Combat!!

[souran]

Ok,

We all know that in the end every Pen and Paper RPG lives and dies based on how fun it is to play its combat minigame. Even games like vampire where plenty of the players are looking for to get into each others pants, most people are still looking to find escape in the form of violence without consequence.

So lets talk about combat.

1) Does combat have to be "tactical" to be complex enough to remain interesting over a long campaign?

D&D grew out of miniatures wargaming and so even in versions of D&D that were not explicitly miniatures driven (say 2E) the game was highly tactical assuming very detailed positioning.

These games can clearly have tactical depth because they are very similar to the wargames that drive them.

White Wolf Storyteller games or Shadowrun are not really miniatures based in any way. Both of these games can have problem with combat becoming extremely plain with lots of one hit kills.

However, there are lots of games that have significant depth of play WITHOUT having a really tactical game attached at all. Collectible Card Games fall into this category.

Could you make a pen and paper RPG that had engaging combat play that was highly abstract. Especially in a dice pool type system what would it take to make it playable, interesting, deep, and quick enough that people don't get board?

2) Have you played such a game?

3) Lets take a really bad offender: Exalted
Toss out the things that make you not want to touch the game with your standard issue 10 ft. adventuring pole.

Assume that the game is about the barest bones underlying ideas:

"Classical" type heroes of the Greek/Mesopotamian/Chinese mythological mold who adventure and fight in a world that hates that they exist.

Its a dicepool game where you roll 10 sided dice. Most people know the general storyteller mechanics here at the den, but assume you could rebuild whatever you needed to make it work.

What would a medium/heavy dice pool game with highly abstracted combat look like?

[Josh_Kablack]

You'd have 3-5 general strategies laid out in a rock-paper-lizard-spock wheel, characters would be built to be able to use 2-3 of them well and then have to choose which one(s) to pursue during rounds of an actual fight based on the strategies and techniques of their opposition.


To start things off using a rough arcade fighter analogy:

There would be rushdown: leap right into the fray and hit the other guy in the face, dropping him before he can get any fancy moves off. (In D&D terms this is having a high initiative and a big damage attack)

There would be meter building: performing small safe moves in order to powerup and unlock a supermove. (In D&D terms, this is using buff spells)

There would be comboing: performing a sequence of moves such that if one hits the following moves also hit, forcing the opponent to either play defensively or take significant damage. (In D&D terms, this is usually battlefield control spells, but I suppose some grappling fits as well)

There would be plan-disruption: combo-breakers, reversals, or even moves that crippled an opponent's ability to access some of their own moves. (In D&D terms, this is dispelling, counterspells and most status ailments)

There would be turtling/avoidence: hit the opponent with a small attack or two and then flee or defend until the clock runs out. (In D&D terms, this doesn't really work, but you could argue that ongoing damage + retreat comes close.)

[crasskris]

D&D grew out of miniatures wargaming and so even in versions of D&D that were not explicitly miniatures driven (say 2E) the game was highly tactical assuming very detailed positioning.

These games can clearly have tactical depth because they are very similar to the wargames that drive them.

However, there are lots of games that have significant depth of play WITHOUT having a really tactical game attached at all. Collectible Card Games fall into this category.

Just for clarification: Your definition for tactical depth in this case includes obligatory positioning and movement on a board of sorts?

Because if I remember my time in the CCG circuit right a broader definition of tactical would certainly apply to them.

[Previn]

Warhammer Fantasy RPG?

[souran]

Just for clarification: Your definition for tactical depth in this case includes obligatory positioning and movement on a board of sorts?

Because if I remember my time in the CCG circuit right a broader definition of tactical would certainly apply to them.

Here is what Meriam Webster says the first definition of tactics is:

the science and art of disposing and maneuvering forces in combat

Collectible card games involve strategy, planning, and can have a great deal of depth and complexity. However, I have yet to see one that was "tactical" unless you count something like "battlegrounds" but that is not really a collectable card game, its just a game that uses cards.

tactics is at its core about out manuevering your opponent. However, that is also slow when done with 6 players. Abstracting out the movement requires that other things subsitute for the inherent loss in complexity/depth that not having "chess-like" movement/location/positioning provides.

[souran]

Warhammer Fantasy RPG?

Which edition because every version I have played was played with miniatures and RULERS. Its a step in the completly different direction.

[angelfromanotherpin]

The 4th edition of WFRP (the Fantasy Flight boxed version with the novelty dice and card stacks) uses a reasonably successful abstract positioning and aggressive/defensive attitude mechanic. It's also a version of the game where you are allowed to be a character as impressive as a high-end non-hero figure from the wargame, so that's a step in the right direction.

[Previn]

Warhammer Fantasy RPG?

Which edition because every version I have played was played with miniatures and RULERS. Its a step in the completly different direction.

3rd edition rules, specifically abstract measurement on pg. 52. Essentially 'base contact is engaged, other distances are measured by tokens' so close was 1 token, medium was 2, etc.

Are you sure you're not talking about the table top wargame as opposed to the RPG?

[crasskris]

Collectible card games involve strategy, planning, and can have a great deal of depth and complexity. However, I have yet to see one that was "tactical" unless you count something like "battlegrounds" but that is not really a collectable card game, its just a game that uses cards.

tactics is at its core about out manuevering your opponent.

You mean like in MtG, where you have to either engage the enemy troops to dispose of them or use flying, forestwalking, tapping key enemy units etc. to outmaneuver them? It's abstracted movement, granted, but movement and engagement nonetheless.
Thus my question: Do you want primarily to get rid of the board and the associated micromanagement?

If the answer is yes, then a system like MtG might actually be applicable.
Something where both sides take turns attacking/defending, and the defenders try to intercept the attackers in the most favorable combinations; all attackers that aren't intercepted give their side further advantages for their next attack or their next defense.

[tzor]

Here is the problem for me, and why I generally prefer minis (or as we used to call them “figs”) in role-playing. I am a left-brain / right-brain kind of role-player. This is especially true for combat. It’s not enough to “describe” the scene, I need a visual representation of the scene even if it is abstract and needs some manner of internal conversion.

It is one of the reasons why OWoD combat never seemed very interesting to me.

Ironically, highly abstract combat like MtG is attractive because it makes both sides happy. Any visual, even an abstract one is enough to make my visual side happy.

[souran]

Warhammer Fantasy RPG?

Which edition because every version I have played was played with miniatures and RULERS. Its a step in the completly different direction.

3rd edition rules, specifically abstract measurement on pg. 52. Essentially 'base contact is engaged, other distances are measured by tokens' so close was 1 token, medium was 2, etc.

Are you sure you're not talking about the table top wargame as opposed to the RPG?

I played the old hogshead version and I played the third edition of the game (although I was not DM so I think we actually played "Some guys combination of hogshead and 3rd edition" but in every version I played there were rules for using miniatures and I never played without minis.

Further, because every DM I ever played with for WFRP was also playing the wargame we always used measured distance and didn't even use a square or hexmap.

The tokenized distance seems very workable and the sort of thing I would be interested in seeing more about.

You mean like in MtG, where you have to either engage the enemy troops to dispose of them or use flying, forestwalking, tapping key enemy units etc. to outmaneuver them? It's abstracted movement, granted, but movement and engagement nonetheless.

Yes, its definvientively not tactical, but it does abstract movement of a sort. Further, its FAST.

Thus my question: Do you want primarily to get rid of the board and the associated micromanagement?

If the answer is yes, then a system like MtG might actually be applicable.
Something where both sides take turns attacking/defending, and the defenders try to intercept the attackers in the most favorable combinations; all attackers that aren't intercepted give their side further advantages for their next attack or their next defense.

In short: yes. I have a fairly mixed group of gamers and while I personally really enjoy counting spaces and moving tokens I realize that lots of people don't.

However, what I am not willing to surrender is an engaging combat system. Abstract does not have to mean "badly done."

I agree that a CCG/MtG type system might be doable, although I have found that such a system when played 5 on 1 tends to not be very satifing for either side.

Again, going to the "lets rebuild a game" thing I was talking about:

Exalted seems like the perfet candidate to replace its horrible charm system with something that uses playing cards or the like. However, when you have a party playing it would seem to get really slow.

[crasskris]

Exalted seems like the perfet candidate to replace its horrible charm system with something that uses playing cards or the like. However, when you have a party playing it would seem to get really slow.

Depends on how you limit it. If each player can only hold 3 cards, play two per round at most and choose up to three at the end of his turn from his limited deck, you'd circumvent option paralysis and even have a planning component.

[crasskris]

Oh, I might need to add that I have only third party experience with Exalted, so if my proposal violates everything Exalted stands for, please ignore it.

[souran]

Oh, I might need to add that I have only third party experience with Exalted, so if my proposal violates everything Exalted stands for, please ignore it.

On the contrary, Exalted is used because it is one of the worst offenders for a game being broken AND boring AND offensive.

The idea is see what you would need to do to rebuild said thing in a way that was workable. If it requires tearing down everything it stands for that is not a problem.

[Username17]

I have no problem describing something as "tactical" without it having literal physical positioning. In fact, I think in most cases actual troop coordinates diminishes rather than strengthens tactics. It's important that guys are "charging down the hill", it is not important that they are transiently in square X 23, Y 54.

-Username17

[souran]

I have no problem describing something as "tactical" without it having literal physical positioning. In fact, I think in most cases actual troop coordinates diminishes rather than strengthens tactics. It's important that guys are "charging down the hill", it is not important that they are transiently in square X 23, Y 54.

-Username17

I have no problem with a game that is highly abstract in the style you are discribing. In fact, the point of this thread is to find game sthat do that well.

However, such a thing is not tactical except by a very lose definition. As the intent was to find systems that are not classically tactical it seems best to stick to a fairly straight dictionary reading for the description.

Warhammer for all its faults is a tactical game. Magic the gathering is NOT a tactical game.

What games have done combat well enough to keep things really interesting while ALSO abstracting the combat to reduce the tactics to a descriptive or impracise but fast method of resolution.

[Username17]

I don't agree with your interpretation of "classically tactical". Tactical means that your maneuvers are important, not that your physical location necessarily is. You can have political tactics and investigative tactics and debate tactics. Lost Worlds (or Queen's Blade) is a deeply tactical game, but you don't have a location in space at all.

Fundamentally, tactics is about how your maneuvers affect and are affected by the maneuvers of others - requiring you to make WIFOM choices. Maneuvers are essentially vectors, and condensing positions to points (as D&D and many other games do) is not particularly helpful.

-Username17

[crasskris]

If you explicitly leave positioning and movement aside, the next things that comes to mind that makes or breaks a battle would be morale.

I once toyed with a concept that embraces this; I'll see if I can find my notes.

[TheFlatline]

Which edition because every version I have played was played with miniatures and RULERS. Its a step in the completly different direction.

3rd edition rules, specifically abstract measurement on pg. 52. Essentially 'base contact is engaged, other distances are measured by tokens' so close was 1 token, medium was 2, etc.

Are you sure you're not talking about the table top wargame as opposed to the RPG?

I played the old hogshead version and I played the third edition of the game (although I was not DM so I think we actually played "Some guys combination of hogshead and 3rd edition" but in every version I played there were rules for using miniatures and I never played without minis.

Further, because every DM I ever played with for WFRP was also playing the wargame we always used measured distance and didn't even use a square or hexmap.

The tokenized distance seems very workable and the sort of thing I would be interested in seeing more about.

It's pretty interesting. However, in a general melee it can get kind of weird with people being relative distances away from each other (ie: I'm Close range to person A but medium range from Person B & close to person C. How far apart is person B & C?).

What I find works is to set one object, feature, or NPC as "ground zero" and base distances off of that. I will usually divide the battlefield into "halves", or if location is particularly important, quarters. The "Battle map" looks in that case like a bullseye target.

It works really well, and interestingly enough, with the cooldown periods and the way the powers interact, the tactical portion of the game involves manipulating your aggressive/conservative stance and powers to minimize downtime and maximize output.

[crasskris]

Ah, there we go.

So, all combatants roll initiative at the start of battle.
In a given round, all combatants of one side acting before the others have tactical advantage, i.e. those precious few seconds to get a view of the battlefield and give new orders, while the other side is doomed to react.

Also at the start of battle, the two most charismatic characters on each side roll for dominance. Add boni for every legendary hero, dread monster, famous banner or infamous unit on each side, and give the side with biggest threat and with strength in numbers an extra bonus each.

In a round, each character can make an action from his list of powers. Many of these powers have riders for tactical advantage or (an exclusive or) dominance*. Several powers (e.g. Rallying Cry, Tactical Wizadry, etc.) either change initiative order - pushing allies into tactical advantage - or allow to re-roll dominance if one of the modifiers for the opponent was removed.
Add an easy match system that notes who is in melee with whom and forces controlled pull-out and you're basically there.

Plus you can print pretty power cards and use markers for the various kinds of dominance modifiers, for the visual crowd.

*Rage attacks deal extra damage with dominance, lockdown assaults force melee upon an enemy with tactical advantage, you get the idea.

[souran]

It's pretty interesting. However, in a general melee it can get kind of weird with people being relative distances away from each other (ie: I'm Close range to person A but medium range from Person B & close to person C. How far apart is person B & C?).

What I find works is to set one object, feature, or NPC as "ground zero" and base distances off of that. I will usually divide the battlefield into "halves", or if location is particularly important, quarters. The "Battle map" looks in that case like a bullseye target.

It works really well, and interestingly enough, with the cooldown periods and the way the powers interact, the tactical portion of the game involves manipulating your aggressive/conservative stance and powers to minimize downtime and maximize output.

Curiously, I had a very similar idea that I keep kicking around.

I had a very similar idea to your bullseye. Basically, most of the time a pre-gunpowder type fight like most fantasy rpgs and espeically D&D will pretty much end up with a clump of guys in one place engaging each other in melee with a few outlier characters.

So I thought of doing of doing a system where combat is abstracted as being "in the melee" and all other distances where tracked relative to that. So there was a close zone, a far zone, and an extremly far zone.

I was assuming a white wolf/storyteller type system so I figured that a picture or (non hex) map of the combat area or a description would be used to set the scene. Then the players would use the picture to provide dynamism to the fight without having to use miniatures/true positioning (which has a tendancy to result in a few moves followed by standing in one place and rolling dice anyway).



@ Frank -

I really do not care if you disagree with the definition as the definition is provided in order to differentiate some games from others. I really don't give a shit about what definition of "tactical" you think is most appropriate for rpgs. There exist pen and paper games where it is expected that you will use representation and true positioning to resolve combat. These games are definetively tactical.

There are other games that instead expect combat to be handled without resorting to set piece representational movment resolution systems. These games could be argued to be "non-tactical" by common definition, millitary parsing/meaning, and the complex concept of where tactics ends and strategy begins. You could have a brilliant counter argument about the profliferation of the concept of tactics as applied to all aspects of existiance. I still do not give a shit becasue the argument itself solidifies the essential differance between games of type 1 and type 2.

So please either contribute to the main discussion or shut up because debating the meaning of "tactics" is a waste of all our time.

[Mask_De_H]

But souran, in this case Frank's not arguing semantics, he's pointing out what promotes tactics. Mafia is a very tactical game and there's no sense of positioning (or even a map) at all.

He is contributing to the main discussion, so you being a dumbfuck about it is self-defeating.

[PhoneLobster]

It's pretty interesting. However, in a general melee it can get kind of weird with people being relative distances away from each other (ie: I'm Close range to person A but medium range from Person B & close to person C. How far apart is person B & C?).

I once proposed a relative positioning system which I THINK produces a result where you only need each element to have a minimum of 1 link to a network of relative position distances in order to determine that elements position relative to all other positions, and in a way that is mildly intuitive.

I can't find the post however...

If I recall it goes along the lines of.

1) All elements MUST have a minimum of 1 relative distance to another element marked.

2) All elements must be connected by some chain of relative distances through other elements to all other elements.

3) Your distance to other elements is determined as the longest relative distance on the "best" route to your target on the relative distance diagram. (best route being the one with the shortest longest distance of course)

And then that in turn had a couple of rules about how movement would frequently require the breaking and redrawing of some links in the diagram to prevent "collapsing" other elements into each other with your own movement. I THINK that involved breaking your current links, calculating and redrawing one or more links if need be for things that would break from the diagram due to your removal, and drawing a new link to whatever it was you were "moving closer to" (or perhaps further from), I can't clearly recall.

It was I think the minimum required to make a relative positioning system consistently accurate and prevent weird collapses of everyone into a black hole of "minimum range" everytime anything approaches things it was previously far from.

It still involved a moderately elaborate diagram that would multiply rapidly in complexity with the addition of new elements. Though, less than some diagrams might. And it was still a system I felt to be largely inferior to, well, most other options.

But if you DID want relative positioning and wanted it to be consistent, meaningful, predictable and not do insane things it was pretty much the basis you would have to work off without a significant further abstraction from a relative positioning system to a relative positioning system with a severe abstract limit on the number of relative positions.

[John Magnum]

3) Your distance to other elements is determined as the longest relative distance on the "best" route to your target on the relative distance diagram. (best route being the one with the shortest longest distance of course)

What? I'm not completely unfamiliar with graph theory, but I don't know what this means.

[PhoneLobster]

It's poorly and informally worded I'm sure. And I may have left something out. Hell I barely remember the original and I put a bit more thought into that.

But basically just trace a path between A and B along your various points and their relative distances marked between them.

You MUST have at least one path because all elements are connected to all other elements.

Your distance between A and B is... the distance of the longest link in your path between them on the diagram.

On the rare chance you have more than 1 path (ideally your formal diagram drawing rules have additional bits about eliminating any non-vital connections in the diagram). You check multiple paths and take the shortest result from the longest links in each path.

I may also have missed the point where really this is largely intended for some nice abstract ranges like "Very Far, Far, Near, On Top Of" etc...

This way if you cannot draw a path between A and B without passing through a "Far" connection you are far away from that location.

But if you are "Near" a member of a group/chain of guys who are all "near" or "on Top Of" each other and also near your target... you are "Near" to your Target.

It's all about modelling multiple clusters and their relative positions in a mildly sensible manner that doesn't rapidly collapse into actual imaginary spacial anomalies.