Turnless Combat

[NPC Tyrethali]

As both a designer and a player, one of the things that almost invariably irks me about most of the systems I have played with was combat. It usually has the most hold-over from RPG's wargaming routes, and frequently the cause of most balance problems (Character class X being too powerful in combat, or one combinations of skills always turning out to be much better.)

Anyway. One of the specific things that has recently been bugging me is the concept of turns. A discrete unit of time during which you get to make one attack, possibly more if you are good. In some games they are ludicriously long, taking up to a minute for each attack, and others they are far too short, with three seconds being the turn length, which may not be bad for attacks, but without any space in between them. But somehow, I don't think any specific unit of time would solve it...

What I then thought of was making a system that had turnless combat, but still more specific than one roll to resolve the entire thing. I mean, I do prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat rather than mass abstraction.

The closest thing I can remember to seeing this once was a modification of the D&D (2nd ed) system, where the players rolled a d10, applied iniative modifiers. Each 'step', steps being numbers, was counted off, and when a person's number came up, they decided what to do (Or to delay their action) If they attacked or cast a spell, the weapon speed or casting speed was counted off in steps it resolved then (Thus, if you went on 7 and decided to attack with a weapon that had a speed of 3, your attack resolved on 10). After resolution of their action, a player rolled a d10 again and got to go again at that number added to whenever they were at currently. (Bob finishes casting a magic missile at 12, and rolls a 5. He gets to go again at 17.) Combat continues like that until it stops for one reason or another.

Anyway. It's not perfect, but it's one example that sort of emulates what I'm striving for. So, my question is, if given the challenge of designed a turnless combat system, how would you approach it, especially if starting from scratch? What are your feelings on combat and turns in general? Do you think this is a great idea, or am I just whining about vestigal holdovers from wargaming when I should be enjoying a fun subgame within the greater RPG?

[NPC Andrew Martin :-(]

NPC Tyrethali wrote:
> It usually has the most hold-over from RPG's wargaming routes,..

And, unfortunately, RPG combat, in general, hasn't kept up with the most modern of wargaming concepts, like skirmish wargaming.

> I do prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat rather than mass abstraction.

So do I. Works out far better for modern and SF weapons, as well as fantasy.

> ...if given the challenge of designed a turnless combat system, how would you approach it, especially if starting from scratch?

I'd use my S system, available at: http://valley.150m.com/S/S.html. Shortly, I'll use the concepts in S and transfer them into my Zero System, which is a RPG system without an obvious system.

Basically, use multiple actions, many to one, one to many, and many to many actions all resolved at once to better simulate a strike with a sword, parry with shield, dodge with body, riposte with sword and so on. More details in S.

> What are your feelings on combat and turns in general?

I think combat should be as quick as normal roleplaying is. A couple of seconds action in game time should take only a minute or two to resolve with novice players, or less with experienced players.

> Do you think this is a great idea,...

Of course it is!

> ...or am I just whining about vestigal holdovers from wargaming when I should be enjoying a fun subgame within the greater RPG?

You're not whining. Other people may tell you that you are, but I'd just slap them! :) I think combat should quick, fast and lethal, like it tends to be in real life. With minor adjustments, it should be cinematic, so that the game can emulate movie or TV action. By the way, it also happens to be an interesting game as well as being simple. :)

Andrew Martin
Who doesn't like being an NPC. :(
http://valley.150m.com/.

[NPC Tyrethali]

Mmmmm. Well, I looked at S. It still has turns, as I said. Each person rolls initiative, gets an action, and after everyone has gone, repeats. Options to take multiple actions at a price of difficulty increase, or sacrifice extra actions to increase one action's chances of success, are just that... options and variations on the basic turn structure, as opposed to doing away with it.

For example: Most of my fighting experience comes from boffer fights, ie, using PVC pipes wrapped in a few layers of foam and duct tape. Admittedly, it's probably nowhere near what a real fight with real weapons would be like, but it's still a better experience than watching movies or looking at RPG combat systems. Anyway. In these fights, sometimes one person would attack the other, then vice versa, sometimes one person would do a series of attacks keeping the other on defense, sometimes neither person would attack for what seemed like a long stretch of a few seconds, just warily circling and looking for an opening...

My point is that is that combat seemed to me a lot less organized than one-turn, one action, even if one took into account the fact that multiple quick-but-wild attacks often sacrificed accuracy.

Another potential idea in seriously mutating the combat turn structure: There are still turns, and they still begin with each person rolling iniative or speed or reflexes or whatever. However, only the person who rolls best can attack that turn, and the other person can only dodge or parry (parrying is another thing I noticed occured a lot more in my fights than in most RPGs). So people with roughly even speeds will each be able to get in roughly the same amount of attacks, although the luck/chaos of battle might give someone a temporary offensive advantage, whereas someone much faster than someone else will get many more strikes in before the slower person has a chance to respond. This makes speed a lot more important than it is traditionally in most games, but it seems to me to be such... being able to act first, forcing them to react.

Worth thinking about, I suppose.

[kabael]

I suppose turns are not really good, but usually they don't pop up to such degrees as to being unpalatable.

I like your idea of just rolling initiative and tossing turns out the window entirely. The only problem then comes from figuring out an equally elegant method of figuring out initiative (without resorting to using something like weapon speeds for everything, which is something I would work really hard to avoid.

[Harlequin Jones]

My group and I once tried exactly what you described, years ago.
We rolled a d10 for initiative, then added the dex and weapon
modifiers to get the final time at which the action happened. It
was my idea, and I thought it was great.

There were issues. *smirk*

For one thing, combat was slow. It was a hell of a lot more trouble for
the DM to keep track of when everyone got to go.

Secondly, some things just didn't make sense. A jerk with
a dagger got to attack five times for every time the brute
with the two-handed sword got to swing. You might think
that this is realistic, as a sword takes longer to swing, but the
truth is that there is really not much of an advantage to a
dagger against a sword. Reach can be a hugh advantage,
one that AD&D doesn't take into account.

(There *are* other advantages to small weapons, namely that
they can be concealed.)

No matter what you come up with for a combat system, it is
going to have turns. They may not be set into stone like
dee and dee's, they may be called "action points" or something
instead, but there will still be some method of keeping
time.

One way to avoid the swing/dodge/swing/dodge ho-hum is
to limit characters to one action per turn. Thus, a character
can swing or dodge, but not both. Whoever gets the initiative
will probably attack, while whoever does not would be well
advised to dodge (unless he is sure that he can just take it).

If one character manages to win initiative several rounds in a
row, it will act just as you have described - one opponent
makes a flurry of attacks that keep the defender off
balance and unable to counterattack. Until, that is, the
defender siezes an opportunity to turn things around
(i.e. wins the intiative). I did something similar
with my own game, and I've been happy with the results in
playtesting so far.


HJ

[NPC Andrew Martin :-(]

Tyrethali wrote:
> Well, I looked at S. It still has turns, as I said.

Not quite. Yes, everyone has a turn declaring actions in initiative order (otherwise combat would be unfair on the players by not giving them a chance to do something!), but actions are intermingled when resolved, so getting the complexities of real combat.

> Each person rolls initiative, gets an action, and after everyone has gone, repeats. Options to take multiple actions at a price of difficulty increase, or sacrifice extra actions to increase one action's chances of success, are just that... options and variations on the basic turn structure, as opposed to doing away with it.

Actually, one gets more actions with various skills, for example having dodge and sword skill gives the character two actions. And again, actions are intermingled when resolved.

> In these fights, sometimes one person would attack the other, then vice versa, sometimes one person would do a series of attacks keeping the other on defense, sometimes neither person would attack for what seemed like a long stretch of a few seconds, just warily circling and looking for an opening...

This is exactly the style of combat that comes out of S. It comes about through lethal combat results and being ready for a riposte, and the other side doing the same, with the result being that neither side does anything but be ready. Have a look at the movement section for the circling, then look at the what options the defender has against side and back attacks.

> My point is that is that combat seemed to me a lot less organized than one-turn, one action, even if one took into account the fact that multiple quick-but-wild attacks often sacrificed accuracy.

One gets this in S as well quite easily, with multiple action intermingled and resolved at once.

> Another potential idea in seriously mutating the combat turn structure: There are still turns, and they still begin with each person rolling iniative or speed or reflexes or whatever. However, only the person who rolls best can attack that turn, and the other person can only dodge or parry (parrying is another thing I noticed occured a lot more in my fights than in most RPGs).

I get exactly the same result in S as well. It's a matter of initiative -- the faster character with the initiative spoils the plans of the slower, so preventing the slower from attacking, if they don't want to commit suicide. If they want to commit suicide by being killed as they attempt to strike a blow this is quite likely as well. Strategy in S is based on real world fencing tactics, which is based on a four way variant of the scissors, rock & paper game.

> So people with roughly even speeds will each be able to get in roughly the same amount of attacks, although the luck/chaos of battle might give someone a temporary offensive advantage, whereas someone much faster than someone else will get many more strikes in before the slower person has a chance to respond. This makes speed a lot more important than it is traditionally in most games, but it seems to me to be such... being able to act first, forcing them to react.

I get exactly the same result in S as well.

> Worth thinking about, I suppose.

Perhaps you should check out S again?

[NPC Shawn (!?)]

Well, there is the Feng Shui way of doing it.

Everyone rolls Speed + 1d6. Starting from the highest number, everyone gets to do things. Doing something takes a number of "shots" which is subtracted from your number. You get to go again when your new number is called.

For example, if "Lucky" Xian has a Speed of 7. Combat starts and he rolls a 2. 7 + 2 = 9, so he goes on shot 9. When he gets to act, he decides to shoot someone (except it's Feng Shui so it's cooler than that...), an action which takes 3 shots. 9 - 3 is 6, so he will act again on shot 6.


This is still, sorta, a way of breaking things down into turns. If you don't like this, you could try some kind of simultaneous resolution, where everyone rolls at once. Or, rather than combat being a series of Attack vs Defense actions, you could handle it as a series of Mutual Attack actions. You just need some clever rules for opposed actions.


Or, there was something I was working on a while back for an arena boardgame. Use counters. Every turn (sigh..) everyone gets a counter, or perhaps a number of counters equal to their speed. You can cash them in for actions. Or you can hoard up to some number (based on tactics, maybe). This isn't terribly different from the Feng Shui system, except it counts the other direction, and encourages saving a couple of counters for defense.


Or, abstract the turn length. After all, one "turn" really just means one significant action. However long that takes. How many times do you really need to know exactly how long a turn is, and can't just make up something dramatic?

Up to you, really...


~Shawn Conard (an NPC again!?)

[Mesa Virga]

I use a complexified variation of the Feng Shui system. Everything is measured in segments which represent 0.2s. A 10 second round has 50 segments, but the round is only used to reset the segment counter so the numbers don't get out of hand.

Each character has an Initiative Rating (of the order d8-ish, determined by their attributes), and a number of segments required to complete an "action" (i.e. shoot, swipe, dodge, whatever).

Time progresses such that each character rolls initiative (i.e. the d8 mentioned above) to orient himself with the current situation. At the end of those d8 segments they are considered to have an understanding of what is around them (and of their opponent), and may declare what their next action will be. At the end of a further "action duration" segments, their strike or whatever is resolved. The cycle then starts again, with the character rolling initiative to reorient with his surroundings.

It can be seen that with the variance in characters initiative rolls and action times, all the things taking place become continuous, resolving one and then moving directly to the next. All the GM does is count off segments until a player (or NPC) calls out that it's his/her go.

It sounds complicated (and this is simplified), but as long as everyone has a little sheet of markes squares and a counter it runs pretty smoothly in play.

Feel free to take a look at it on www.savigear.com, with the following caveats:
1. It isn't finished and contains loads of notes to self and the like.
2. It's unashamedly rules heavy, and _really_ dull to read. If you hate rules, go hide under something sturdy instead! ;)
3. You have to havigate my site with the menus as I haven't fixed the back button yet. Navigate to RPG->Infinity Project->Downloads

Chapter 9, section on "Tactical Time - Flow and Management" is the key bit.

Matt.

[NPC]

Originally posted by NPC Tyrethali
Anyway. One of the specific things that has recently been bugging me is the concept of turns. A discrete unit of time during which you get to make one attack, possibly more if you are good. In some games they are ludicriously long, taking up to a minute for each attack, and others they are far too short, with three seconds being the turn length, which may not be bad for attacks, but without any space in between them. But somehow, I don't think any specific unit of time would solve it...

What I then thought of was making a system that had turnless combat, but still more specific than one roll to resolve the entire thing. I mean, I do prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat rather than mass abstraction.


I see what you're trying to do, and I'm so there. Most systems give faster characters more 'attacks' without taking into account that some actions less time then others, and that giving a character more moves often means sticking the moves at the end of the round. The Feng Shui action point system does the reverse and gives faster characters all their moves at the beginning of the round, and still makes actions takes the same amount of time no matter how fast you are.

The system I'm working on gives speed values to different actions based on attributes. The values are on an exponential system with 0 being a standard move, positive being slower and negative being faster. The advantage is you can always be faster. Characters can do whatever they like, but other characters can break in on their actions by moving faster. I haven't figured out a good way of recording how much you've done so far in the round, however. At the moment I translate speed values into action point values.

[NPC]

Originally posted by NPC Tyrethali
Anyway. One of the specific things that has recently been bugging me is the concept of turns. A discrete unit of time during which you get to make one attack, possibly more if you are good. In some games they are ludicriously long, taking up to a minute for each attack, and others they are far too short, with three seconds being the turn length, which may not be bad for attacks, but without any space in between them. But somehow, I don't think any specific unit of time would solve it...

What I then thought of was making a system that had turnless combat, but still more specific than one roll to resolve the entire thing. I mean, I do prefer a general blow by blow accounting of the combat rather than mass abstraction.


I see what you're trying to do, and I'm so there. Most systems give faster characters more 'attacks' without taking into account that some actions less time then others, and that giving a character more moves often means sticking the moves at the end of the round. The Feng Shui action point system does the reverse and gives faster characters all their moves at the beginning of the round, and still makes actions takes the same amount of time no matter how fast you are.

The system I'm working on gives speed values to different actions based on attributes. The values are on an exponential system with 0 being a standard move, positive being slower and negative being faster. The advantage is you can always be faster. Characters can do whatever they like, but other characters can break in on their actions by moving faster. I haven't figured out a good way of recording how much you've done so far in the round, however. At the moment I translate speed values into action point values.

[NPC]

Aha! Tricked the machine back into letting me log in (for all you folks who're having the same problem, go to the Trouble Tickets forum--Pyske has a workaround until they fix the problem).

Anyway: Turnless combat. I see two sides to this. First off, there will always be the need to go around the table to find out what people are doing, so in the very general sense you'll always be "taking turns." Also, they are one method--a method that has been adequate, though not stellar--of abstracting a very difficult thing to abstract.

On the other hand, I'm all for finding another way. I'd love to have games where combat is a swirling, action-packed blaze of color and sound.

Although I'm not deeply familiar with the game, I think Godlike has addressed some of this in their system, and even if it still uses turns, it could be a starting point. I expect most of you are familiar with the system, but if not: it uses a single roll of dice (d10's, I think) to represent several things about a single event, namely, the degree of success, the quickness of the action, and (in combat) the amount of damage and damage location. If you are curious about how exactly it works, there's a free demo on the game you can find on the web. (hey, Godlike guys, you listening? Free advertising...)

Using such a system, the actual "turns" wouldn't be worked out until after all the dice are rolled. Basically, everyone would slam into combat, and afterwards, you'd find out what happened. You'd see that this person moved quickest, and managed to keep his or her opponent from completing their action, while this person didn't move as fast but managed to score a seriously damaging hit, and so forth. The key is that actions are declared ahead of time--in no particular order--and what actually happens isn't resolved until later (as they say, no plan survives contact with the enemy).

Come to think of it, it sounds similar to how Andrew describes S, although I haven't read it.

-Mock

[NPC Mock]

Okay, scrap the solution to the login problem. Didn't work after all.

[NPC indra]

I had a longer, better reply before the login bugs dispersed it into the ether, so here's the short version:

1. I second the recommendations for Feng Shui and GODLIKE. Very different, and very elegant, takes on initiative.

2. I'll also recommend the Nameless RPG; I tossed out the idea of initiative completely! Players take their actions when they declare them, just like during any other part of the game. If someone really _needs_ to go before someone else, the two characters do a "quick draw" type contest to see who's fastest.

It relies on the GM to know when to switch the focus of the action, but a set of combatants can take as many "actions" in a row as is dramatically appropriate. It captures that "action movie" vibe quite well and plays _much_ faster than other RPGs I've GM'd.

http://www.ImEG-Games.com/nameless

L8r, --Dan

[nadragul]

Everyone seems to be on the same track...getting away from:
(GM Count) 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8.........
and saying that a character can do X in a turn.

So what about what I am developing? We do not have initiative, everyone can do anything and it all resolves at the same time. Thus you could have to characters kill each other at the same moment or have one dodge....run, begin to cast a spell etc.

Basically, it goes like this:
Combat is determined to begin (the PCs encounter an enemy)

Since there is no initiative....THe GM determines that the person on his right will go first and it will continue in a clockwise direction to each player ending with the GM.

Since this is roundless, once everyone has gone (made attacks and defenses) it begins again.

Now the key here is that everyone is doing something everytime. They are moving, attacking, defending, preping spells/psionics, etc.


So how do I account for different weapons or is everyone always attacking? Well we have Weapon Attack Cycles (Weapon Speeds for those D&D players) this indicates how often you may attack with a weapon. Smaller weapons obviously attack faster.
Thus a character with a large weapon attacks once every 4 "turns", "segments", etc. during that time between his attacks with the weapon he can move or defend (if he is not actively engaged he may perform an action through a skill.


When does combat end? When either the party is dead or the opponents. It continues in this "segment" from player to player until everyone dies, retreats or surrenders.

I hope this makes sense...its much more eloquent in the books... ;)

thanks :D
Nadragul

[Misguided]

I think wanting to do turnless, simultaneous combat is a wonderful aspiration. It was what I set out to do with the Token System in Children of the Sun. Ultimately, I decided to sacrifice certain aspects for playability, while preserving the bits that mattered most to me.

Now your cycle idea, if I understand it correctly, is really interesting, and an approach I hadn't considered, but any turnless method is going to require lots of bookkeeping. One of the things that bothered me about turnless combat was handling spell duration. That, and ease of playability for the GM (don't underestimate the convenience of using rounds) led me back to a round-based system. There are still ways to approach simultaneous combat though, even using an initiative-based system with rounds.

Cool discussion.

Originally posted by nadragul
Everyone seems to be on the same track...getting away from:
(GM Count) 1, 2, 3, 4,5, 6, 7, 8.........
and saying that a character can do X in a turn.

So what about what I am developing? We do not have initiative, everyone can do anything and it all resolves at the same time. Thus you could have to characters kill each other at the same moment or have one dodge....run, begin to cast a spell etc.

Basically, it goes like this:
<snip>

thanks :D
Nadragul

[Mock]

Since this is a thread about scrapping turn-based combat, eventually I hope to find a way to do so. However, I was thinking that it would be good to try to identify the ways that I've seen combat structured:

1. Perform one action in order of initiative. Re-roll initiative at end of round.
2. Act in that order of initiative until the end of the entire combat (like D&D 3e). Reroll if new combat starts.
3. Act in order of the initiative, wait X "initiative phases," then act again if your original initiative minus X is still positive (like in Shadowrun, and other games).
4. Actions cost "points" or "shots" which are subtracted from your initiative score to determine when you act again (like Feng Shui).
5. Order is based on character type (you can see this in octaNE).
6. All actions are simultaneous
7. Go in order of seating at the table, starting arbitrarily.

Some others have been raised in this thread: go in order of how quickly you declare your action; go in order of how well you can assess the situation.

Can we think of other ways to do it? I've mentioned "Godlike" which is pretty innovative with respect to determining your speed. I like the notion that part of our "initiative" is actually closer to "situational awareness," that is, how quickly you can understand a situation and then apply your skills to it.

Suppose, for example, the GM rolls a die to set the threshold for "situational awareness." The roll could be modified for things like surprise, being outnumbered, being distracted, etc.

The players then check their SA against the GM-determined threshold, and anyone able to grasp the situation gets to act immediately, and actions are resolved post-hoc. In fact, if you measure degree of understanding, you will get a sense of the order in which things occur. Those with better SA, or better presence of mind, will be able to do things faster than those of slower wit.

Suppose, alternatively, that every ability has 2 values associated with it, speed and focus, which might correspond to die types, or perhaps modifiers to a roll (anyone who's read the training vs. experience thread might see some similarities here). Everyone simply declares their actions, and dice are rolled. The speed die tells you how fast you acted, the focus die tells you how well you did. Ties will be resolved as "simultaneous," i.e., "you hit each other at the same time." Again, though, we come back to resolving the order of things post-hoc.

[NPC]

Hey misguided....
We had the same issues in the beginning. Booking keeping is really not that hard. It is the GM's responsibility and it is relatively easy.

What we did was simply create a "tracking sheet" that was made up of dozens a little boxes....each of these lines of boxes were listed the different players.

Now as for traking spell lengths.....That was the interesting twist....since casters in our system can cast two spells at one (its a higher function) and since most spells can be lapped over each other, what we designed was for you as the GM to be able to simply mark down when the spell ends on the "tracking sheet"

It is interesting to note that spellcasters and psionists can prep a spell while defending or even making an attack during their weapons Attack Cycle.

Thanks
Nadragul :D

[NPC Tyrethali]

Perhaps, if we are to do away with turn based combat, we should define what we mean by turns...

Here's the rough definition of what I've been working with: An arbitrarily defined unit of time during which all players have a choice of what to do, and the turns repeat themselves until combat is over.

So for me, systems like S still have turns, even though all player actions are intermingled in each one. Whereas things like my or msavigear suggestions don't have turns, because while they do have 'action steps' or whatever you want to call them that divide combat up into parcels of time, not everyone will get to go on each one. It's more a way to measure time than to pace combat.


I also like Indra's description of the Nameless RPG idea. That's pretty close to what I'm envisioning, really. People getting to do what they want to do in combat when they want to do it, and if it matters who does something first, rolling Speed or Reaction or whatnot. The main problem I immediately envision is people who want to do stuff like "I stab him five times before he has the chance to blink!" Perhaps making culumative rolls having penalties, until you have a chance to pause and reassess the combat situation.

As for spell durations, I'd probably do the same thing I do outside turn combat: Let the GM decide. I mean, when you cast the spell that lasts an hour and then go drive off to the diner where Villain X usually hangs off, the GM has to adjucate how long the drive takes. Same diff. And hopefully most spells last long enough, and most combats will be fast and furious enough, that exact keeping isn't necessary. Although possibly the effects of stress and adrenaline in the system of whoever the spell is cast upon might affect the duration. That would be interesting, actually.

But that's getting off topic, anyway.

[Misguided]

There's absolutely no reason it can't work that way. I simply decided I didn't want combat to consist of counting numbers until each person got to go again.

There were a couple of places during the process of designing the system where I really came to appreciate the subtle difference between what something is technically and what ultimately gives you the kind of play style that you want. Sometimes you can compromise and make the mechanics much easier to deal with, without really losing what it was you were trying to achieve.

But if you like the bookkeeping aspects, go for it.

Originally posted by NPC
Hey misguided....
We had the same issues in the beginning. Booking keeping is really not that hard. It is the GM's responsibility and it is relatively easy.

What we did was simply create a "tracking sheet" that was made up of dozens a little boxes....each of these lines of boxes were listed the different players.

Now as for traking spell lengths.....That was the interesting twist....since casters in our system can cast two spells at one (its a higher function) and since most spells can be lapped over each other, what we designed was for you as the GM to be able to simply mark down when the spell ends on the "tracking sheet"

It is interesting to note that spellcasters and psionists can prep a spell while defending or even making an attack during their weapons Attack Cycle.

Thanks
Nadragul :D

[Misguided]

Originally posted by NPC Tyrethali
Perhaps, if we are to do away with turn based combat, we should define what we mean by turns...

I also like Indra's description of the Nameless RPG idea. That's pretty close to what I'm envisioning, really. People getting to do what they want to do in combat when they want to do it, and if it matters who does something first, rolling Speed or Reaction or whatnot. The main problem I immediately envision is people who want to do stuff like "I stab him five times before he has the chance to blink!" Perhaps making culumative rolls having penalties, until you have a chance to pause and reassess the combat situation.



I hear you loud and clear. That was my exact focus too, giving players the ability to have their characters do what they want them to do and when they want them to do it, all the while trying to keep as cinematic a feel as possible. I was a bit surprised to find during playtests that people repeatedly said how cinematic and flowing the combat felt, because the system is by no means simple. I think you'll find the same thing. Players will tolerate a little complexity if they feel it gives them the freedom to do what they want.b

[Mock]

Originally posted by NPC Tyrethali
The main problem I immediately envision is people who want to do stuff like "I stab him five times before he has the chance to blink!" Perhaps making culumative rolls having penalties, until you have a chance to pause and reassess the combat situation.


I wondered about that myself. Maybe if you specify a set of actions that are general (like attack, defend, hide, use skill, etc.), and the people have to call out that action. Once they've done that, then you resolve the actions in order of declaration. Thus, you allow the people the freedom to jump in, but their actions have a narrower scope than "yell out anything you can think of"? Afterwards, they can be more vivid in their descriptions of the actions (both losers and winners can have the opportunity to describe the really cool aftermath of their actions--or of those actions taken against them).

Another thought I had was the use of "readied actions": in the beginning, people decide on a set of "readied actions," like "attack the first guy I see," or "dodge behind the first available cover." After a roll to check their ability to respond (the Situational Awareness thing I mentioned earlier), they either declare that action, or they fall back to a secondary action, or they have to come up with a new action. Order of resolution, afterwards, would depend on whether a character executed a readied, backup, or impromptu action.

Basically, you find out what the characters are prepared to do, and then if they can't (or won't do that) there is time involved in having to change their minds.

One difficulty I already perceive--and maybe someone can suggest a solution--is that a highly experienced person will be able to shift plans incredibly fluidly, without significant delay. Maybe some stat related to mental agility would allow you to ready multiple actions as primary, or something like that.

-Mock

[Marius B]

I've tinkered with one, for a post-apocalyptic game. Sort of a cross between Dominion: Tank Police and RIFTS.

What you need to know about the basic rules is: It's a 2d6 roll-under system and skills range from 7 for competent to 12 for a great master.

Depending on your Quickness, you get a ceretain number of Initiative dice:
Very Fast: 3L
Fast: 2L
Normal: 1
Slow: 2H
Very Slow: 3H
n is the number of dice to roll. An H means to use the highest result, an L means use the lowest.
The dice are six-siders.

Combat is fought in segments lasting about one second each.

The first Initiative roll made at the start of the combat indicates in which segment each combatant gets to take his first action. Once you've completed an action, you simply roll initiative again and add it to the current segment to find when you get to take your next action.

Weapon differences are ignored.

I don't suggest using units shorter than one second, because then you're really going to need even more details. Once you're using units this small, such things as projectile travel times begin to actually matter.

Cheers,
Marius.

[indra]

Let's see... what I'd do if someone wanted to take a bunch of actions at once (say, stabbing someone 5 times before they could blink) is treat the whole attack as a single action, maybe with a bonus to damage, and slap a penalty on the "to hit" roll.

In Nameless, what constitutes "one action" is a very loosely defined thing. You can't get much John Woo action unless people can empty entire clips into their opponents at once, ya know! We can get away with this because of the ridiculously simple way Nameless handles damage. (Short version: We don't. Pretty much any attack can take you out of a fight. The longer version is on the website, which is totally free, so I'll just refer you to the link I posted earlier, or my sig file.)

Like Misguided says, it's all about trading "realism" for "style!" It's a trade most gamers, in my experience, are happy to make.

L8r, --Dan

[David Goodner]

I have a friend who has a dream that RPG combat will be as smooth and seamless as something like Soul Calibur II. You can use other skills in "real time" or even faster, so why not combat?

I think he's being rather optimistic, but it's a beautiful dream. When computers become ubiquitous in Tabletop style RPGs maybe we'll be close.

The problem is that in combat there are lots of things going on that are very hard to track. Let's look at a duel between two swordsmen with equivelent equipment: light, piercing swords and light armor.

(All this is based on my experience in line fencing, martial arts, boffer combat, and SCA fighting. Insert standard disclaimer about how it's probably not totally realistic)

There are a bunch of factors determining how well you can fight. In most games they're lumped into two or three stats:
-How fast can you move
-How fast can you react
-How good are you at reading your opponent
-How good are you at strategy
-How's your technique (a fast, sloppy fighter can lose to a slower, but more proficient fighter)

Once they start fighting, they rarely trade blows RPG style. They circle and look for openings. Most "attacks" are feints designed to feel out your opponent. If they hit it's a nice bonus, but you're not banking on it. (Not true in hand-to-hand in my experience)

Once it gets started, a duel does have a certain amount of "turn like" give and take. Duelist A thrusts - Duelist B parries and reposts with a thrust of his own - A parries, follows with a beat-attack to knock B's sword offline and lunges - B backpeadals out of reach (or else gets impailed).

That brings things to a pause as both fighters recover. Then they go back to circling or something. If A can recover faster, then he can press B. If B is clever, he sidesteps instead of backing up, and he might get a shot at A's back while he's overextended.

And that example is a pretty simple one. I wasn't accounting for different equipment or armor, and I was only dealing with two combatants on even ground.

I can't figure out any way to handle all those variables, so for now I'm satisfied with a comfortable level of abstraction. I just assume that there's a lot more going on in the fight than just Attack, Dodge, Hit, Damage, Attack...

Some games assume that parrying and dodging are going on without being "asked." If your character has a Defensive Rating or something equivelent, it's measuring how good he is at avoiding harm. You don't have to say he's parrying or whatever. It's just assumed.

David G.

[Sandy]

Hi,

In an RPG, to bribe: talk it out a bit, then make a roll (with modifiers based on how the roleplaying worked out). Takes a couple o' minutes.

End result-- better roleplaying gives an edge, but detailed knowlege of how to really bribe someone is not required.

To do combat: drop into tactical "frame", resolve each individual micro-action of combat. Takes bloody forever.

End result-- without a good grasp of the game rules and basic tactics, you'll do poorly in combat even if your PC is great. Bah.

Currently for d20 D&D I'm using a Two-Phase combat system to solve this wargamming legacy.

"You see 8 orcs charging you from the forest!"

For any engagement, each PC says what their plan is, e.g. "my fighter will hit the orcs hard so they focus on me, so the mages can cast spells. So I'll be charging in, but fighting defensively until the odds even up so I don't get creamed. All else being equal, I'll pound on 1 target at a time and just defend against the rest. Back me up, folks!" [each player states their plan] Perhaps Mage 1 says "I'll toss off 2 sets of magic missiles then switch to my crossbow, saving a 3rd magic missile in case an orc charges _me_". Etc etc.

Each player then rolls their combat To Hit (with any mods due to GM evaluation of the plan). The GM rolls the to-hits for each discrete group of opponents being faced. In the above. probably one roll per orc... if it were 50 orcs, just 1 roll for the set.

This is Phase 1. Now the GM states the results, based on analysis of the numbers. This leads to Phase 2, where the PCs get to reevaluate their plan based on a) how well it worked and b) any surprises.

Case 1: PCs rolled well. "Okay, the mages took out half the orcs, the fighter got two, suffering 15 hp (1/4 his total) in the process. The mage is sitting pretty with that 3rd mm spell still unused. The 2 left look like they're about to break and run. What do you wanna do?"

Case 2" PCs rolled poorly. "The fighter is getting hammered, down half his hitpoints, and only 2 orcs have fallen. What do you wanna do?"

Case 3: [GM had surprise plans] "You all were doing well, took out 2 orcs with only minor wounds, fighter down only 6 hit points. Suddenly, the rearmost orc whips out a staff and begins chanting in Infernal. What do you wanna do?"

Case 4: etc etc.

...

More phases can occur as things evolve, but the core is "Plan, then reevaluate based on how well plan is going".

Basically, this removes the bread-and-butter tedium of combat and focuses in on the overall strategic goals, sudden surprises, reversals of fortune, outstanding successes, etc. By having 2 phases, the PCs get to back out of a bad situation, so the dependency on just a handful of rolls is mitigated.

The GM's details (calculating threats/damages on the fly, etc) will be in my full writeup, when I get to typing it into <a href="http://www.roleplayengine.org">RolePlayEngine.org</a>.

Really, it's just moving combat to be just like any other skill, rather than the micro-management mess it is now. My players love it, as they still feel they have full control over their PCs' choices, but things resolve faster and with more drama, less numbers.

Cheers,
Sandy
sandy@rpg.net

[indra]

This is interesting, Sandy, and I think it would work really well as a Live-Action combat method for any RPG.

It might not be so appropriate to an action-focused game (like Feng Shui or the Nameless RPG) because creative stunts and blow-by-blow narration are... well, they're largely the point! But for more tactical games, it sounds peachy :)

$0.02 paid in full, --Dan

[kabael]

That's generally how I end up running most of my combats, Sandy, if only because combat (as a GM) bores me out of my mind and it's hard to sustain it for long :D

The only problem with that, however, is that without some clear idea of just what kind of resolution will result from a roll, it's often very hard to do on-the-fly.

Player: "Great, I got a 12!"
GM: "Okay, that's a solid roll, so... um... stuff happens."

It's the same problem that I've run into trying to run Everway games.

"Let's see how that task went..." draws a card "What the hell does this mean?!"

Though Everway's decidedly storytelling bent makes it a bit easier.

So do you make some notes about benchmarks to yourself, Sandy, or do you just go with whatever feels right at the moment? I usually feel like I'm cheating the players (either out of victory or out of danger) when I do that.

[ChapinoMuse]

Well, I play a lot of storyteeler and at first I threw out all batttle rules, and made it just a lot of attiubue+ability roles to see how the outcome of what they wanted to do making the battle more of a dramtic scenes, and I let the battle end with predetermined outcomes, cause I'm not in the mood of killing of the PC's, but sometimes making them think so, I don't keep track of health, i just told the story and it was pretty exciting.

[MetaDude]

Originally posted by NPC Tyrethali
Perhaps, if we are to do away with turn based combat, we should define what we mean by turns...
I've taken the liberty of looking up the definition of "turn" in my dictionary.
from the Random House College Dictionary
65. a time or opportunity for action that comes in due rotation or order: It's my turn to pay the bill.
It seems to me that most systems proposed thus far are turn-based.

If you go around in order of initiative, resolving actions, and then do it again, it's turn-based. Each character has a time for action that comes in due order of initiative.

If you go through cycles, during which many characters are waiting x number of cycles between actions, it's turn-based. Each character has an opportunity for action that comes in due rotation of the cycle.

To make a turnless system, the definition of turn must be rendered untrue. This can be done two ways:

1) there is no time or opportunity for action(not a good idea!).
2) there is no due rotation or order.

The easiest way to eliminate the "due rotation or order" is via some random method. I like the idea about rolling initiative to see who acts, rather than who acts first. While the odds will eventually give people an opportunity to act, there is no "due" action. A PC at a serious initiative disadvantage would be lucky to get strikes in against a superior opponent. His foe would be pressing the advantage most of the time!

In my system, I've settled on using the circumstances to dictate who acts first. That person has the "advantage", and is the one who gets to attack. His opponent has no choice but to defend. As long as the attacker doesn't screw up(or the defender doesn't pull some trick) he'll keep the advantage. If he misses, or the defender pulls off some maneuver, the advantage passes to the defender.

The odds favor the advantage passing back and forth a few times, but it's not a given, so I'd say it qualifies as turnless. However, I'll make no claims of the system being turnless. I prefer a cycle-based system for missile weapons(fire, reload for x seconds, fire again).

To me, the concepts of turns and time are intertwined, and I like them that way. I deliberately chose a one-second round for combat for those times when seconds count, but I also wanted to avoid the tired old blow-exchange of D&D.

[NPC Desperado]

So . . . lets just get a bunch of friends to play NPCs; give them and your PCs weapons, close the door and watch the monitor as they all have at it! Then again this could cause some problems like . . . lawsuits, injury, and strenuous cleaning of giblets and blood out of the carpet. So maybe there's a better way?

One major problem I find is the theme, mood, and overall setting of games. For more Tactical gaming such as the most paintful DnD3 the initiative system seems to work fine . . . for the game. I rarely play the game as it's supposed to be played, like a war game variant ;) So I disagree with most of the mechanics therein.

I think the Action/Shot Point system is also effective. While it still uses the basic concept of turn or initiative now you have characters working of their effective speed. While their <i>Speed</i> attribute would effect their point total you still have skill put into the equation by simple success/failure.

Now the third method, and something I personally liked, is the Action Call-Out method. Where the Players call out things. Characters are allowed to follow one operation, or one train of thought that can be completed easily in the heat of combat. So how will you figure out how long this operation can last?

Take the movie Black Hawk Down for this example. The entire movie is one large, confusing, frightening, combat scene. But you do have long pauses While they're still in combat, no one's shooting.

So character A wants to run across the street to join his men. While nothing faster is going on we can consider this the fastest operation or action in combat and base all other actions on it. Now say we have sniper's on the roof shooting down into the street. Character B, who's ducked across the street is giving Character A cover fire. The smallest operation here is weapon fire so now we can designate character actions based on how ever long it takes to shoot.

So instead of just saying "You run aross the street" witch would be suitable if there was no gunfire. Now you can add the needed detail based on the firing between the Sniper's and Character B.

Or maybe we could just let the PCs and hired NPCs have at it with weapons like a mentioned before. Either way everyone should go see Black Hawk Down, cinamatography is beautiful, action is realistic, and it adds an entire new dynamic to the concept of the soldier, heroes, and war.

[NPC Desperado]

To bring up another combat method, hehehe. MERP uses a nice chart that designates who goes first, next, last, etc. Dependant on what they're doing. I don't have the specifics but it sounds interesting and might be looked into. Maybe a chaotic chart! Haha. Either way I just wanted to bring that non-rolling concept to the thread as well; I haven't seen it in much detail so I haven't formed an opinion (my group I'm playing with has been doing d10 initiative rolls . . until the GM realised how much faster the chart is).

[indra]

> from the Random House College Dictionary 65.
> a time or opportunity for action that comes in due rotation or order:
> It's my turn to pay the bill.

"Due rotation or order" is probably the only "turn" concept you should _keep_ in a high-action RPG. I always make sure to switch the focus of a scene between players frequently; it's the only way to keep everyone engaged and participating.

I think the effect we're trying to get rid of is the one-action-every-ten-minute you get with slower, turn-based games. One of the reasons I don't play WoD games much anymore is that I got tired of pulling the trigger one time, then waiting for everyone else to do the same before I got my next 15 seconds of fame.

Especially for a game where stunts and style are encouraged, actions have to be _meaningful_ to be entertaining. It's much more fun to trade a flurry of blows, launch series of sword thrusts, or a empty a full clip of ammo at once than it is to do it in pieces over an hour's time.

In other words, I think everything should still happen in due order, but that everyone should be able to do _more things_ when it's their turn.

L8r, --Dan

[MetaDude]

Originally posted by indra
"Due rotation or order" is probably the only "turn" concept you should _keep_ in a high-action RPG. I always make sure to switch the focus of a scene between players frequently; it's the only way to keep everyone engaged and participating.

In other words, I think everything should still happen in due order, but that everyone should be able to do _more things_ when it's their turn.

I agree, but if we keep the turn concept, we aren't making a turnless system, are we? ;)

The only way I could see doing truly turnless combat would be to make a single roll to generate an end result. Voila! No turns. You've eliminated time as a factor altogether. My feeling is that if time is being measured during combat, some kind of turn structure is required.

I understand your point, though. The repeated exchanges of attacks get old. We need some fresh ideas to make turns:
- full of diverse yet equally useful options
- unpredictable enough to avoid stagnation
- fast enough to promote a sense of hectic activity

These issues are all better addressed by the combat mechanics. The presence of turns isn't really what forces combat into rigid hack-fests: it's the rules.

D&D combat makes the generic attack one of the most effect forms of handling combat. Nearly every other action involves provoking attacks of opportunity, suffering some penalty to the attack bonus or allowing the foe to make a saving throw. Without appropriate feats, defending yourself results in an overall penalty.

I contend that having a variety of diverse yet equivalent actions would in and of itself do a lot to spice up combat.

[NPC]

(Hopefully this won't sound too pretentious.)

Basically, I've been wrestling with the notion of unsatisfying combat since before Feng Shui came out; I say before FS because in FS they implemented a system similar to what I had been thinking. However, they did things I didn't understand. I will attempt to explain what I had in mind:

When combat begins, the 'time' marker starts at '0'. Each unit of time is roughly one second.

Initiative is an attribute(1) in the system you want to be as low as possible; potentially as low as zero, or even quicker for cinematic games. Characters add their initiative to zero and that is when they can start thier first action. If they have an initiative less than zero, then they have 'credit' towards their first action implying their cooler-than-cool nature.

The time units increment by one. When you reach the time unit in which you can start your first action, you decide what to do. Your choice of action will take a certain number of time units; you add the cost of the action in time units to the current time marker and that is when the action will resolve.

For instance, to stab with a dagger might take 3 time units normally. But you're really quick, so it only takes 2 time units. Since the marker is on 3 now, you will resolve your stab on 5. On five you would resolve the action as you would any other.

Some actions are 'held' actions, so after they resolve, they persist until you stop them.

For instance, you decide to parry rather than stab with your dagger. To parry you must 'prepare' for two time units, but you're quick, so it only takes you one. On time unit four, you start to parry, which means that whenever an attack comes in, you can attempt to 'block' it by essentially making an attack against the attack, resovled as you would any other action. If you fail, the attack would resolve normally against your natural defenses.

Movement would be on a per-second basis. Which means that there may not be much difference in how far people move per unit of time, but it builds up over the course of a combat. It also means that if someone jumps out in front of the party, bad guys may attack them first because its easier to do than move past them.

Actions which are simultaneous add time to both actions. For instance, suppose I have two daggers and am stabbing and parrying at the same time. My skill level indicates that this incurs a penalty of two additional time units. I can split these between my actions however I like; I can give them both to my parry, which means I am being aggressive, and for a while still unprotected. Or I can give them to my stab, with the notion that I am 'waiting for an opening'.

I think most things would follow similar permutations, and you could model just about anything; for instance, wind-up time for a particularly heavy strike might simply add time. Player's moves would intermingle, etc.

A couple of caveats: you'd want a system that was brutal. As in, like Feng Shui, people dropped easily. I think the system would work well for duels as well, but massive combats with individual duelists are likely to grind on forever. Massive combats with grunts are likely to not be so long; if single blows can drop people from active to a casualty then you'll thin the ranks quick.

PC calculations would be small; you're not doing something every turn, so you don't have to worry necessarily about saying anything while you're preparing your last action. Contrapose to that is GM calculations would be reasonably heavy and a direct function of how many participants in the battle; the GM has to figure out the length of any given action of each of the participants they are controlling, and remember when they resolve. Feng Shui glosses over this by simplifying how long actions take (pretty much only 3 shots, with a few exceptions). However, if you were willing to create the right cheat-sheet I think you could make it work.

Still, I think it does away with what was stated as a 'round'.

(1) - By 'attribute' I mean some number which is either derivative or a stat; could be a stat, attribute, skill, whatever. Just some number that describes the character.

[Tom B]

There is an alternate system for Rolemaster that tracks combat second-by-second, called CEATS (Combat Environment Activity Tracking System).

Although designed with RM in mind, the basic concepts should work in any system. Takes some getting used to, but makes combat much faster and more fluid, especially circumstances like changing an action, moving, etc.

http://24.108.116.20/gc/scrolls/1999/jul/ceatsiif.html

[Halion]

Has anyone come up with or used a combat system similar to what Sandy described?

[madman_talking]

The oWoD had initiative/declaration/roll phases, but I don't think they added much to the game. What IME usually happpened was that instead of trying to get the player's attention once, to make him declare and roll, the GM had to do it twice.

On the other hand, simplified mook combat rules took off and became pretty common in the last few years. If you want more ideas on group combat, check out REIGN. I heard pretty good things about how it uses ORE for that.

[Akyna]

We have completely removed both initiative and time from combat in our upcoming Karma system (http://www.bardsandsages.com/karma). A round is "as long as it takes everyone to do one action." The theory is that in real combat, everyone is moving at the same time, and so we try to simulate that with our system.

The system is more cooperative than the typical system. Before combat begins, the storyteller describes the scene to the players, along with information about the immediate area. At the start of the round, everyone declares their actions and makes their roll depending on what they are doing. Based on the results of those rolls, the storyeller describes the action, and then the next round begins. Players decide what they are going to do based on what happened the previous round, declare their actions, and roll.

Special abilities that increase speed or reflexes don't generally offer additional attacks, but rather bonuses to the action roll.

While it isn't 100% "turnless" as I think you mean in the truest sense, it does eliminate a lot of the waiting around for each person decide what he/she is going to do. It also eliminates those situations where the PCs win initiative and level the NPC/monster, or vice versa. Or when one person with five attacks a round who is also hasted and has some other weird feat/ability kills the monster while the rest of the party stands around with nothing to do.

[Kirksmithicus]

Has anyone taken a look at The Riddle of Steel combat system. I've only downloaded the light version so my experience with the system is limited. It seems like a fairly good way to resolve combat for one on one encounters, or at least has some potential. Each player and the GM has two dice of different colors, one for attacking and one for defending. Both player and GM roll simultaneously, not knowing which die the other has chosen. It may not work well for large combat situations though.


Another thing I was thinking of trying in the future was to have everyone roll for initiative + bonuses, add them together and have the players use this as a bidding pool for each action. Players assign them to their actions(possibly 3-5 actions per turn) for that turn. If their opponent has a lower bid then they get an attack, if they lose then they have to defend. It may just make things more cumbersome.

I realize this is not a turnless system but I just thought I would throw it out there.

[Scarik]

It can't really be overstated how genius TRoS's combat system is in its simplicity.

The rest of the system and how one counst success needs a new edition hardcore though.

[Mesa Virga]

Wow, this is an old thread. For the record, I threw out the incredibly clunky system I outlined in my 2002 post several years ago... :eek:

[Captain Jimmy]

One of the best combat systems that went this route was a homebrew system a friend of mine wrote.
The way it worked was that there was a count, and each action took a certain time to perform, so for example attack with 1h sword takes 4 segments, 2h sword 9 (or whatever) moving took so long, as did drawing a weapon ec. etc.
The count just kept going up 'til the combat finished..
So, the person attacking with a 1h sword would attack on 4, 8, 12, 16 etc, and the 2h sword on 9, 18, etc. actions in the same segment are considered simultaneous (so there was a real advantage to using quicker weapons)
I can't remember how initiative worked.. I think is was along the lines of highest first, then for each point you missed that initiative by, you start one segment later
(so if two people face off, one gets 18 on initiative, the other 15, the guy with 18 starts on segment one, and the other on segment 4)

It worked really well imo.

[Kirksmithicus]

my bad, I just joined the site, so I have appearantly been catching up on some reading. I didn't even notice the date of the last post.:D:D:D:D:D

[NomadDervish]

One of the best combat systems that went this route was a homebrew system a friend of mine wrote.
The way it worked was that there was a count, and each action took a certain time to perform, so for example attack with 1h sword takes 4 segments, 2h sword 9 (or whatever) moving took so long, as did drawing a weapon ec. etc.
The count just kept going up 'til the combat finished..
So, the person attacking with a 1h sword would attack on 4, 8, 12, 16 etc, and the 2h sword on 9, 18, etc. actions in the same segment are considered simultaneous (so there was a real advantage to using quicker weapons)
I can't remember how initiative worked.. I think is was along the lines of highest first, then for each point you missed that initiative by, you start one segment later
(so if two people face off, one gets 18 on initiative, the other 15, the guy with 18 starts on segment one, and the other on segment 4)

It worked really well imo.

Several years ago, I devised a system which worked basically as you described for GURPS. I expected it to be extremely slow and cumbersome, but it actually ended up being faster than standard GURPS combat rules...

[Mike McCall]

I've adopted a 'shot' system similar to Feng Shui and what Captain Jimmy describes. While certainly not 'turnless' in any true sense, it does keep a sense of the ebb and flow of combat. Anything that takes a roll takes 5 shots, anything that doesn't takes 2. If you are faster than others (by virtue of powers or exceptional combat prowess), you can shave some of that time off, or you can try and do multiple things simultaneously by paying the shot costs for all actions and taking an action penalty. You can also spend shots to gain defense bonuses against a single attack. And if you get hit, you can lose shots to recovery time.

In play, it definitely gives a different feel from regular turn systems. Sometimes you have people going near-simultaneously, other times it's an exchange of actions. Then sometimes you get someone who is able to launch several attacks, forcing their opponent onto the defensive.

[craiglee]

Wow, six year old necro. Nice dig.