Dire Peril

I'm not sure if I like this idea or not.  Too early to tell, but the fact that I'm on the fence suggests I ought to play-test it.  I just came across this notion whilst watching a YouTube video of John Wick being interviewed.  I was pleased to hear John talk about combat in a similar way to how I view it (watch from 5:10 onwards to avoid the guff).  But he also brings up this concept of Dire Peril.

And it seems to tie-in with what I was discussing in my last post about occassionally overtly rolling dice in front of players to determine the outcome of the combat.  Wicky talks about having a rule where his players cannot die, unless he begins a scene by saying: Dire Peril.  The players then know that the safety is off and they can die in this scene.  I kind of like the idea, as I can see how it would make players cautious and nervous - and thus create tension.  But I'm unhappy about the 'at all other times the players are safe' vibe.

As said, I'll have to play-test this and see how it works.  I'd prefer to use Dire Peril on the fly, perhaps saying it as I reach for my dice and roll them overtly before the players.  And of course virtually any action can involve Dire Peril, not just combat.  Climbing a cliff can be hazardous, after all.

Dire Peril!

It has a nice ring to it.  Although it somehow conjures images of schlock-horror 50s B-movie sci-fi flicks.  There is definitely something to it, though.

I shall report back.

Narrative over mechanics - Revenge of the Number

Players that have had some involvement in my games will probably tell you that I am forever striving for a decent combat system.  A combat system which does not slow-up the game, but which is yet authentic, realistic and dangerous - whilst also being flexible.

Can this be achieved?

My current take on it - a take that has been developing over the last ten years or so, is that combat should be intrepetive, like all game rules, IMHO.  Looking up tables, adding and subtracting a variety of bonuses etc. etc. all slows down the game into a number-crunching nightmare that steals the passion and excitement from the scene.  Yet I still believe it is important to have a final, random, dangerous element - so anyone entering into combat cannot be sure they won't die, or lose a limb or whatever.  Part of the enjoyment of roleplaying is not quite knowing where the story is going, and this is almost as true for the GM as it is for the players.  For the players, they are exploring a world, a narrative, and they really don't (or shouldn't) know what's in store for them.  But for the GM, the players, by their actions which of course the GM does not dictate, also modify the story.  But the dice do this also.  Through the success or failure of the players' actions, and to a certain extent, the actions of NPCs too - the story can shift and change dramatically.

As a GM I tend to use dice rolls in a variety of ways.  Firstly, in order to propel the story forward, the majority of incidental rolls (players finding stuff, overhearing stuff etc.) if its required to happen to drive the story forward and keep the pace going I employ the 'Gygax Rule' and roll the dice just for the sound of it.  Effectively ignoring the result.  Sometimes I need a little inspiration myself though, and if its not critical to drive the narrative forward, and I determine that a little randomness can provide for an interesting divergence or outcome, I will roll the dice and allow that randomness to tweak the direction things are going in.  How an NPC reacts to the players' behaviour for example (if its not critical to the story).  Barmaids fancying the dashing paladin, or the quirky mage, that kind of thing.  And then, at some critical tense scenes, I deliberately go against the grain, and roll the dice right in front of the players so there is no hiding it.  Because contrary to what John Wick says, drama can be derived from randomness, and I have witnessed many a heroic death brought about by the dice.

So as I strive to make combat effective, thrilling and yet dangerous -this is how I achieve it:

For the sake of expediency, combat rolls are heavily interpreted, I don't use table or charts and I pad out the dice results with description.  As I believe I mentioned in an earlier post, I use a 'tweak die' to generically influence how successful something was.  So the basic rolls determine success or failure, and the tweak dice determine the extent of the success or failure.  As combat is a fluid thing, one decent success, or epic failure can lead you into an advantageous position, or a leave you prone to further mishaps.  I use the dice rolls to embellish and describe the combat events that occur.  And this necessarily leads on to dramatic fights.  A series of fails can eventually lead a player to the point where the next blow from the enemy could be devastating.  And this is where the drama and story-telling come in.  After a series of four failed rolls, or poor tweaks the player is on his back, having been disarmed and his attacker looms over him, sword raised to finish him off - and it is that point that I will roll directly in front of the other players - but it is also at that point that another player can intervene, turn, and hurl their own axe at the looming attacker.

Such descriptions cannot be achieved when counting hit points.  I don't think.  Hit points take into account all that drama but distil it down into a mere integer.  What I'm suggesting is removing the numbers and interpreting the results of the dice, descriptively.

Play-testing awaits.

The important elements of combat...

Okay, continuing from my last post, I - for my own benefit really - am going to list what I think the important elements of combat are, and what a good combat system should endeavour to achieve.  I still think I might be trying to reinvent the wheel, as I expect smart people have already done this, and I should just get out there and try some new game systems.  (Have I mentioned the D6 system yet?  Must try the D6 system... I've got a thing for d10s though.  Maybe I'll just read the D6 system, and turn it into the D10 system, to make use of the 126 d10s I have lying about).

So, what must a combat system cater for?

• The skill of the attacker
• The skill of the defender
• Situational modifiers like weather, position, surprise etc.
• Multiple attackers or defenders
• Speed of resolution
• Bleeding rules
• Stun rules
• KO rules
• Death rules
• The random element
• Luck of the Gods (bonuses added by the players when they need them most)
• Armour
• Targeted strikes ("I'm aiming for his legs")

Now, firstly, can all these be distilled (read: simplified) into a single roll?  Probably, yes.  (Note to self: must check out the D6 system).  But if so, how do we cater for complex mechanics like bleeding and stuns?

Okay, for the sake of exploring this notion, I'm going to go out on a limb here.  I'm itching to try a new system (D6! D6!).  And I'm liking the sound of these systems that use multiple dice.  Like.  You have six skills ranks in something, and so you roll six dice. Maybe luck of the gods, can add some extra dice into the mix.  So say you roll eight dice.  Maybe you need to get higher than a 4 to succeed, on any one of them.  For a flat skill check like climbing a wall.  But in combat damage is being dealt.  Hit points are being lost.  Extreme successes should result in criticals - criticals can be extra damage, but they can also be bleeding or stuns.  Screw this post.  I'm going in to town tomorrow and I'm going to buy the D6 system.

And I'm also going to talk to the geeks behing the desk about combat, and see if they suggest any other systems which deal with combat well.

In the meantime, I'm going to find some geeky RPG forum and ask what other people think are good combat systems.

I feel a change coming on.

Combat evolved... or maybe just overhauled

So, as you may have picked up by now. I use my own system.  But I still rely on the odd Rolemaster (RM) table.  I'm going to check out GURPS soon, and probably the D6 system, as I haven't played either of those, but in the meantime, I'm in a position to try out my new combat system.

Combat in RM is a bit too lengthy for me.  Roll d% add your combat score, subtract enemy defense bonus check table, and if that gives you a critical, roll again on the critical and check result.  I've been wanting to for some time resolve this far more quickly, and ideally with one roll.  Trouble is, there are many elements to factor in.

Also, the issue I have with RM is, even if you roll a natural 100, because you roll again on the critical table, you can roll an 01 then, and ended up with a worthless critical.  A critical in name only.  A critical that isn't a critical at all.  That is perhaps the suckingest.

So this is what I'm thinking:  after winning initiative (if appropriate) attacking player rolls d100 and adds their attack bonus (from whatever weapon they are wielding) and the enemy also rolls and adds their their defense bonus to their roll (they may also at this point parry with a portion of their attack bonus, but if they do so, they only have the remaining attack bonus, when its their turn to attack).

Also, at this point, any extra bonuses the player has, can be added to the roll.  And the GM may apply any modifiers applicable to the situation, i.e. +10 due to superior positioning, -10 due to inclement weather (have you tried duelling during heavy rain, you're certainly not at your best).

The result of this formula is directly applied to the critical table, i.e. any positive result.  The attackers roll + attack bonus + modifiers is greater than the defenders roll + defense bonus + any modifiers the result is damage done.  Also, RM's exciting 'open ended' rules apply, though modified.  If a natural 100 is rolled, the player may roll again and at that to their result too.  This is in itself open ended, i.e. if the player rolls a second natural 100, they may roll for a third time.

If the defender wins.  Their 'excess' - how many points over the attack they were - may be added to their next initiative roll.  Initiative is rolled between every bout of combat.  So combat follows the format of:

Both parties roll initiative (adding any applicable bonuses, reflexes, quick draw, etc.) whomever wins becomes the 'attacker'.

If more than one enemy is attacking a defender, the defenders roll is divided between the attackers, as they see fit.  i.e. you can choose to be more cautious and defend yourself more thoroughly against one particular attacker.

I'm going to visit my Dutch friend Joost soon.  I hope to test the system with him.  If it works, great.  If it doesn't, I'm tempted to try a far simpler system without any funky critical tables.  Back to the good old days of straight hit points and double damage.  All the detail takes place in the imagination anyway.  It's all interpretive.  I'm not sure thats even a word.  But what I mean is, over the last ten years I've moved further and further away from actual printed rules, and closer and closer to rolling dice, adding bonuses, and interpreting what has occured.  I'm not sure I even need a table to say his leg is severed.