Skip to main content

Ars Arcana Blog: Combat and Conversation (First Strike)


Combat and Conversation 2: Advantages (First Strike)
Travis Joseph Rodgers

In the last blog, I presented a general system for quickly resolving combat. There, I assumed that the combatants were equal in all regards. Because combatants are not often equal in all regards, in this section I introduce some new wrinkles – advantages. If someone has an advantage in a combat, the advantage can likely be categorized in one of the following ways: one opponent has greater effective strike range (RANGE), one has greater speed (SPEED), one has greater accuracy (ACCURACY), one has greater capacity for devastation (DAMAGE), one has different capacity to deal damage of a certain type (TYPE), one has greater ability to dodge (DODGE), or one has greater ability to “shrug” (ARMOR) damage or “deal with”/"soak" damage despite being struck (HEALTH). There may be further types of advantage, like situational and positional advantages, but for the time being let’s suppose that we can reclassify other types of advantage to these types. And if we cannot, then we’ll tweak when needed.

First Strike
Range and Speed are centrally tied to which combatant will have the first opportunity to land a blow. There is good reason to suppose that landing the first strike affords an advantage. Consider how "first strike" plays out in sports. Note: The claim is not that sports are like combats (though they are in some ways). It is, however, easier to find data on scoring first in sports than it is to find such data on combats. So, note the correlation between scoring first in sports and winning the game/match:
~57% chance in NFL football that team landing first score wins
~59% to ~67% chance in MLB baseball
~67% in hockey
~61%-71% chance in Premiership soccer

It's an interesting question whether the better team is more likely to score first because of its superiority or whether a team is more likely to win because it scores first. It's probably not worth digging too deeply into this question for our purposes. My a priori hunch is that the causation can work both ways. We can, for the time, treat them as separate attributes: being better generally vs. being more likely to land the first blow.

Systems that employ initiative (determining combat order) do so on the bases of the speed and range considerations, for the most part. The role of initiative is both to structure combat and to model the first strike influence. The first strike influences combat outcomes in a variety of ways. Landing the first blow often means that the opposition is now at a deficit in some other way with respect to the attacker. For instance, an attack may inflict damage, may rend armor, may decrease the speed and accuracy of the defender, etc. Because of these reasons, the initiative roll/calculation makes good sense. Consider a somewhat concrete application of the initiative roll.

A group of infantry approaches on foot against a group of infantry and archery. The archers have a range advantage, so they gain the first strike unless the infantry somehow surprises them or neutralizes their range advantage. But note that the archers could choose to hold off on their attack in order to gain some other tactical advantage. For instance, if the archers could shoot a maximum distance shot of, say, 300 meters, they might trade those inaccurate long distance shots for more accurate, medium distance shots. They might even trade for increasingly deadly shots that might hit their own infantry once the two sides are very close.

Once those infantry groups close, one group may have a speed advantage. If one group is attacking with heavy clubs and the other is attacking with light spears, the spear side may gain advantage because of longer reach and also because of the faster motion of stabbing as opposed to hacking. A jab might gain a speed advantage over a haymaker or roundhouse kick. What some of these attacks trade in terms of lower speed is a greater expected payoff in terms of accuracy or, more likely, damage.

In brief, the group that wins initiative has first strike capability, but they have the option of delaying that attack. This feature is reflected in some systems as an "attack of opportunity." Thinking about what an attack of opportunity entails will be the topic for a further blog post. In this case, the goal has simply been to discuss the range advantage and the speed advantage and to note how to model that in a game without excessive complexity. To be even briefer: initiative is a good idea.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

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
3 comments
Read more

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
1 comment
Read more

Ars Arcana Blog: Spell Points, Slots, and Abilities

Ars Arcana Blog 2.4:  Spells: Points, Slots, and Abilities Travis Joseph Rodgers Do spellcasters in your game use spell points, spell slots, or can they call upon spells like other abilities (like climbing, throwing, and hacking)? Here are three potential problems your magic system will have to deal with and three approaches to solving those problems, with strengths and weaknesses of each approach considered. Part I: The Approaches These three approaches may not be exhaustive, but they do a good job of capturing the typical range of options one might see in an RPG. They are differentiated by the frequency one can cast and the relative customizability of the power of a “readied” spell. Spell Points (SP) Pool of points. Each spell has a cost. More points for more powerful spells. Systems: MERP, Role Master. E.g., Merlin and Magic Martha both cast “flame bolt” spell. Merlin easily pumps a dozen spell points into it, making it devastate his opponents. Martha fumbles
3 comments
Read more