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.



Tactical Stance system by Sparrowsmith



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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

(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...

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.).

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.

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.


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

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:





*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.

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.

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.

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



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



Okay let's walk through this.


Blocking vs offensive (no damage)


blocking vs blocking (no damage)


Blocking vs tackle (damage to P2 but..)


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.


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 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?

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...

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.

I couldn't let someone else make the chart, I'm inventing this thing so the confusing burden is all mine I'll get on it tonight, see what I can come up with...

Okay, this is what I whipped up


10 - means player 1 does damage
01 - means player 2 does damage
11 - pretty obvious
00 - pretty obvious.

In retrospect I could have made this MUCH clearer.

RULES:
Counter and Parry can ONLY be used if the opponent just did an attack (red)
Dodge can be used at any time, but you CANNOT go from a Dodge straight into an attack (you have to get back up off the floor)
Tackles are almost always successful, but only do damage against Blocking. There's no logical reason for this, tackling was just underpowered and blocking was overpowered. Make up your own insane justifications.
You must change stance every turn.


What the fuck does this mean?!:
CO - Close offensive
RO - Ranged offensive
SO - Strong offensive
TA - Tackle
PA - Parry
C - Counter
DO - Dodge
BL - Blocking
O - Open

Edit:
The chart is wrong, there are two NAs on the far right that should be 00s. Open's a ridiculous stance anyway, so I can't imagine it will cause a problem. This is just a draft anyway.

Seems like alot, but then again, I can't really see how we can trim it down.
I'm up for a pm test round.

PM me your first move (we'll keep it simple, just say what you're changing your stance to and whether it results in damage).
For sake of ease we will assume all players start in blocking. This means that the first player to move can deal damage, but only by using the most vulnerable attacks (Tackle and Strong Offensive).

During the RP I would recommend that both players act as if attacks come in two parts:
Blocking
Tackle
Parry
Close offensive
Counter
"1 blocks"
"2 breaks through the block with a tackle" 0:1
"As 2 attempts to knock 1 over, 1 steps aside and deals a hit of his own" 1:1
"2 returns with a close up attack, but fails to break through 1's parry" 1:1
"1 counters with a successful hit" 2:1

Note, the above encounter relies on player 2 forgetting that OC are useless on parries, but I expect this will happen from time to time.

In retrospect, there's actually a decent amount of functionality with these stances. There's about how many moves you'd expect if you were playing a game... Or chess.
If it was a game for xbox or something:
A + Direction = Dodge
A = Block
X = Close offensive
Hold X = Strong Offensive
Y = Ranged offensive
B = Tackle
RB (after an attack) = Counter
LB (after an attack) = Parry
Nothing = Open

Decent controls really... I'd play it

if still needed:


Testing begins immediately, if anyone wants to put it to the test, PM me.

Rules:
10 - means player 1 does (1) damage
01 - means player 2 does (1) damage
11 - pretty obvious
00 - pretty obvious.
20 - means player 1 does (2) damage
02 - means player 2 does (2) damage

Counter and Parry can ONLY be used if the opponent just did an attack (red)
Dodge can be used at any time, but you CANNOT go from a Dodge straight into an attack (you have to get back up off the floor)
Tackles are almost always successful, but only do damage against Blocking. There's no logical reason for this, tackling was just underpowered and blocking was overpowered. Make up your own insane justifications.
You must change stance every turn.

CO - Close offensive
QO - Quick offensive
SO - Strong offensive
TA - Tackle
PA - Parry
C - Counter
DO - Dodge
BL - Blocking
O - Open

General rule of thumb: Most attacks (red) do damage to anything but defense (blue) but are weak against other attacks. Support (yellow) are good for countering strong attacks, strategy moves, and breaking through defenses.
This is only a general rule of thumb, suggestions are appreciated/necessary to get this working properly.

Edit:
BOTH PLAYERS START IN BLOCKING STANCE... My bad for not mentioning this before....

Amazing work. I will gladly test it, I'll pm you in a minute.

Don't praise me yet, we have to see how it works I toyed with the idea of adding another stance (side step) along with some other rules maybe, and the numbers aren't perfect yet.
It'll probably be fully functional by the third.

Just stumbling over the topic and didn't take time to read everything. I was just thinking, you might want to add a mechanic which makes it so, that the longer you stay in the same stance, the more powerful it becomes. This would give the winner an advantage, but on the other hand make his moves more and more predictable, and thus easier to counter. Let me take an example, sticking to the Rock-Paper-Scissors standard:

A plays Rock, B plays Scissors => A wins and gains 1 point. If A wins again using Rock, he will gain 2 points instead. So the obvious move for B is to play Paper. But, knowing that B will probably play Paper, A might want to give up his advantage at Rock and play Scissors instead.

Then again, it does not sound very exciting with a mere Rock-Paper-Scissors system because there are two few options. Now let us consider a 5-options Rock-Paper-Scissors (infamously known as Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock), of which rules I state below:

• Rock beats Scissors and Lizard
• Paper beats Rock and Spock
• Scissors beat Paper and Lizard
• Lizard beats Paper and Spock
• Spock beats Scissors and Rock

Just as the standard Rock-Paper-Scissors, it is a perfectly balanced game, in which each move beats 2 other ones and is beaten by 2 other ones. Let us try the ascending mechanic with it:

A plays Rock, B plays Scissors => A wins and gains 1 point. Since A has an advantage at using Rock again, B will consider using either Paper or Spock. Now for A, the obvious choice is to play Lizard instead of Rock, since it beats both Paper and Spock. Knowing that, B might want to take a chance at a move which beats Lizard, instead of Rock. Then again, if A DOES play Rock, they're in for some serious trouble. It all goes down to a game of guessing where each player knows what the other knows and have to take a decision based on how deep they think their opponent will read.

The idea is still rough as such, but more generally, seeing a fight as a whole process rather than as a sequence of unconnected actions might help the system grow more interesting.

The problem with rock paper scissors (or any variant) is that both moves must be done simultaneously. In the stance system I'm working on there are two turns to each stance, like so:
Close offensive verses Blocking (0-0)
Close offensive verses Counter (0-2) (Player 1 has had to stay on his previous stance)
Strong offensive verses Counter (1-2) (Player 2 has had to stay on his previous stance)

So it's a kind of turn-taking system. There can't be balance in a turn taking system, there must be obvious strategies that get you ahead of the game, otherwise points just bounce back and forth and the first person to deal damage wins.
I've found that (like real life) the best way to rack up points is to make a defensive move, which forces your opponent to either use a weaker attack or to defend themselves, at which point you strike with something more worthwhile.

Staying on a stance though wouldn't work because, as said, it's a turn taking system.