# Game Design 110: Combat



## Radiating Gnome (May 20, 2013)

I think there are big psychological differences that enter into a game system with the basic dice mechanics.  A game with a flat, predictable probability curve feels very different from one with a more dynamic mechanic.  Dice pool games add an element of resource management that either doesn't exist or is added in other ways in other systems.


----------



## GMMichael (May 25, 2013)

Thanks for the design considerations, ChallengerRPG.  I'm going to apply them to the system I'm working on:

Threat of bodily injury: if a character's death is at stake, I think it's a good time for players to chime in loudly.  I've introduced the Mostly Dead condition, providing a little more hope to the player than straight-up-Dead.

More or less rules: my system if definitely on the Less side.  My Combat System (MCS) uses three more rules than normal gameplay: initiative, actions, and battle space.  However, the rules are intentionally modular, so highly complex combat rules can be added.

Monster creation: follows the exact same rules as character creation.  That sounds consistent enough...

Hit Points: each ability score in MCS acts as hit points.  Some are harder to hit than others.  They go up pretty slowly (1-4 points per level), making it a pretty low hit point game.

Armor: two ways to avoid damage: dodge ("parry") and absorb ("protection").  Similar to Dark Heresy, you have to use an action to dodge.  If you've used all your actions, all you can do is absorb damage with armor.  Interestingly, no amount of damage absorbing prevents all damage; if you're hit, you must take at least one point of damage per damage die.

Ranged or melee: ranged only does less damage because you have to stop and reload in MCS.  Under core rules, melee fighters can hit everyone, but enemies in a defensive posture only take half melee damage.

Crazy character builds: all characters have access to the same stuff.  However, streamlined rules in MCS mean that not Everything can be included in the core rules; you have to dream up a lot of your own stuff.  Like breath weapons or the Dragoon Jump - not in the rules, but easily supported by them.

http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/main-page

Well Teach, how am I doing?


----------



## Bagpuss (May 25, 2013)

DMMike said:


> Monster creation: follows the exact same rules as character creation.  That sounds consistent enough.




I've yet to see a system where I like that as a GM. Characters are run by one person and that's all they are responsible for, also it is all they have to play so their complexity is desired to give them more options, more interest and more ways to advance. The player only has that one character to develop so can spend a decent amount of time making it and advancing it.

You have all the opposite needs for a GM character or monster. They are rarely faced alone so often the GM is running several characters at once. They frequently only appear a few times so don't have enough screen time to use more than one or two options. The GM has to develop several monsters or NPCs, plus and adventure to write, so doesn't have anywhere near the amount of time to dedicate to creating NPCs. So I find they need to be simple to understand, with usually one or two clear and simple options to use.

These two design requirements are in direct conflict and as a GM I can't think of any system where having the same creation rules for monsters/NPCs and player characters worked out well, unless it was a very, very simple system, and then my players usually missed having the character flexibity and different options of a more complex system.


----------



## steenan (May 25, 2013)

When designing combat rules, it's good to ask yourself "Why am I doing it this way? How does it help achieve my goals?". That's because it is the part of the system most plagued by unnecessary and unreasonable assumptions. You don't have to do something just because it's done this way in other games. 

The most common assumptions are:

*Combat needs its own subsystem*
If the game has a strong focus on combat, then it definitely needs a combat subsystem. If it hasn't, there is no need to add this kind of rules. You can roll to resolve combat exactly like you roll to resolve sneaking or running. By giving combat a lot of rules and a lot of space on character sheet you tell the players "My game is mainly about combat". It's not a bad thing - but make sure that it's really what you mean. 

*Combat ends in death*
It only does if you make it this way. Combat is typically more fun when it's not survival that's at stake, but something else that PCs care about. The rules may give an option of safely running away, or just state that defeated characters are knocked out/wounded/looted/taken prisoners, but never killed. There may be a "death flag" that allows players to risk their characters' lives if they want it. But, unless you want the lethality to be a part of fun ("You better bring three or four characters for this session, it will be bloody"), you probably shouldn't make the combat deadly by default.

*Death spirals are inherently bad*
They are, if the combats are frequent, deadly and give no easy way out. On the other hand, they are perfect if you want to tell the players "You see it's not going well. Are you sure you want to risk more injuries, or maybe it's time to back off?". 
Also, the more predictable the combat is, the more painful the spiral. If luck doesn't matter and you're already losing, you'll only do worse when injured; but if you can hope for a smile of fate, it makes sense to continue fighting, even with penalties.

*Combat has to be tactical*
It probably should if you want to make it a major part of your game. But combat can be just less important, or important in a different way. It may be focused on non-tactical decisions - things like prioritizing your safety compared to other goals, or choosing between honorable and underhanded actions, or something like that.
Nobody wants to spend an hour just rolling dice. If you make combat longer than one or two rolls, it's because you leave space for player input. But the input does not need to be about tactics.

*Injuries must be abstracted*
It's really strange to me that many games use long lists of detailed combat maneuvers, weapon and armor types and so on, but simplify injury to a single number. There's no need to go to the other extreme, with hit locations, realistic effects of pain and blood loss etc. Using even a very simple system that gives specific injuries fictional and mechanical significance (like consequences in Fate games) goes a long way towards changing how the game feels.
Like in the previous points, there is nothing wrong with hit points. They may be exactly what your game needs. But maybe they are not - and you need to think about it for a while.


----------



## Dethklok (May 25, 2013)

Hey Challenger (or anybody else),

Do you believe it's better to handle armor through damage reduction, or greater difficulty to hit?


----------



## Bagpuss (May 25, 2013)

Both have advantages an disadvantages. So long as you accept it is difficulty to wound, not difficulty to hit, in the second instance.


----------



## GMMichael (May 26, 2013)

[MENTION=3987]Bagpuss[/MENTION]: in my case, it's a very, very simple system.  (But you're right, I got really annoyed making monsters (even starting with pre-made monsters) in D&D 3.5.)  My players still have character flexibility, but most things aren't in writing, so they'll need imagination and GM approval to create what they want.
 [MENTION=23240]steenan[/MENTION]: "Combat ends in death."  This can come from only two places: video games, and Rambo movies.  Otherwise, much more common is combat ending in retreat, or not beginning in the first place.  (MCS does have a "flee" option.  And characters become "mostly dead," not dead-dead.)

"Injuries must be abstracted."  Necessary?  No.  But it's a whole lot easier to say someone's dead after 12 hit points, instead of a broken wrist, fractured tibia, slight concussion, nausea, and facial lacerations (or some combination thereof).
 [MENTION=6746469]Dethklok[/MENTION]: your question depends heavily on what hit points represent.  The D&D standard is basically wounds and stamina, by the book.  But that's not how they act in play.  Reason: enemies can attack you 10 times or more in one round, and if they all fail, you don't lose a speck of stamina (hit points).  Furthermore, if you get "damaged" by a morningstar (piercing and bludgeoning damage) three times, which does a 3.5E average of 4.5 damage per hit, you could take enough damage to destroy three or four first level wizards, yet still be able to act as if you haven't even been rudely insulted (let alone damaged).

So to answer your question - armor should reduce your INJURY points, but only if it's slashing or piercing damage.  You should pretty much lose STAMINA points anytime you dodge, swing, or get bludgeoned.  If you dodge an attack, you should avoid all INJURY points, but still take some STAMINA damage.  Or failing that, it should behave like this:
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/p-p-rpg/wikis/damage


----------



## Dethklok (May 26, 2013)

DMMike said:


> your question depends heavily on what hit points represent.



Of course.



> The D&D standard is basically wounds and stamina, by the book.



Which book? My sense from playing the older versions of D&D is that hit points represented a person's luck, divine favor, and ability to dodge; an indefinable measure of his _elan_. Ultimately D&D hit points represent a character's ability to withstand being attacked, but not necessarily to withstand being struck or damaged. This makes even more sense when considering that (again, in the versions of D&D I'm familiar with) there was no penalty for fighting with reduced HP.


----------



## GMMichael (May 26, 2013)

Whoops.  3.5 trimmed it down a bit.  I must have been thinking of earlier versions, because 3.5 hit points are how much "damage" your character can take before dying.  So, maybe D&D hit points have been getting slimmer and trimmer over the years.

MCS's hit points are divided by ability score.  And counted by ability score.  Since Physical is the only ability score affected by weapons and exertion in MCS, it's the closest to D&D-combat-damage.  But I'd like to add a rules module that includes Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution, so that injuries reduce your Strength and Dexterity hit points, and dodging blows or getting shoved around reduces your Constitution hit points.


----------



## Challenger RPG (May 27, 2013)

@_*Dethklok*_ : I'm personally in favor of difficulty to hit. I've run into far too many problems and abstractions with rules on armor that reduce damage to the character too much. Basically, if the range of damage becomes too variable, and armor can be upgraded substantially; you end up with situations where people can't do 'any' damage to heavily armored opponents which just seems unreasonable to me. Several successful systems use the armor as damage reduction rules. I think it's possible if implemented correctly--but it's tricky.

  @_*DMMike*_ : Sounds pretty awesome! I like 'mostly dead'. Reminds me of Princess Bride. "He's only mostly dead, not all dead." Kudos on the creativity factor in character creation. A few monster 'templates' might be handy for rushed GM's. What you did with ranged combat looks good. Modular combat mechanics is a very cool idea, as well. The hit points sound like they could get a little complicated, but that's just a first impression. Keep up with the new innovations!

  @_*Bagpuss*_ : I mostly agree. I like to have a load of pre-created monsters. However, I also love to design my own bad guys. I just like the option to pick and choose where I'll be spending my creative energies. I also like the modular monster abilities combinations from Savage Worlds.

  @_*steenan*_ : I think it really depends on the type of game. I think most RPGs fall on the heavy combat side of things. I don't know why this is, exactly. I think it's something about character lives at stake in most games. It's almost like players insist you have detailed and clear combat rules. While Bob might not care if he can drink 7 beers or 8, he'll definitely care if the 8th goblin can take him down or not. I also tend to favor lethal combat. Death spirals are really annoying, and so is permanent death. However, I find my players are more than adept enough at avoiding death without any added help from the rules. In one-shot adventures a high danger ratio is also a great thing to have around.

About Hit Points: I like to keep them abstract. I find that abstract hit points actually encourage players and GMs to detail the injuries in 'more' detail than they otherwise would have. Many an adventure includes infected wounds, strange injuries, and broken limbs simply because the rules don't specifically say what form the hit point damage is taking. It can also be handily ignored when everyone has other things to worry about.

I also prefer a shorter combat length (and tactics are great). Whenever a battle stretches to ten or more rounds I'd better expect it to be pretty interesting and epic. If it becomes a trade off of dice blows and references to rulebooks it can kill the fun of a game quickly. One game of 4e where our 8th level characters were taking on Demigorgon comes to mind. Too many dice rolls and too many healing potions.

Thanks for the great posts, everyone!


----------

