leave us?

Status: Confused (a head ornament? seriously?), Clean, Hot, Deaf, and eventually Sick To The Stomach.

[Draco_Argentum]

So to an extent, a very large extent, you can imagine that there will probably be some sort of rubric one could use to figure out what the optimal course of action is in any circumstances, regardless of situation. After all, we know that buffs, insta-kills, and debuffs are better the earlier in a combat it is, and steady grinding abilities are better the later in a combat it is. That's not news to anyone, so one can in fact surmise that once a character has determined their strategy that there is a best move in whatever situation they find themselves.

I think the chief disagreement I have is the effectiveness on WoF at resolving this. All it does is add a Select Case statement to the simple program. Or nested If The Else if you want harder to read code. Its not doing anything to make tactics more interesting, its just randomising which uninteresting tactic gets used.

[Username17]

Status: Confused (a head ornament? seriously?), Clean, Hot, Deaf, and eventually Sick To The Stomach.

Right. It can also be Tiara Stardust, but only when you're fighting humans possessed by demons.

All it does is add a Select Case statement to the simple program. Or nested If The Else if you want harder to read code. Its not doing anything to make tactics more interesting, its just randomising which uninteresting tactic gets used.

Yes and no. For the first player who makes a tide of battle roll, they will roll the die presumably knowing ahead of time which ability they will use given each roll. This right away makes things more interesting for the other players because they don't know which move the character is going to use. But also it means that the If Then Else system for other players becomes very complicated, as it has to do not only with which abilities are randomly available to you, but also to which abilities were available (and thus used) by their team mates.

Even though the best choice is still deterministic, it becomes sufficiently complicated that it is no longer obvious - at which point player skill actually matters.

-Username17