[MUD-Dev] Re: [rpg-create] Combat Abstractions (fwd)

[J C Lawrence]

Notes on combat systems and their intents (and player perception)
within a game (echoes of the stamp collector):

------- Forwarded Message
To: <rpg-create at egroups.com>
From: "Chris Tutty" <Chris.Tutty.egroups at organicsoftware.co.nz>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 18:17:37 +1200
Subject: Re: [rpg-create] Combat Abstractions

From: "Nathan E Banks Paganini" <paganini at madisontelco.com>
> You know, I think I've been asking the wrong questions here. It's
> really easy to design a combat system that works. The question is what
> level of abstraction will please the most players? I want a game that
> simulationists will feel comfortable using, but that narrative gamers
> will also feel comfortable using. It may not be the system they'd
> choose to run their own game, but I want every one to be able to use
> this system and enjoy it... I need that sort of compromise. What do
> you feel absolutely MUST be included in a combat system for it to be
> playable? What do you feel absolutely must NOT be included for it to
> be playable? :)

Hmm, must be an e-psychic link - I stepped back from the combat
system conversation because I realised that I was designing without
a solid requirements analysis.  Unfortunately you've raised the
question before I've come up with an answer for it.

Here's a rough start for a requirements analysis based on the couple
of combat systems I've run in a long-running campaign and players
complaints about them.  I don't think it's quite what you're after,
but I'm interested in whether anyone thinks the document would be
valuable when finished.

Each of these paragraphs could easily be expanded into a page to
fully cover the topic.  The actual detail is just food for
consideration at present.

1. The Purpose of Combat in the Game The game has to include a way
to play out violent conflicts, but the reasons and goals differ as
detailed below.

1.1 Some players enjoy violence and some games are centered on
gratuitous combat (in fact my system was labeled 'Gratuitous
Violence' early on and no-one ever changed it).  These will require
fast, aggressive combat rules that feel violent and don't tie people
down with annoying details (like bleeding and fatigue).

1.2 Some players see violence as the last resort of the clumsy and
prefer persuasion and intrigue.  Combat in these games is either
plot related (the heroes knock a guard unconscious) and should be
non-fatal, simple and goal-oriented (a roll to overcome a guard, not
ten rolls to dodge, engage, knock back and subdue) OR it's 'final
conflict' stuff and should allow cinematic dueling and a wide
variety of player action choice.  Realism is acceptable (possibly
required), gore isn't.

1.3 Some players are dissatisfied unless the combat system
accurately captures the style and mechanical detail of the era.
These people will happily accept added complexity as long as it
increases the accuracy and detail with which combats can be played
out.  This sort of person prefers such things as hit locations with
individual armour and damage, weapon to armour effectiveness tables,
missile weapon ranges, etc.

1.4 Many games exist in the in-between area where combat isn't the
focus of the game but is expected to occur and sometimes represents
a welcome relief from too much thinking.  This style needs flexible
combat rules that can handle dueling, melee and battlefield
participation without breaking completely (although the system might
be optimised for certain, more likely, situations).  Realism is
accepted as long as it doesn't add too much complexity.  These games
are also characterised by a mix of player types, complicating the
demands on the combat system considerably.


2. Components

The components and concepts the combat system has to encompass are
listed below.  There is no significance to the order and the
divisions are purely for the purpose introducing each subject.

2.1 Weapons

This includes any tool used to improve someone's effectiveness to do
damage.  Some weapons are general tools which are useful because of
weight or hardness.  Others are custom built for combat and are
balanced for speed, sharpened for penetration or wounding, and use
materials that have hardness and strength. Some weapons are also
used defensively, complicating the distinction between weapons and
armour.

2.2 Armour

As weapons are to attacking, armour is to avoiding harm.  Armour is
effective either in spreading the force of an impact or resisting
the penetration of sharpened weapons.  Some armour provides both
capabilities.  Truly effective armour that doesn't restrict movement
or visibility is extremely difficult to design and manufacture and
most armour offers a trade-off in reduced mobility, speed and
awareness against a reduced chance of injury.  Armour extends to
defensive tools such as shields and parrying weapons and the
distinction between armour and weapons is often blurred.

2.3 Defense

This encompasses everything done to avoid harm in combat.  This
definition must also include attacking as a valid and effective form
of defense so a good combat system won't artificially divide the
two.  Given that, this topic covers such things as dodging,
parrying, blocking, armour use, misdirection and obscurement.

2.4 Attack

Attacking is an effort to wound, disable or overcome an opponent.
While not all combat requires that attacks take place a combat in
which neither opponent attacks is unlikely to have a significant
outcome.  Some attacks are intended to kill, some to wound and
possibly kill, others to wound but not kill, others to disable but
not wound, others to bypass or push back, others to prevent an
impending attack or restrict future attacks.  Most attacks are
assisted by the use of a weapon, particularly where the opponent is
armoured or skilled, but the primary factor in success is the skill
with which the attack is prepared and delivered.

2.5 Skill

Unskilled fighters will be seen as clumsy, slow and vulnerable more
skilled opponents, although unskilled fighters are still capable of
wounding and killing each other.  The difference in relative skill
between opponents is often more important than any absolute skill
level.  Skill takes many years to acquire.  Experts have been known
to study a form or style for a decade or more.  It is often said
that a master must pass beyond understanding of combat theory to the
point where they simply act instinctively as the situation demands -
speed, accuracy and power uninhibited by conscious thought.

2.6 Wounding

2.7 Combat Styles

2.8 Initiative and Speed

I've run out of steam.
Chris Tutty

------- End of Forwarded Message

--
J C Lawrence                                 Home: claw at kanga.nu
---------(*)                               Other: coder at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/        Keys etc: finger claw at kanga.nu
--=| A man is as sane as he is dangerous to his environment |=--


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev