Battle System for upcoming RP, Accepting suggestions too. Options

[Nicsp]

So, as some of you may know, i'm currently working in a simple action-based RP which will, hopefully, attract new people here to these subforums. Now there's a problem, because of the nature of this RP, there will, no doubt, be many battles. And since the point of this RP is to attract new members, not only the usual text battling way could be a bit of a disadvantage for new RPers but also would require a certain distancing from the author to it's character since, as we all know, no one likes losing.

I have discussed what battle system should be used with Sparrowsmith via PM for a while and we came up with two options to choose from, one being very simple but requiring the need of one or more admins of the RP to be frequently present to handle the battles and the other one a lot more simple but also very complex. Needless to say, we are also accepting suggestions, if any of you have any.

"Rock, paper, scissors" system by Nicsp.

[Show/Hide] Clicky.

Instead of making up their own weapons, the GM will make a list of avaible weapons and assign to these weapons ten points through three different "stats", that data will only be avaible to the GM and to the player who owns the weapons, and then when two people fight, we have them choose what stat they want to use to battle the opponent, the stat is then PMed to the GM who will then reply to both people saying which is the winner. Each of these stats "beats" each other (Think rock, paper, scissors.), and when that happens, the "winning" stat gets a 2x value bonus over the other one.

So...By example...

Bob has...A shield.
Block: 5
Charge: 4
Strike: 1

John has...A chainsaw sword.
Block: 3
Charge: 3
Strike: 4

Block>Charge>Strike>Block

Bob uses block and John uses Strike.
Bob: 5
John: 4

But since Strike>Block then...

Bob: 5
John: 8

John wins.

Now on another occasion:

Both John and Bob use charge.

Bob: 4
John: 3

Since charge=charge then Bob wins.

After the result has been calculated by the GM and sent back to both of the RPers involved in the battle, it will be up to the RPers to now RP the battle as they see fit, keeping in mind which of the two has to win.

Tactical Stance system by Sparrowsmith

[Show/Hide] Click here!

An RP fight needs to go on as long as is necessary for entertainments sake, but as short as is possible for story development. One idea would be 'stances'.
In each post you can either change your 'stance' or attack, but not both. The three stances are offensive, defensive, and moving. If you're defensive, you can't be hit or hit, if you're offensive, then you can hit and be hit. Moving is for any REAL movement (of course you can move while attacking or defending) moving is for positioning that would take time (such as an archer getting to a good distance for firing).
This would still be difficult to do, but would create a real sense of a battle field...

So, these are the two options we have at the moment. Opinions and suggestions?

[Ryuga]

Both have there pros and cons, but I think the tactical system would work better than the first one for a number of reasons.

1. No one wants to look at a bunch of numbers to determine who would win a clash.
2. Winners are determined by set values as opposed to Role playing talent.
3. The whole point of fighting in the Roleplay becomes diminished.

[Nicsp]

Both have there pros and cons, but I think the tactical system would work better than the first one for a number of reasons.

1. No one wants to look at a bunch of numbers to determine who would win a clash.
2. Winners are determined by set values as opposed to Role playing talent.
3. The whole point of fighting in the Roleplay becomes diminished.

Thing is the objective of this RP would be to attract new RPers to these forums, making an RP where your chance to win is dictated by your ability to RP would most likely scare away the newbies, which was sort of my main concern when making up that system. If most people don't see that as a problem, however, we could instead use a system where the winner is voted on by the other RPers based on how well the player RPed during the fight, it's quick, efficient, and doesn't really require the GM's hand on it. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, back when we discussed new RPs in another topic quite a while ago, you suggested something similar for a battle RP, no?

[Ryuga]

Thing is the objective of this RP would be to attract new RPers to these forums, making an RP where your chance to win is dictated by your ability to RP would most likely scare away the newbies, which was sort of my main concern when making up that system. If most people don't see that as a problem, however, we could instead use a system where the winner is voted on by the other RPers based on how well the player RPed during the fight, it's quick, efficient, and doesn't really require the GM's hand on it. Actually, if I'm not mistaken, back when we discussed new RPs in another topic quite a while ago, you suggested something similar for a battle RP, no?

It's not about your ability to RP that dictates who wins. It's that there is an active involvement in the battle system.
We can have varying scales of narrative depth during these fights. While the newbies can be content with just the simple posts of "changing stances," the advanced RPer's can spice up the fight by describing how and why they change there stance. Eventually, newbies can explore outside there comfort zone and have a take at writing.

The rock, paper scissors senario on the other hand, can minimalize the interactions, I think. Everytime I imagine the following senario.

"Okay, so your loadout is superior to mine in every way?"
"Yup."
"Guess you win then."

As for the vote system, it was something I suggested for a non-story driven arena. Don't think it would work in a RP where people want to get some progress done than judge another players performance.

[Sparrowsmith]

There are still a fair few flaws with the stance system though.
For example:
2 players start in defensive. Whichever changes to offensive first leaves themselves vulnerable, so there's no reason to change.
Like wise, once one does attack (let's say an archer) then the other player will run after them. The archer will then either go defensive or run away. We eventually get a kind of cycling system.

Unless we mix the two together?
offensive vs defensive = no hit either side.
moving (charging) vs defensive = damage done to defensive.
offensive vs moving (charging) = damage done to moving.
moving (dodging) vs offensive = offensive misses

after a dodge both parties change to defensive
two identical attacking stances lead to damage on both sides.


if you HAVE to change your stance every turn, then this could lead to some interesting fights (stances carry from one turn to the next)
1 - offensive
2 - defensive (no damage)
1 - charging (damage done to 2)
2 - offensive (damage done to 1)
1 - offensive (damage done to both)
2 - dodging (stances reset to defensive)
1 - charging (damage done to 2)
etc

and the fight would be written like the following: (I'll do a draft, and assume they have swords and shields)
"1 leads with an attack, bringing his sword crashing towards 2. 2 quickly brings his shield upwards to parry the attack. 1 wastes not time tackling 2 to the ground while his shield is raised. 2 picks himself up and brings his sword against 1's side. 1 counters by bringing his sword around and scraping 2 as 2's blade slides deeper into his side. 2 rolls backwards out of the way of the attack. 1 quickly follows, tackling him to the ground"
and that's a very basic draft. It's sort of like a mixture between stances and rock paper scissors, but without the numbers and with a lot more combinations.
It's complex, so probably wouldn't hold well, but would otherwise have potential I think.

[Ryuga]

There are still a fair few flaws with the stance system though.
For example:
2 players start in defensive. Whichever changes to offensive first leaves themselves vulnerable, so there's no reason to change.
Like wise, once one does attack (let's say an archer) then the other player will run after them. The archer will then either go defensive or run away. We eventually get a kind of cycling system.

I never took the stance system as complete at this stage. I'm just saying that I'd rather play a game of strategy than to compare numbers and hope I win.

As for the rest of your post, I think mandatory stance changes may be our best option. It's less complicated than your other example, and it appears to have enough strategy without being too complicated. Though we're going to have to work out any problems in the balancing.

[Nicsp]

It took me a few reads to understand it throughly but now I got it and I like it lot, actually. It's also good because this way allows players to do the fights on their own, without the necessity of a DM. And yeah, mandatory stance changes seem to be am ust. Oh, also, looking at the way how this goes, players will need HP. I'd be guessing 5 HP per player would be good, no? This also opens the possibility for me to make bosses later on, who could have more HP and deal more than one damage...Hmm...

[Sparrowsmith]

HP of some kind would be essential. Perhaps use Telums to decide HP, or allow them to affect it.
Alternatively there could be a set number of turns, and the goal would be to inflict the most damage in those turns.

[Nicsp]

(To the people who're confused, Telum is the name of the weapons in this RP, collecting as many as possible will be one of the RP's objectives. The players will fight amongst each other with the objective of taking each other's Telums through a wagering system which I will be commenting below.)

You saying that actually made me thought of something that could be used alongside with the wagering system you said we needed earlier.

Maybe we could have it so you can have 5 HP for your "primary" weapon and you get +1 HP for each weapon you use other than that one, in the other hand, however, whatever weapon you use will be given to the opponent in the case you lose...

[Spirit_Master_X]

There was a fighting technique we use to play around with back when role-play was still possible on Yahoo! Messenger. There were three versions of this fighting, there was T1 (A paragraph, detailed oriented fighting style) you had T2 (Which was speed based. Meaning you had to type faster than your opponent, while avoiding typos.) and T3 which I really cant remember because it sucked.

Since this is a forum, we won't be able to do T2. T1 however...is by far one of the best fighting systems we have ever used. T1 takes a lot of explaining so here is the link to it:

T1 Guidelines

This post has been edited by Spirit_Master_X: Jul 13 2011, 07:28 AM

[Nicsp]

There was a fighting technique we use to play around with back when role-play was still possible on Yahoo! Messenger. There were three versions of this fighting, there was T1 (A paragraph, detailed oriented fighting style) you had T2 (Which was speed based. Meaning you had to type faster than your opponent, while avoiding typos.) and T3 which I really cant remember because it sucked.

Since this is a forum, we won't be able to do T2. T1 however...is by far one of the best fighting systems we have ever used. T1 takes a lot of explaining so here is the link to it:

T1 Guidelines

Hey Spirit, hadn't seen you around for a while

Nice find, I've only skipped through it for the moment but i'll read it throughly later today when I have more time (And my computer isn't lagging like hell.).

[Spirit_Master_X]

We could combine the principles of T1 and the tactical system and create something totally new or we can continue what you guys were discussing, doesn't matter to me I'm down for anything

[Nicsp]

We could combine the principles of T1 and the tactical system and create something totally new or we can continue what you guys were discussing, doesn't matter to me I'm down for anything

Okay, I read through the whole thing and this T1 to me just looks like the basic way of text RPing. o_o Most of the rules all seem to me like the logical behaviour to be followed during an RP. I think it'd be best if we just finished up the system that was alredy under discussion in here and then get the RP rolling, if any more problems pop out we can simply fix them up as we go.

[Ryuga]

There was a fighting technique we use to play around with back when role-play was still possible on Yahoo! Messenger. There were three versions of this fighting, there was T1 (A paragraph, detailed oriented fighting style) you had T2 (Which was speed based. Meaning you had to type faster than your opponent, while avoiding typos.) and T3 which I really cant remember because it sucked.

Since this is a forum, we won't be able to do T2. T1 however...is by far one of the best fighting systems we have ever used. T1 takes a lot of explaining so here is the link to it:

T1 Guidelines

This might be useful when we get an advanced group together, but I don't think we can use it.
Niscp already stated that he didn't want to scare away any newcomers by punishing the less experienced.

Okay, I read through the whole thing and this T1 to me just looks like the basic way of text RPing. o_o Most of the rules all seem to me like the logical behaviour to be followed during an RP. I think it'd be best if we just finished up the system that was alredy under discussion in here and then get the RP rolling, if any more problems pop out we can simply fix them up as we go.

Well the I've already thought of two problems with the system already.
1. Not enough stances.
I know the system is not finished a hence we have this issue. So we need to come up with more stances and how each interacts with each.
2. Foresight.
Since one person is inevitably going to be first, and another second, we need to balance it in such a way that neither gets an advantage.
Because so far all I see is this...

P1: Attack
P2: Block
Mandatory stance change.
P1: Block
P2: Attack
P1: Attack
P2: Block

[Sparrowsmith]

Spirit, I can see reading the T1 that I violated a lot of those rules in our first fight (Nobu vs Damien) Think I picked it up eventually though...

Still, that gives expirienced RPers an advantage that would scare off new players...
So without further Adieu I give you more stances:

[Show/Hide] Attacking Stances

Close Offensive - For when your opponent is close enough to hit with little or no movement.
Distanced Offensive - For throwing/shooting something at an opponent
Tackle - Starting a medium distance from your opponent, you attempt to knock them onto the floor.
Charge - Starting from a medium-long distance, you rush your opponent with all your might.

[Show/Hide] Defending Stances

Blocking - All purpose "Hit me with your best shot" stance.
Dodge - Jump or barrel roll to safety (resets stances of both parties involved)*
Running - Self explanatory, you are getting away.
Parry - Two-edged sword of warfare awesomeness. To be used on a quickly approaching enemy (charging or tackling) the OPPONENT then decides one of two actions. One - to let the parry connect, or Two - to call off the attack. If one, then the PARRYING party deals damage but is reverted to the OPEN stance. If Two then the ATTACKING party is reverted to the OPEN stance.
Counter - Can only be used after a close offensive that DIDN'T deal damage. Afterwards the Countering party is placed into the close offensive stance and the damaged party is place into defensive.
Hiding - rarely to be used, effective against distanced offensive

[Show/Hide] Special Stances

Environmental Advantage - If the environment favors one player before the battle (and is stated before the battle) or something happens within the battle that either party can use to their advantage, it is environmental advantage. If you have a teammate, and they rest their shield on top of themselves, you have a step you can use to launch yourself in the air - which breaks through any defense. Environmental Advantage can only be used by each team once per battle, and must be ESTABLISHED + PLAUSIBLE.
Trump Card - During the sign up each player can pick a specific thing they are good at, this is their trump. You can climb trees? Nice one. You're also an archer? cool stuff. You're fighting in a forest? Well this is a one sided fight indeed. IF you can make it to the forest then you can climb a tree (your trump) and then fire away without getting hurt once (unless your facing an archer)
Open - Absolutely ANY attack will contact while in Open stance.

*Dodge reverts the dodging player to a defensive stance of their choosing (except dodge of course). If running is chosen then the player can run a short distance, but not as much as a normal running stance would achieve.

So what beats what? Well:
Environmental Advantage > Everything except Trump Card
Trump Card > Everything except trump card and environment
Dodge > Any attacking stance (can only be used when being attacked)
Parry > Any attacking stance except distanced offensive.
Running > Any attacking stance except distanced offensive and tackle
Blocking > Any attacking stance except charge & tackle
Counter > close offensive (can only be used against close offensive)
Distanced Offensive > Any attacking stance (including Distanced offensive)
Charge > Close offensive, Distanced offensive
Tackle > Charge, close offensive, distanced offensive
Any two IDENTICAL attacking stances do EQUAL damage to each player
Hiding beats anything so long as the other player cannot find/cannot reach you. If they can reach you, then you class as open stanced.

I think I might have to make some kind of table or chart to explain all of this. It's really quite simple if you imagine it in your head.

Additional Rules:
You cannot use Parry or Counter if you are moving (running, charge, tackle, etc)

Distanced offensive can be used at any distance, but you MUST have limited number of things to throw/shoot. You are also vulnerable to attacks.

Trump cards must be very specific, and warning must be given. You cannot invent a tree and then climb it (for example) you must specify the existence of the tree(s) BEFORE the fight, and then think intention to get to the tree, or narrate that goal in some way, so that the other player can attempt to stop you reaching the tree. Furthermore, it must be in your character profile that you can climb trees efficiently.

Environmental advantages are even more specific. ANOTHER PLAYER must specify something about the environment (it has been raining) you must then comment on an environmental advantage before the fight (such as a hill) during the fight, your character must put the two together (the wet grass on the hill would be excellent for sliding) later in the fight (even the next turn) your character may slide down the hill effortlessly blocking the opponents attack and hitting the opponents ankles during the slide. Alternatively you could kick the opponent, causing them to lose grip and roll down the hill (doing damage). If another player specifies that you're walking through a desert (or sandy area before the fight) then during the fight you can grab a handful of sand (must be specified) and then throw it in your opponents eyes and take a swing at them. The most important rule here is that ANOTHER player must specify the environment, but you are aloud to invent artifacts of that environment (hills, trees, etc) so long as you do so before the battle. Even though other players must create the environment, you are aloud to incite it ("Dark clouds began looming above") so long as it is ANOTHER character that says it starts raining.

Fights begin with players a pre-decided distance away from one another and either they or a third party decides who goes first. This rule only applies in most occasions. Fights can be sudden, and as such the first move and distance is decided by the attacker - who can deal damage in their first turn. In surprise fights (and only surprise fights) the defending party may invent an artifact of the environment (such as a hill or tree) during their first turn : "Recovering from the tackle, Joe swiftly scanned his surroundings for some kind of advantage. Up ahead he saw a hill. Clutching his bow, he sprinted forwards" but no more artifacts can be created after the first post.


My goodness this is overly complicated, might have to trim some/most of this down.

[Ryuga]

I have a few problems with the system Sparrow.
I think Trump and environment advantages are far too complicated. What's a new player who's still can't venture out of there confort zone going to do when the advance RP'er starts climbing trees?
Also, I would scratch off hiding and running from the list. I wouldn't say a battle is going on if any of these things are happening. If anything I would use different mechanics for fleeing or hiding.

Also, how does your system deal with the...

P1: Attack
P2: Block
P1: Block
P2: Attack
P1: Attack
P2: Block

problem? Adding more stances doesn't actually remedy this.

The only solution I can think of is to add penalties to certain stances, and/or give out aggressor, and defender bonuses and penalties.

[Sparrowsmith]

Yeah, I got carried away. We'll cut out the more confusing stances then.
As for the problems - they are solved by the system itself. You go through TWO stances a turn. You begin in your previous stance, and then move onto your next. It is up to YOU to state whether your opponents attack connects (during the first turn no damage can be done, unless it is a surprise attack)
close offensive
blocking (attack is unsuccessful, no damage done)
blocking (both players blocking, no damage)
tackle (tackle breaks through blocking, P2 SHOULD do damage)
parry (tackle is negated, no damage is dealt)
Open (damage is again averted by changing to open - avoiding the parry)
Close offensive (damage IS dealt, P2 is in open and parry cannot be used)
Close offensive (damage IS dealt to both sides)
Score: 2-1
Dodge (attack is dodged. P2 is reverted to open, P1 gets to choose a new DEFENSIVE stance) Counter (damage is dealt - P2 is now blocking, P1 is close offensive)
Score: 2-2

however:
Close offensive (first turn no damage)
Blocking (no damage)
Blocking (no damage)
Close offensive (no damage)
Close offensive (damage to both sides)
Blocking (no damage)
Score: 1-1

You have to think of what BOTH players are doing at any moment for the system to make sense.

Close offensive (first turn)
Blocking vs close offensive (no damage)
blocking vs blocking (no damage)
close offensive vs blocking (no damage)
close offensive vs close offensive (double damage)
blocking vs close offensive (no damage)

where each stance carries onto the next turn. To break the cycles, certain moves are capable of changing the opponent's stance (this should be noted though in case the other player has forgotten).
Maybe we should actually test this system to see if it works? I'm open to a PM battle if we need to demonstrate one.

[Ryuga]

It took a few reads to understand what you were saying. But unfortunately Sparrow, the system still doesn't work.

Close offensive (first turn)
Blocking vs close offensive (no damage)
blocking vs blocking (no damage)
close offensive vs blocking (no damage)
close offensive vs close offensive (double damage)
blocking vs close offensive (no damage)

While this would make sense, we have a major design flaw.

close offensive
blocking (attack is unsuccessful, no damage done)
blocking (both players blocking, no damage)
tackle (tackle breaks through blocking, P2 SHOULD do damage)
parry (tackle is negated, no damage is dealt)
Open (damage is again averted by changing to open - avoiding the parry)
Close offensive (damage IS dealt, P2 is in open and parry cannot be used)
Close offensive (damage IS dealt to both sides)
Score: 2-1
Dodge (attack is dodged. P2 is reverted to open, P1 gets to choose a new DEFENSIVE stance) Counter (damage is dealt - P2 is now blocking, P1 is close offensive)
Score: 2-2

Okay let's walk through this.

close offensive
blocking

Blocking vs offensive (no damage)

blocking
Blocking

blocking vs blocking (no damage)

blocking
tackle

Blocking vs tackle (damage to P2 but..)

tackle
parry

Parry negates blocking vs tackle from above.

This is already a big no-no.
It invalidates the tackle into block maneuver because then the other player can just counter with a parry. And there is no way to prevent the parry because in order to intiate a tackle the player was in the blocking stance to begin with.

Here's one other flaw.

parry
open
offensive
offensive

When it comes to this example, we find that the player who parries first is at the advantage. As the other player either has to move to open to avoid damage, but takes damage from close offensive anyway and falls short of the exchange.

Also we can't counter parry from what I can gather.

tackle
parry
stance other than open

tackle vs parry (from the context I assume parry wins: damage to P2 because there is not open stance to negate the parry.)

No matter how you slice it, all I see is P1 giving the first blow, which is unbalance because than P1 is ahead in the race the whole time, and P2 can only break even.


Also negating certain exchanges makes no sense in the from a RP perspective. While each other stance exchange operates indepedently, (hence we calculate points as we go down), certain stances manipulate the outcome to exchanges that have already happened.

With the
block
attack
attack
block
senario, we would RP something like the following.

P1 raises his sword ready to catch the blow from his opponents weapon (block )
P2 swings wildly desperate to get at hit. (attack: [block vs attack])
P1 sees his chance and attacks back, landing a couple blows, but taking some hits from his opponents flailing weapon. (attack vs attack)
P2 in an effort to minimize the damage, raises his sheild to defend the rest of the attacks. (attack vs block)


But when it comes to

attack
Block
tackle
parry
open
things are different.

P1 swings with his sword, (attack)
P2 blocks the blow with his sheild (attack vs block)
P1 charges his foe in an attempt to knock him to the ground (tackle vs block)
P2 moves aside completely dodging the charge and strikes back (parry vs tackle)
P1 moves back and stands around like a dumbass.

So why does a character take damage when he attempts to block but goes completely untouched when avoiding a tackle?

This post has been edited by Ryuga: Jul 14 2011, 11:57 AM

[Sparrowsmith]

You make a good point. I put parry up because they seemed like something that realistically could be done. When I made this stance system I'd been playing Assassin's creed and I tried to incorporate that kind of fighting style.
Without the parry, the battle becomes:
Co
Bl
Ta
Bl
Co
Ta

Tackle becomes too powerful. But without tackle we get

Co
Bl
Bl
Co

I'll try and resolve these problems soon... Maybe a chart will help me overcome the issues...

[Ryuga]

The problem with the system is that you can't have an endpoint, otherwise we get the example above where the person who ends on parry ends up being the winner.
We also can't make the system circular, because then nobody wins.

A chart would definetly be helpful. We can get around to fixing these problems once one of us gets a prototype together and actually do a test run.
I'll try to make a chart or something, though I think you have a better idea of how these stances would work.