A Wilder World: Combat, rethunked.
Jan. 18th, 2012 04:32 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexandraerinMy roleplaying game project A Wilder World grew out of my thoughts about some of D&D 4E's shortcomings and the gaps in its design, and as such it started life as a game that would have been a lot like 4E. Over time that has become less so, because I had made the decision that I wouldn't proceed with the game if it didn't have a reason to exist as a separate game rather than a series of system hacks for the existing one.
So one of the things I decided early on was that it should to bring a similar level of tactical possibilities and what I'll call "high awesomeness potential" to combat without requiring the use of a map and tokens or figures. Because I like 4E combat, but I like the possibilities that more narration-based gaming allows and I like the idea of a game that can be downloaded and played without any specialized materials.
(And yes, you can get get graph paper and make your own counters and so on and so forth. That's still an investment in time at the very least, and it takes skill to do well. I could print out a bunch of little squares that say "goblin" on them, for instance, but I'm not sure how much they would add to the experience.)
My first attempts at an abstract combat system for AWW were basically the 4E-esque one translated to make less use of precise tactical movement and positioning. And that works. But it didn't make much use of the actual strengths of abstract combat.
Let me set a scene for you: a group of adventurers are fighting a big hulking minotaur demon thing on top of a giant stone pillar. One of them jumps on the beast's back and stabs it. It howls in pain, grabs the adventurer, and throws her off its back and out over the void. The adventurer lashes out with a whip, grabs the beast around the legs, and pulls it off its feet while stopping her fall.
Or even just picture a big strong barbarian faced with two monsters slamming their heads together.
How well do most roleplaying games' combat systems handle those kinds of things? That second example in particular is worth thinking about because it's such a simple and iconic thing. But how do you handle it... two one-handed grapples followed by two attacks? And why would you ever do it, if you could be swinging a sword or axe at someone for more damage? D&D's metagame in particular dictates that it's always better to do more damage to one target than damage spread out over multiple targets (unless they're minions, of course).
AWW's combat system is designed to handle things like this. It doesn't use individual turns for each combatant... each round, everybody declares their actions. The side that has advantage for the round (which takes the place of initiative) gets to hear what the other side is doing before they decide what they're doing. If actions conflict (someone's running up to stab you while you're running away), then you roll to see who's quicker. Otherwise things unfold "simultaneously in the order that makes sense", with the GM guiding the flow of action.
You can basically spend three actions in the round. Things like being knocked off a cliff means you end the round in mid air and you and your allies can try to save you before you actually fall. In the example of the fight on the stone pillar, the adventurer's actions would be: "I whip the demon's legs (1), use that attack to knock it down (2) and swing back onto the pillar. (3)"
In this case, the player makes one attack roll and that also determines the success or failure of the other actions. In a lot of roleplaying games this would be made more difficult for being a "called shot" (on the legs), a grapple attempt, etc., with hefty penalties for the mid-air precision of timing.
AWW doesn't care about these things at all. They get in the way of the awesome. This is not the game for people who want a realistic simulation of what happens when a big bull demon thing throws you off the top of a tower.
Now, with AWW's rules, the character could spend an action trying to attack the demon, an action trying to knock it down, and an action trying to get back up onto the ledge all through different means, but if they've invested enough character resources in being awesome with a whip to feel comfortable pegging their success on that the game lets them do that.
The barbarian knocking heads together? That's considered an attack against two targets (two actions) using improvised weapon. Assuming the barbarian didn't have to walk up to them or do anything else, the player can spend their third action to use the attack to stun or knock down the guards. Yes, one action for both of them, since it's one attack. It's a recurring feature of the game's rules that spending multiple actions yields better results.
Both of those examples involve a character who would have decent combat stats. What about somebody who isn't all weapons and punches? The same basic rules that govern attacks also govern other actions. Want to distract an enemy to lower their defense or attack? Trip them up? Talk them out of taking a swing at you? Lure them into a different position? Scare them off? Any of those things can be one action. The basic rule is that you have to be able to describe how you're doing it and then you make a check using the relevant stat.
Because damage is based on how much the attack roll beats the target's defense, the party's jester or acrobat who helps set up opponents for the barbarian by distracting them is increasing the party's damage output by more than they could by flailing around. The peaceful cleric who says a prayer for the barbarian or shouts a warning about an incoming arrow can save the barbarian the need to spend an action defending from it.
Imagine you're not a fighter but more of a diplomat. An enemy comes running up to take a swing at you. "Wait! I'm no threat!" you cry, throwing up your hands. The enemy hesitates and stumbles a bit, and you're able to duck out of the way, while the enemy's less sure they want to fight.
Again, three actions: a social attack (which "damages" HP because it lowers the determination of the attacker to keep fighting), and using that attack to distract the enemy in order to interfere with their attack, and dodging because the character in question doesn't have enough defense for the distraction alone to be enough.
I'm trying to give some idea of the flexibility of the system, but it doesn't have to be more complicated than simple hack-and-slash: "I run up and slash the first two fighters." That's three actions. You can also spend an extra action on a single attack to throw another die on top of it. You can also save an action (or more) to defend yourself against unspecified threats... either because you know there are multiple attacks coming your way and there's no sense dodging or parrying something that's going to miss you, or because the other side has advantage and you don't know what's coming your way when you make up your mind. You do get a bonus for specifying your defenses.
Most of the examples above are very oriented towards a single character engaging with an opponent or opponents, but conferring with teammates is part of the declaration phase so you can figure out who's doing what and combine your actions in various ways. The round unfolds "in the order that makes sense" (don't worry, there will be more clear guidelines than that for GMs), so if you're plotting something that requires a sequence of events it works out.
For instance, someone can lure the big bad towards the party's heavy hitter, who then knocks them into a pit and then the person who did the luring cuts a rope that drops something over it... the lurer doesn't go first and use up all their actions before anybody else does anything.
Also, actions don't "pre-empt" others except when absolutely necessary. Even if a character takes enough damage to go down, they're getting their own swings in before the round ends. If the monster in the case outlined in the last paragraph is trying to take a swing at either character it happens at the point where they're close enough. If the monster grabs hold of the luring character, they won't be able to drop the cover... and the heavy hitter might think twice about knocking them into the pit. You can't change your actions mid-stream, but you can cancel them.
Now, I'd like to stress that this is not a "narrativist" set of rules. The game encourages painting a picture with words and letting reality be somewhat subjective in the name of awesomeness, but the rules don't require you to come up with narrative elements or the GM to evaluate your use of them. Frankly, I find narrativist rule sets get in the way of story telling by making it the part of the system that gets "gamed". It's just a relatively simple set of rules for things like making attack rolls and checks and inflicting conditions, and a framework that encourages them to be combined in wild and off-the-wall ways.
I'm focusing most in this post on the kind of things that actions can be used for, but for those who are paying attention to the nittier and grittier details, I'll say that the concept of advantage is really important. If advantage goes back forth over the course of a fight scene, there will be some rounds where you're scrambling to defend yourself and some rounds where you've got your enemies right where you want them and you can concentrate on setting them up and knocking them down.
(This also makes seeking ways to seize the advantage an obvious source of character optimization, but most of them involve trading actions for a better/new roll. You can make a character who can all but guarantee your side has advantage every single round, but that's going to be a big part of your contribution on rounds where it's necessary.)
This combat system really fulfills what I was setting out for when I dubbed the game "A Wilder World": raucous, action-oriented combat that also gives non-combatants stuff to do... roleplaying combat that looks less like a D&D game and more like a scene from one of its spin-off novels... or better still, an Order of the Stick fight scene.
So one of the things I decided early on was that it should to bring a similar level of tactical possibilities and what I'll call "high awesomeness potential" to combat without requiring the use of a map and tokens or figures. Because I like 4E combat, but I like the possibilities that more narration-based gaming allows and I like the idea of a game that can be downloaded and played without any specialized materials.
(And yes, you can get get graph paper and make your own counters and so on and so forth. That's still an investment in time at the very least, and it takes skill to do well. I could print out a bunch of little squares that say "goblin" on them, for instance, but I'm not sure how much they would add to the experience.)
My first attempts at an abstract combat system for AWW were basically the 4E-esque one translated to make less use of precise tactical movement and positioning. And that works. But it didn't make much use of the actual strengths of abstract combat.
Let me set a scene for you: a group of adventurers are fighting a big hulking minotaur demon thing on top of a giant stone pillar. One of them jumps on the beast's back and stabs it. It howls in pain, grabs the adventurer, and throws her off its back and out over the void. The adventurer lashes out with a whip, grabs the beast around the legs, and pulls it off its feet while stopping her fall.
Or even just picture a big strong barbarian faced with two monsters slamming their heads together.
How well do most roleplaying games' combat systems handle those kinds of things? That second example in particular is worth thinking about because it's such a simple and iconic thing. But how do you handle it... two one-handed grapples followed by two attacks? And why would you ever do it, if you could be swinging a sword or axe at someone for more damage? D&D's metagame in particular dictates that it's always better to do more damage to one target than damage spread out over multiple targets (unless they're minions, of course).
AWW's combat system is designed to handle things like this. It doesn't use individual turns for each combatant... each round, everybody declares their actions. The side that has advantage for the round (which takes the place of initiative) gets to hear what the other side is doing before they decide what they're doing. If actions conflict (someone's running up to stab you while you're running away), then you roll to see who's quicker. Otherwise things unfold "simultaneously in the order that makes sense", with the GM guiding the flow of action.
You can basically spend three actions in the round. Things like being knocked off a cliff means you end the round in mid air and you and your allies can try to save you before you actually fall. In the example of the fight on the stone pillar, the adventurer's actions would be: "I whip the demon's legs (1), use that attack to knock it down (2) and swing back onto the pillar. (3)"
In this case, the player makes one attack roll and that also determines the success or failure of the other actions. In a lot of roleplaying games this would be made more difficult for being a "called shot" (on the legs), a grapple attempt, etc., with hefty penalties for the mid-air precision of timing.
AWW doesn't care about these things at all. They get in the way of the awesome. This is not the game for people who want a realistic simulation of what happens when a big bull demon thing throws you off the top of a tower.
Now, with AWW's rules, the character could spend an action trying to attack the demon, an action trying to knock it down, and an action trying to get back up onto the ledge all through different means, but if they've invested enough character resources in being awesome with a whip to feel comfortable pegging their success on that the game lets them do that.
The barbarian knocking heads together? That's considered an attack against two targets (two actions) using improvised weapon. Assuming the barbarian didn't have to walk up to them or do anything else, the player can spend their third action to use the attack to stun or knock down the guards. Yes, one action for both of them, since it's one attack. It's a recurring feature of the game's rules that spending multiple actions yields better results.
Both of those examples involve a character who would have decent combat stats. What about somebody who isn't all weapons and punches? The same basic rules that govern attacks also govern other actions. Want to distract an enemy to lower their defense or attack? Trip them up? Talk them out of taking a swing at you? Lure them into a different position? Scare them off? Any of those things can be one action. The basic rule is that you have to be able to describe how you're doing it and then you make a check using the relevant stat.
Because damage is based on how much the attack roll beats the target's defense, the party's jester or acrobat who helps set up opponents for the barbarian by distracting them is increasing the party's damage output by more than they could by flailing around. The peaceful cleric who says a prayer for the barbarian or shouts a warning about an incoming arrow can save the barbarian the need to spend an action defending from it.
Imagine you're not a fighter but more of a diplomat. An enemy comes running up to take a swing at you. "Wait! I'm no threat!" you cry, throwing up your hands. The enemy hesitates and stumbles a bit, and you're able to duck out of the way, while the enemy's less sure they want to fight.
Again, three actions: a social attack (which "damages" HP because it lowers the determination of the attacker to keep fighting), and using that attack to distract the enemy in order to interfere with their attack, and dodging because the character in question doesn't have enough defense for the distraction alone to be enough.
I'm trying to give some idea of the flexibility of the system, but it doesn't have to be more complicated than simple hack-and-slash: "I run up and slash the first two fighters." That's three actions. You can also spend an extra action on a single attack to throw another die on top of it. You can also save an action (or more) to defend yourself against unspecified threats... either because you know there are multiple attacks coming your way and there's no sense dodging or parrying something that's going to miss you, or because the other side has advantage and you don't know what's coming your way when you make up your mind. You do get a bonus for specifying your defenses.
Most of the examples above are very oriented towards a single character engaging with an opponent or opponents, but conferring with teammates is part of the declaration phase so you can figure out who's doing what and combine your actions in various ways. The round unfolds "in the order that makes sense" (don't worry, there will be more clear guidelines than that for GMs), so if you're plotting something that requires a sequence of events it works out.
For instance, someone can lure the big bad towards the party's heavy hitter, who then knocks them into a pit and then the person who did the luring cuts a rope that drops something over it... the lurer doesn't go first and use up all their actions before anybody else does anything.
Also, actions don't "pre-empt" others except when absolutely necessary. Even if a character takes enough damage to go down, they're getting their own swings in before the round ends. If the monster in the case outlined in the last paragraph is trying to take a swing at either character it happens at the point where they're close enough. If the monster grabs hold of the luring character, they won't be able to drop the cover... and the heavy hitter might think twice about knocking them into the pit. You can't change your actions mid-stream, but you can cancel them.
Now, I'd like to stress that this is not a "narrativist" set of rules. The game encourages painting a picture with words and letting reality be somewhat subjective in the name of awesomeness, but the rules don't require you to come up with narrative elements or the GM to evaluate your use of them. Frankly, I find narrativist rule sets get in the way of story telling by making it the part of the system that gets "gamed". It's just a relatively simple set of rules for things like making attack rolls and checks and inflicting conditions, and a framework that encourages them to be combined in wild and off-the-wall ways.
I'm focusing most in this post on the kind of things that actions can be used for, but for those who are paying attention to the nittier and grittier details, I'll say that the concept of advantage is really important. If advantage goes back forth over the course of a fight scene, there will be some rounds where you're scrambling to defend yourself and some rounds where you've got your enemies right where you want them and you can concentrate on setting them up and knocking them down.
(This also makes seeking ways to seize the advantage an obvious source of character optimization, but most of them involve trading actions for a better/new roll. You can make a character who can all but guarantee your side has advantage every single round, but that's going to be a big part of your contribution on rounds where it's necessary.)
This combat system really fulfills what I was setting out for when I dubbed the game "A Wilder World": raucous, action-oriented combat that also gives non-combatants stuff to do... roleplaying combat that looks less like a D&D game and more like a scene from one of its spin-off novels... or better still, an Order of the Stick fight scene.