Skip to main content

Ars Arcana Blog: Combat and Conversation


Combat and Conversation 1: The Basics
Many who play RPGs love the combat experience, especially when it’s rife with opportunities for cool combat maneuvers and support options. Yet every wrinkle added to the mechanics of combat threatens to add more time and more complexity. Every addition to complexity and time should probably be regarded, at least prima facie, as undesirable in the system. Many who play RPGs also enjoy the conversational component of the RPG, even when the mechanics there are only lightly involved or wholly uninvolved. In this blog post, I begin a (hopefully brief) series of posts thinking through simple, conversational combat that affords options and flavor to players without adding so much to the machinery that it becomes a detriment to player enjoyment.

A Simple Model
Suppose two evenly matched foes face off. A simple d20 could model a range of combat outcomes, like the following:

D20 Roll               Outcome
1                              massive success for combatant 1
2-3                          great success for combatant 1
3-5                          moderate success for combatant 1
7-14                       even exchange
15-17                     moderate success for combatant 2
18-19                     great success for combatant 2
20                           massive success for combatant 2

The next logical step would be to convert this to your game’s wounds/damage system; I’ll represent that stage in this way, where a ● is a degree of success and an x represents a failure:

D20 Roll               Combatant 1      Combatant 2
1                              ●●●                       x
2-3                          ●●                          x
4-6                                                       x
7-14                                                   
15-17                     x                             
18-19                     x                              ●●
20                           x                              ●●●

In an RPG, each ● could represent a multiplier of damage, so if a long sword does 1d8 damage typically, combatant 1 would deal 3d8 damage on a roll of 1. An x would represent perhaps no damage dealt. Note that the 7-14 range, the largest of the bunch, could instead be represented as x/x, meaning that neither side succeeds. I represent these exchanges as ●/● because I’m now thinking about the exertion of a combat exchange, even if neither side “win” the exchange. This can happy because both sides miss, both sides exchange ineffectual blows, or because both sides score a solid blow but neither gains the advantage. The dot represents that both sides have lost something – if only energy – in the combat.

There are now two obvious wrinkles for such a system, although I think it works well enough for a turn-based combat game exchange between even opponents. The first is that combat does not obviously take place between equals, especially in an RPG. Someone has advantages of one kind, and the other side might have advantages of another kind. Thus, in a future blog post, I’ll add in thoughts on affording advantages to one side rather than the other. In another future blog post, I’ll tackle a second problem, the problem of group combat, which offers its own challenges. On one hand, the combat could be modeled with a single die roll, regardless of size of the combatant groups. On the other hand, players tend to like to see their own specific contributions to the combat. The task becomes to balance these while maximizing player enjoyment.

Note that I have not yet addressed the question of how to make this exchange something conversational. “You score a massive success” doesn’t exactly satisfy the conversation piece, but it is a start in that direction. In a third later blog post, I’ll spell out some ways for converting the numbers into conversations.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ars Arcana Blog 2.7: Creating a Character SPARK

Ars Arcana Blog: Bringing Your Character to Life with SPARK Travis J. Rodgers The Challenge(s) For the grizzled vet of RPGs, creating a character is often a struggle of too many options rather than not knowing where to start. The character concept comes easily to mind, either because there is a character the vet has been wanting to play or because vets often have served as GM as well as player for so long, character concepts seem to spring from an endless font. The challenge becomes determining which of the system options is the best way to make use of your character concept. Let’s call this the “How? Question” of character design. On the other hand, for the relative novice to Roleplaying, the challenge is two-fold. In addition, to the struggles of navigating a system’s options, the novice may not have, and may struggle to create, the character concept. Let’s call this new question the “What? Question” of character design. The SPARK In an episode of the Dungeon Chat

Ars Arcana Blog: Why No One Understands Alignment

Why No One Understands Alignment Travis J. Rodgers Alignment was introduced to Dungeons and Dragons as a character (NPC or PC) attribute. It wasn’t rolled for; it was typically selected, but sometimes a particular alignment was necessitated by the character’s race or class. But what is ostensibly a kind of “outlook” piece, cross-indexing a regard for law and chaos on one axis and good and evil on the other is at best a concept evolving across game versions. This fact would explain why long-time gamers, or at least gamers who have played multiple iterations of D&D, might view alignment differently from others. At worst, however, it’s essentially meaningless. There’s a middle path, which may be its original intent, one according to which alignment is both meaningful and quite objective – but then it’s extremely contentious. My considered view is that alignment is either meaningless or objective in a way that many players do not like (which is accurate is undertermined – the

Ars Arcana Blog 3-1: A Party Comes Together

A Party Comes Together: A Modal Approach to Group Dynamics Travis Joseph Rodgers Ars Arcana Blog Volume III, Number 1 Two of the central struggles associated with an RPG party - as opposed to the players or the game itself - are how to bring a diverse group of characters together in the first place and how to keep them sufficiently together in the long run to keep them a party. I draw out two distinct polaristic approaches that are especially difficult to make work for most groups: hard railroad and utter chaos. I draw out a third possibility, based on modal operators (what is possible, what is necessary, what is impossible). Hard Railroad Whatever railroading is in an RPG, there is a bad version of it. Eliminating player agency altogether seems also to eliminate the role of the player. This seems antithetical to the nature of an RPG (it's a ROLE PLAYING game, after all). At the same time, what amounts to railroading will depend upon what an agent wants to do. If an agent w