Punching? How mundane...

Ok, so you're saying that by approaching it in this manner, you remove some of the issues of scale that rear up when a rule system shifts amongst genres without having to do some crazy exponential calculations - is that close?

By having something like strength, or any traditional attriute, represented more by a descriptive text, you can shift easier as there's no strict mechanical tie in?

But then you mention rolling the dice to see if the Brute can move the truck - so what does the roll represent? How does that help resolve whether or not he can move the truck?

Again, I'm curious - not trying to be atagonistic...

You have to test in order to have the possibility of failure. You have to have the possibility of failure for there to be a challenge.

Part of it is knowing what scale you are playing in, yes.  An ordinary person would never roll to pick up a heavy bag or a chunk of rock the size of a head, but they would roll if it was a large bag of gold, or their wounded comrade they had to save from incoming artillery.  A strong person wouldn't test for those, but would test to hold up a section of rock wall from collapsing long enough for their comrades to get out.

And again, depending on the 'scale' of the system, a brute might be simply rolling easier for the same tests or might be capable of feats that lesser mortals could not even attempt... in the mortal scale, a Brute might hurl a motorcycle a dozen feet.

Given the 2d6 premise, tests start at a roll against a seven, with bonuses added where appropriate.  The mortal scale (given the premise, this is 'heroic mortals' tests are open to anyone, so an ordinary human rolls brute level tests at -2, a brute rolls Strong tests at +1 (notional, mind you... I still have to write it all down and get playtesting going so I can work out exact results).

Actually, unless the situation was dire, the Brute wouldn't have to roll at all on normal or strong tests.  Likewise there needs to be some guidelines for the fact that a strong guy might successfully test to 'huck a bike', but he's not going to get as good a result as the Brute can.

I am toying with the idea of 'exhausting' things too. A Strong person might, if forced to test strength too often or too hard (say, doing a 'Brute' test) wind up temporarily only 'normal' strength... Like Fu. The other idea is to stress that advantages are not like Fu, they never go away... particularly if there is an exchange of points across a medium. Strong might cost more than a Fu that lets you be strong, but unlike the Fu, you are always strong, no matter what you do.  It's two ways of approaching it (strength could be two dots of 'Fu like' for a brute in this case)

Okay, this is sort of a kludge example of how things seem to be shaping up.

Joe, our example dude, is an ordinary run of the mill hero. He's so ordinary he doesn't even have stats or skills listed, he's a blank sheet. Note, however, that Joe is not 'unplayable' in this state.  

Right now, Joe can accomplish any ordinary task 100% of the time. He can drive his car, argue with the neighbors, even shoot a gun at the local range. These are unopposed tasks.

Hell, if we go with a 'heroic Characters' optional rule, he can even win competitions and catch street thugs, whup ass etc, as long his opponents are only ordinary NPC's... mooks if you will. Its only other PC's or 'Villians'... that is to say heroic scale NPC's threats that he has to roll.

Now, if Joe is opposed by Evil Steve, a Villian... also a blank character sheet... they are equally capable.  Joe has to roll a 7+ on 2d6 to win any contest against Evil Steve. (Alternatively, Evil Steve can also roll. the contest is a draw until only one rolls a success.  This allows for narration of events as they progress, and models how PvP contests could work.)

there is the possibility that Joe would roll and win, then Evil Steve would roll, also unopposed, and win or lose, reflecting actions that are not directly opposed.  there is also the ability to model degrees of success, for example if doing a single 'there can be only one' moment. In which case the higher roll is 'better'.

Now: Let us say that Joe is not entirely blank. Let's say that, in heroic fashion, Joe is 'strong'.  He has bought the advantage 'strong' for himself. In contests of strength, Joe has an advantage. Let's say Evil Steve bought 'dexterous', stealing from D&D for the moment for naming.

If Evil Steve opposes Joe in a weight lifting contest Joe is rolling at +1 to his dice, while Evil Steve is rolling at -1.  If, on the other hand, they were in an archery contest, Evil Steve get's the +1 and Joe the penalty. Evil Steve is much better off opposing Joe in archery.

Now, in the first example, any loss removes the loser from the fight, period.  Obviously the nature of the contest has something to do with it as well. Evil Steve doesn't die because Joe beats him at a painting contest.

If Joe and Evil Steve were in a fist fight, as blank characters, the first telling blow wins the fight.  Due to the simplicity of the characters, we could model it with the simple contest (the first person to succeed without the other wins), but as it's a fight, lets stick to a more complete example.

Joe needs to both hit, and damage, Evil Steve.  Both are opposed rolls.  Since the name of the game is 'dynamic', Evil Steve gets to roll. Joe can describe his blows however he likes, since he doesn't have any Fu, this means nothing mechanically.  Evil Steve can explain how he defends.

Defender wins ties.  

now, lets say Joe is 'Strong' and Evil Steve is 'Nimble'.  Joe can use his Strong on offense or for damage rolls. Evil Steve can use Nimble on Offense or Defense, but not for damage or resist checks.  The default assumption is that they could use them for all relevant checks, rather than one or the other, but for the purpose of this example we will treat them as "Fu", where a seperate Fu has to be used for any given purpose.  Likewise, normally Advantages don't get exhausted.

Combat is fluid, rather than static. Joe uses his Strong to punch Evil Steve, rolling at +1. Rather than use his Nimble to Dodge, Evil Steve rolls straight and uses his Nimble to strike offensively at the same time.

Joe: I punch him powerfully.

ES: I leap up over his fist and kick him in the face.

Joe rolls then to hit, Evil Steve rolls both to dodge and to kick, applying his +1 to the kick. Joe also gets to dodge the kick, Dice clatter.

Joe: I ignore your feeble blow, swatting you from the air.

(Evil Steve failed to 'hit' Joe, which Joe decided meant he didn't land a solid blow.  Evil Steve, however, failed to dodge as well, meaning Joe get's to roll his damage. However, Joe doesn't get his Strong to damage dice. Wanting to end the fight, however, Joe decides to burn his strength, removing it from the fight in return for a garaunteed 'hit' on damage.  Evil Steve can't roll his nimble to absorb the hit... since he has no Fu to oppose Joe's powerful blow, he takes damage, losing his 'Nimble' by default.  Let's say Evil Steve gets creative and wheedles the GM into letting him 'roll with the blow', absorbing the damage. He can now roll.  Defenses can exhaust Fu faster than offense, particularly since this is a 'non-standard' defence. If Evil Steve rolls doubles, his Fu is exhausted. If he FAILS his Fu is exhausted. If he fails on a double, he loses TWO... in this case losing the fight entirely as he has no other fu to burn.  Now, if Evil Steve had 'tough' instead of Nimble, he doesn't risk two Fu's on a failed double, in fact he may not have to worry about doubles at all, since Tough would be used primarily to soak damage. On the other hand, if he used Tough to 'dodge' by 'shrugging off a blow' then he'd risk exhausting it.

Why would anyone risk 'tough' that way? Presumably to reduce the threat from a Fu that had nasty damage dealing capabilities but wasn't so good at 'hitting'. Say a 'Dim Mak Death Touch' power that could exhaust two or more Fu's automatically... if it 'hit'.

That is the very rough outline of how things are shaping up. Anyone got anything good, bad or indiferent to say?

In the previous post I attempted to illuminate the barest bones of the basic system.  Now it's time to detail the 'core' of the dynamic combat system: Fu

As I've mentioned 'Fu' is rated by Dots.  Let's put a practical limit of five dot's in any given 'Fu'.  Note that exceeding Five is still possible, particularly since Fu is not directly rolled, but as each dot gets progressively bigger it's probably wiser to spread your points around some.

To begin with there are some 'Basic Fu' that anyone and everyone should have some points in. Punching, kicking, dodging... stuff like that.  These are less flexible than other Fu, being partially or wholy predefined. I lean towards partially.  Advanced Fu is your actual 'martial art' or 'super power' or what have you.

Fu is broken down into Lores and Techniques.  Every Fu starts with a lore. let's say lore is five points.  Your first dot of any Fu is going to be it's basic Lore.

Basic Fu's are limited to Lore only, no Techniques.

When you buy a second dot you may chose to either expand the Lore by Two points, or buy a technique worth 5. Splitting is 1/3 only... and may not be allowed.

Here is why this is important.

Every Fu, even the basic Fu is defined by it's own attributes. Strike, defend, damage, resist and others. Attributes include 0/1 weapons: If the fu is weapon dependent it costs 0 points from your lore (in return you get a +1 to the attributes...all four basic ones anyway), if it costs one, you can use a weapon, but it isn't required. 2 points of weapons would mean 'any weapon'.  Extra points can be bought for 'negative attributes'... like prerequiste technique (another Fu at 3) would give an additional point.   the actual list of attributes and costs will be longer than four+, but we're starting small here.

Anyway: Lore attributes are allways 'on' when using that Fu. If you roll that Fu, you get that lore bonus. Stacking Fu's is on the table, but uncertain.

Techniques are tied to Dots. If you bought a technique at 5, and you exhaust a dot of that Fu, you lost that level five technique. Techniques are specific moves or subsets of moves within the Fu itself.  I have considered making higher level Techniques worth a few extra points to prevent everyone from stacking techniques at the bottom of the pile then buying lore on top as 'cushion'.


Levels of 'exhausting':  Damage is when you lost a Fu due to enemy action. You failed a resist, for example.  Damage heals when the GM says it heals.. the default is between adventures, but the GM might allow a 'down' character to be 'healed' in time for a climactic fight, particularly if they voluntarily sat out of scenes to 'recuperate'.

Burned: the character sacrificed a Fu for an automatic success. This CAN be to resist damage. Burnt Fu comes back only after a scene has passed without the character fighting (using Fu).

Exhausted: This is Fu that came up Doubles on a check (failed check) and got 'tired'.  Characters automatically recover one exhausted Fu at the end of any fight, they also recover one if they won the fight.  It may be that trading 'two' recovered Fu's is worth one Burnt Fu.


I think there should be attributes only available as Techniques: Double Damage for example is awfully powerful sounding as a Lore, particularly if it stacked with a technique for extra double damage (three Fu for the price of one!)


Now: Some Fu's should be stackable. The basic Fu's should stack with Advanced Fu, but I don't think Advance Fu should stack with itself, or basic with itself. Perhaps buying 'stackable' should be an attribute 'may stack with Punching', say.  Perhaps, as standard, every Fu get's 'ONE' free stacking attribute. Of course, stacking punching with Sword Fu becomes problematic, though the best way to handle that is...

I guess I'm the only one working on this here, but it's easiest to keep things together, so here goes:

Armor and generic weapons combat: essentially equipment works like Fu dots. Armor gives you defensive dots to roll, and possibly sacrifice. This is just a simple explanation, obviously there might be other effects. In heroic sources things like Guns can be immune to Fu defenses, but be stopped cold by armor... in some sources. So that sort of thing should be possible in the system as well.  

Here is the thing: There is a distinct difference from picking up a gun and having dot's of Gun to use and having a 'Gun Fu' with it's own dots.  

First of all, equipment dots are preconfigured and 'untrainable'. If you buy a gun, steal a gun, lose a gun, the dots stay with the gun. The gun doesn't learn.  The Gun may even be better than a lone dot of Gun Fu...

Gun Fu, despite needing a Gun, wouldn't use the 'Gun' Dots, but it's own dots. Like any other Fu reliant on equipment, it gets bonuses from the necessary equipment built right into the beginning lore.  Gun Fu can then be trained, and in training can be configured by the player.

now, if  a Gun Fu character picks up an equipment 'Gun' he can chose EITHER to use the Gun's internal dots or his Gun Fu Dots, and risks exhausting whichever he uses as normal.  Without an equipment Gun he is normally assumed to have a 'gun' as part of his Fu, but without Dots of it's own. Unless the 'gun' is taken away from him somehow.  In fact, given the dynamics of combat, it may even be that he 'magically' produces more guns as needed until/unless they are taken from him or he exhausts his Fu.

Same with Armor, you can have equipment armor and Defensive Fu armor, and the equipment armor can be used as the Fu armor, but not vice versa.


That said I have a few problems as is: One, while I imagine this as incredibly dynamic, in and of itself it doesn't seem as dynamic as I'd like.  Right now the purpose seems merely to grind down one another's Fu dots... which in itself is problematic. Death spirals are undynamic. Where is my resolute hero, rising bloody but unbroken to lay down the serious almighty smackdown on the badguy?

Second, I haven't made much of my vaunted 'fluid inititative'.  This, at least, I think I have answers for.

I've mentioned the concept a few times, even vaguely... really vaguely illustrated it in my crude example a couple of posts ago. But what does it mean exactly?

I mean, it's one thing not to declare that there are no 'turns', it's another thing to mean it for real.  People like to break things into discreet chunks, moresoe in a structured setting like a game.

So, what does 'fluid initiative' mean? First of all, we remove the whole concept of 'rolling for initiative'.  Not unique and hardly a great accomplishment.   Now, to cease any cries of 'but how do we know who goes first!!!???''

It doesn't matter.  While we can suggest, for the purposes of description only (in other words, I would leave it out of actual game text to prevent it gaining some sort of canonicity) that combat consists of open ended 'passes', the fact is that for most contests, speed isn't an issue. I punch you, you punch me, we defend... resolve actions simultaniously for a given 'pass'.  

When does it become an issue? when one of the participants makes it an issue.

"I stop him before he hit's the girl!" "I knock him out before he connects with his unstoppable death touch!" "I chase him down and ass rape him with a longhorn steer!"

When a character or Villian makes speed an issue, then they test for it, and only then.  What stops a player from attempting to co-opt his opponents actions are two factors: One, each time you test you risk exhausting the Fu you are testing.  Secondly, if you lose, you automatically give the advantage to your opponent. That is, if you were attempting to stop them from hitting someone, you failed and they hit that someone. If you attempt to co-opt their attack, they hit.    Obviously, in the some instances your attempt to co-opt the attack is actually a form of defense. In fairness, co-opting like that would mean that the other guy doesn't test for exhaustion of the Attack Fu (though if he used one for speed, and he'd have to in order to oppose you he'd test THAT one for exhaustion... reminder that exhaustion is not tested seperately, it's part of the initial roll)

However, that still leaves us in 'turn' based combat, just without emphasis on 'order of hits'.  Not fluid, just illusionary fluidity.

Here is the thing: We make no real limit on how many attacks you can launch at once/in order.  Again, think over the top kung fu battles with flurries of attacks and so forth.  Exalted, notoriously, treats this as a single attack with multiple 'sub attacks' D&D gives us iterative attacks on the same initiative, more complex and less well known systems resolve it in a number of ways... some good and bad.

Well. As much as I like reductive initiative values for sequential actions, that isn't what I have in mind for dynamic fluid combat.

No. Here if you say 'I kick him three times rapidly with my lightning Foot Without Shadow Fu' it means literally you attack him three times. He can defend three times, that is the default, he could wait until your three attacks are over and then launch a counter attack.. that is sort of a default as well.

Or he could pre-empt your combo by declaring he catches your foot and throws you into the wall.

Here is the thing, he doesn't have to declare it until each attack is resolved seperately. Any action or reaction he takes can be declared at any point, and if the GM allows, can invalidate your stated combo at any point.  Again, it comes down to testing fu and being able to explain 'how' you do it.

And nothing stops the declaring player or GM from announcing that the triple kick is just a single overwhelming assault, leaving it to a single test either.

Now, this works with other players as well. If you are busy launching your 'triple kick' against the villian, one of his henchmen could decide as you resolve kick two, to take the blow for his boss. Or to attack you from behind, or...

Or one of your allies from cold cocking the bastard while he's busy defending against you!  

The only problem then lies in keeping it from being an unholy mess of announced actions! Obviously certain actions need to be resolved in the order they affect one another.  There is the logically concept that only one 'combo' can be in play from any player at a time, that helps a little. A player can change any 'unresolved' actions as a free reaction to declared actions, but loses the unresolved actions they have already declared. If Joe wants to dodge the attack from behind he will have to stop his triple kick, otherwise he can only resist it.






there are, of course, bonuses and penalties in combat that have nothing to do with Fu Techniques or Lores.  

Also, there is the unresolved method of handling tiered abilities. If you want to attack someone with a stealth skill, say by sneaking up on them and clocking them with a vase, you can. there is no 'clock with vase Fu' unless you invent one.  You would be then testing against your sneaky skill, instead of Fu. On the other hand, if the opponent choses to oppose your stealth with Fu, by default he wins without testing.. unless I change the relative value of Fu. If he choses to 'test' fu for an automatic win, perhaps he should still 'test' just to see if he exhausts it. Using Fu should never really be 'free' in a fight.

This leads me to discuss automatic knock outs: right now the only way to win any fight is to exhaust the other person's Fu.  There is the vague notion of 'special abilities' bought as part of technique packages that leave me the option of easier KO's, but really there should be some valid mechanism outside of advanced Fu techniques to allow for even tough opponents to be brought low even by unskilled, but lucky, enemies.  Literature is ripe with stories of the heros and villians being knocked senseless, even killed, by relative nobodies who caught them off-guard.  Likewise, if the only way to win the fight is by exhausting your opponents Fu, the entire combat comes down to resource management... hardly dynamic.  The co-opting attacks text in this post makes me think of the potential for 'gambling'. Put 'everything' behind that one, surprise, blow. If the opposed test if lost then the gambling player loses... well, everything. They missed, overextended themselves and left themselves defenseless in the face of a nasty opponent. The exact mechanism is uncertain, but certainly temporarily stripping the ability to attack or defend sounds right.   The nasty twist comes when the defending player, faced with an easy opening, decides to 'gamble' for an instant win... sounds overbalanced, but I don't think it is 'uncanon'

Dunno... thinking must be done. Be easier if people had comments. (yes, I am shamelessly begging... )

Well.... I'm mostly talking to myself now, but I guess there is value in it.

One thing I've ignored up to this point:

I have been impressed with a certain subset of 'characterization' mechanics in the past.  I'm a Fading Suns fan, I've admitted, though their 'spiritual traits' are poorly implemented they provided an interesting look at what was to come.  Better implemented by far were the beliefs mechanics of Burning Empires, which downright impressed me.   This follows too with 'Circles', though that is unrelated to what I'm about to address.

It may be a holdover from my idealistic youth, but I've long loved the idea that people, be they real or characters, could be driven to nearly superhuman efforts by things they love or desire.  I used to hold that with a powerful enough will one could stave off death indefinitely.  While I know realistically that this is untrue, for the purposes of mythic storytelling... yes, even Gaming can apply... it is a powerful tool.  One that is poorly reflected in many games.  

There is the strong temptation to reflect 'beliefs' in terms of 'Fu Dots', stealing my existant mechanic for tracking things.  At first I rebelled at this easy answer, but with a little thought I found I could, in fact, use it.

So: A character should have motivations, beliefs, or things that move him. Those things are player defined, but range from 'I must be the greatest warrior to walk the earth' or 'I love Mary Jane' or 'Democracy is the greatest form of government' to 'George Bush is a great president'. No matter how absurd or personal or even cliched and generic, if the player defines it, they can play it.  Obviously we need some rules for how to define them, rate them. Perhaps as dull as 'select three', or 'three dots worth of...'. where the player can divide up his beliefs, spreading them around or making a powerful single motivating force.

Now, one accepted benefit of this is it gives the GM an easy tool to make for interesting... to the player, Roleplaying expirences. I'm sort of crappy at this sort of thing at my table... players roam about willy nilly and the NPC's are dull and lifeless if the PC's don't seek them out for interesting conversations..

Now, I am tempted to allow for belief 'dot's to be divided up into lore style ratings, but I think that's too complex, going too far.  Let's leave them as 'generic' Dots.

Here is how it works: Dots are used just like Fu dots, they can allow a roll where no roll was allowed before (for lack of an appropriate Fu), can be burnt, exhausted or otherwised used... as long as the Motivation is being challenged. Mary Jane falling to her death? Use the 'I love MJ' Dot to pull some incredibly daring rescue attempt. Burn it for an automatic success even!  Someone else going to marry MJ? use the Dot to whup the badguy to impress her... or get involved in a cross country chase to let her know you are still alive; any time something threatens the success of that mission, the Motivation is 'in play', there for the player's use.

By itself it's pretty dull, extra hit points mostly I suppose. I figure, using the Kung Fu Movie method, however, to swap a Motivation Dot for an actual Fu dot.  If a Motivation Dot has been exhausted or burnt in a fight that the player LOST (and here we get to GM advice that players losing to the big bad should not, generally, be the end of the game... or even a 'bad thing') they can, via a 'training montage' trade it for a free dot of Fu.   Fu is more useful as it provides actual modifiers to rolls and can be used 'whenever', while the lost Motivation dot can be 'regained' easier than Fu can be gained.

Obviously this needs refinement.

The idea of 'social circles' built into the character are much easier to put in. Again we rate things in dots, but unlike Beliefs, social dots are definitely broken into 'lore' points.  You have things like 'connections' and 'freinds' and the like, the exact list is still murky, but your ability to tap your Social Dots is dependent upon how the player views their character. Some people will have lots of individuals they know personally, others are more removed but will know a lot about how the subculture functions, maybe who the movers and shakers are.  Like all other 'dot' rated mechanics, social dots can be exhausted or burnt, the more you use them the more likely you are to weaken your ability.

Sorry Spike - I've been away from the Internet for a little bit (and going through withdrawl...)

So I'm going to start back a bit and try to catch up.

Quote from: SpikeIf Evil Steve opposes Joe in a weight lifting contest Joe is rolling at +1 to his dice, while Evil Steve is rolling at -1. If, on the other hand, they were in an archery contest, Evil Steve get's the +1 and Joe the penalty. Evil Steve is much better off opposing Joe in archery.

Now, in the first example, any loss removes the loser from the fight, period. Obviously the nature of the contest has something to do with it as well. Evil Steve doesn't die because Joe beats him at a painting contest.

OK, why is Steve rolling at -1? I get why Joe is at +1, he bought the Strong advantage.  But wouldn't Steve, who is of "heroic" level to start (even with the blank sheet) just going to be rolling at even?

Quote from: SpikeIf Joe and Evil Steve were in a fist fight, as blank characters, the first telling blow wins the fight. Due to the simplicity of the characters, we could model it with the simple contest (the first person to succeed without the other wins), but as it's a fight, lets stick to a more complete example.

Joe needs to both hit, and damage, Evil Steve. Both are opposed rolls. Since the name of the game is 'dynamic', Evil Steve gets to roll. Joe can describe his blows however he likes, since he doesn't have any Fu, this means nothing mechanically. Evil Steve can explain how he defends.

Defender wins ties.

You can have the fight be as simple or complicated as you want, yes?  I mean, it seems you could have conflict resolution level here, if desired, just by describing the fight in general and then rolling.

Now, they get to describe their intentions, yes?  Joe says he'll try to punch very hard to get his Strong advantage and Steve will say I attempt to dodge the lumbering punch of Joe to get his "Agile" advantage. Then the rolls occur and the actual even is determined by the dice, yes? And in this case, only if Joe (with advantages) beats Steve (with advantages) will he succeed.

And after Joe hits, a followup contest would be held to see if/how Joe damages.  So Joe, again, describes punching with all his might at Steve's jaw. Steve says will wil try to tumble backwards to absorb some of the damage of the impending blow.

Is that it? Before the Fu I see coming, I mean.

EDIT: OK, rereading the example helps clarify...nevermind.

Quote from: SpikeIn the previous post I attempted to illuminate the barest bones of the basic system.  Now it's time to detail the 'core' of the dynamic combat system: Fu

As I've mentioned 'Fu' is rated by Dots.  Let's put a practical limit of five dot's in any given 'Fu'.  Note that exceeding Five is still possible, particularly since Fu is not directly rolled, but as each dot gets progressively bigger it's probably wiser to spread your points around some.

To begin with there are some 'Basic Fu' that anyone and everyone should have some points in. Punching, kicking, dodging... stuff like that.  These are less flexible than other Fu, being partially or wholy predefined. I lean towards partially.  Advanced Fu is your actual 'martial art' or 'super power' or what have you.

Fu is broken down into Lores and Techniques.  Every Fu starts with a lore. let's say lore is five points.  Your first dot of any Fu is going to be it's basic Lore.

Basic Fu's are limited to Lore only, no Techniques.

When you buy a second dot you may chose to either expand the Lore by Two points, or buy a technique worth 5. Splitting is 1/3 only... and may not be allowed.

Here is why this is important.

Every Fu, even the basic Fu is defined by it's own attributes. Strike, defend, damage, resist and others. Attributes include 0/1 weapons: If the fu is weapon dependent it costs 0 points from your lore (in return you get a +1 to the attributes...all four basic ones anyway), if it costs one, you can use a weapon, but it isn't required. 2 points of weapons would mean 'any weapon'.  Extra points can be bought for 'negative attributes'... like prerequiste technique (another Fu at 3) would give an additional point.   the actual list of attributes and costs will be longer than four+, but we're starting small here.

Anyway: Lore attributes are allways 'on' when using that Fu. If you roll that Fu, you get that lore bonus. Stacking Fu's is on the table, but uncertain.

Techniques are tied to Dots. If you bought a technique at 5, and you exhaust a dot of that Fu, you lost that level five technique. Techniques are specific moves or subsets of moves within the Fu itself.  I have considered making higher level Techniques worth a few extra points to prevent everyone from stacking techniques at the bottom of the pile then buying lore on top as 'cushion'.


Levels of 'exhausting':  Damage is when you lost a Fu due to enemy action. You failed a resist, for example.  Damage heals when the GM says it heals.. the default is between adventures, but the GM might allow a 'down' character to be 'healed' in time for a climactic fight, particularly if they voluntarily sat out of scenes to 'recuperate'.

Burned: the character sacrificed a Fu for an automatic success. This CAN be to resist damage. Burnt Fu comes back only after a scene has passed without the character fighting (using Fu).

Exhausted: This is Fu that came up Doubles on a check (failed check) and got 'tired'.  Characters automatically recover one exhausted Fu at the end of any fight, they also recover one if they won the fight.  It may be that trading 'two' recovered Fu's is worth one Burnt Fu.


I think there should be attributes only available as Techniques: Double Damage for example is awfully powerful sounding as a Lore, particularly if it stacked with a technique for extra double damage (three Fu for the price of one!)


Now: Some Fu's should be stackable. The basic Fu's should stack with Advanced Fu, but I don't think Advance Fu should stack with itself, or basic with itself. Perhaps buying 'stackable' should be an attribute 'may stack with Punching', say.  Perhaps, as standard, every Fu get's 'ONE' free stacking attribute. Of course, stacking punching with Sword Fu becomes problematic, though the best way to handle that is...

OK..I'm sorry.  I'm confused about the relationship between Dots and Points and what you use to buy "at five"

I'm also a little confused on how you differentitate Lore versus Technique - can you have more than one Technique for a Lore? And you only buy one Technique for a Lore, but then keep adding points to it? Does that give you more Dots?

Maybe I'm just tired....

Okay... here is how it goes with lores and techniques.

Lets say you have 'Tiger Claw Fu'.

The first Dot you buy gives you five points of 'Tiger Claw Lore' automatically. You divide it up, and this is what makes your 'tiger claw' different from your 'Crane's Wing'.

Now, you define Tiger Claw Fu as an unarmed Fu, which costs 0 points.  You decide, however, that Tiger Claw is an incredibly aggressive Fu, useless on the defence but powerful on offence.

So, you put your five points like this :Attack +2
                                                  Damage +3

nothing in defence or resistance.  

Now, whenever you do ANYTHING with Tiger Fu, you roll +2 on attacks and +3 on damage, but roll only straight dice for defence.

Now, you get another dot of Tiger Claw.  You can get more points of lore, which add to the existing lore, OR you can buy a technique. Let's say you buy a technique, and you call it 'Blades of the tiger'.

You make 'Blades of the Tiger' require a weapon.  This is also a 'zero point' decision, you can only use blades of the tiger if you have the right weapon.  Notice that you still get to use your Tiger Claw lore, even though it was bought 'weapon-less'.  

Now, you have five points in the technique.  Having a weapon gives you certain weapon advantages but well leave those alone for the moment.  The technique you decide gives you

Attack +1
Damage +1
Defence +2
Resistance +1

The attack and damage ratings add to the Lore, the defence and resistance also adds to the lore, but as that was zero...

Here is the thing. Let's say you use your Tiger Claw Fu in a fight.  In the first exchange you exhaust a dot of the Tiger Claw Fu.  You only have one dot of TC Fu left over.  Since your "Blades of the Tiger" is a 'Two Dot technique' you can no longer use it. And since you are currently holding a weapon, you can't use your TC Fu until you drop them, as the Lore is unarmed.  

Now, lets say you get a third dot of Tiger Claw Fu later down the line. If you buy another technique...

It doesn't stack with the previous technique. You have to declare you are using Blades of the Tiger, your old technique, or Breath of the Tiger, your new technique.. one OR the other.

On the other hand, you could use that third dot instead to get more Lore Points.  Let's say you get two points of Lore.  You spend one point to make Tiger Claw Fu useful armed or unarmed (a one point ability) and spend the second point of lore on 'resistance'. Now you can roll TC fu for resistance checks without risking exhausting it too easily.

Make sense?

Quote from: James J SkachYou can have the fight be as simple or complicated as you want, yes?  I mean, it seems you could have conflict resolution level here, if desired, just by describing the fight in general and then rolling.

Now, they get to describe their intentions, yes?  Joe says he'll try to punch very hard to get his Strong advantage and Steve will say I attempt to dodge the lumbering punch of Joe to get his "Agile" advantage. Then the rolls occur and the actual even is determined by the dice, yes? And in this case, only if Joe (with advantages) beats Steve (with advantages) will he succeed.

And after Joe hits, a followup contest would be held to see if/how Joe damages.  So Joe, again, describes punching with all his might at Steve's jaw. Steve says will wil try to tumble backwards to absorb some of the damage of the impending blow.

Is that it? Before the Fu I see coming, I mean.

EDIT: OK, rereading the example helps clarify...nevermind.

Yeah, descriptions are a problem. The goal is to make it integral to the play to describe things. Not to force it necessarily, but to make it natural.  I have an idea that the winner of the contest get's to describe the outcome, but again without mechanically forcing it.  In the case of Joe and Steve, where neither one has Fu to add to the contests, there isn't a powerful need to 'renarrate' the damage/resistance exchange.  Joe already leveled a powerful blow, Evil Steve failed to dodge.   Now, if I get more ambitious, Joe could go 'Evil Steve attempts to leap over my blow to kick me in the face, I grab his leg and slam him into the ground before he can' which would interrupt Evil Steve's attack action.  

So the Fluid initiative would go like this

Joe attacks, Steve dodges and declares his attack in return.

Steve misses the attack, and rather than just roll damage, Joe attempts to interrupt Steve's attack AND do damage., resolve before Steve's attack'

So, as long as Joe keeps winning contests he can keep Steve on teh defensive just by interruption.  Joe gambles his damage roll to stop Steve. If he wins he still does his damage AND stops Steve, if he fails he gave up his damage roll and Steve still gets to roll his 'kick in the face' check.

Now: More complexity: addative successes.

If Joe wins the contest by one, he gets a +1 on his next roll, be it damage or in the case of our above 'changed action' example his 'interrupt'.  If he wins by 2 he gets +2 and so on.  If he keeps putting off his Damage roll and keeps winning interrupt attacks he can stack a huge bonus to the damage check.

Now this is where it gets interesting. Players can gamble in various ways.

Let's say Evil Steve is using really powerful kick Fu. Let's say Evil Steve has some obscene bonus, say +5 to Attacks with his kick, but only a +1 to damage checks.  Joe could attempt to avoid the attack, but his best defensive Fu is incredibly weak. He could gamble and decide to 'take the hit' Evil Steve doesn't get to roll his attack, which means two things
a) he doesn't risk exhausting his Fu
b) he doesn't get to add to his damage check.

Now it's a damage check against Joe's resistance Fu. Maybe Joe really gambles, he figures that Steve can't make the 7 on the damage roll with the pitiful damage his kick does.  Joe can chose to 'take the hit'...if Steve makes the 7 Joe loses a Fu of his choice.  
Joe can resist. If he beats Steve's roll then Steve failed to hurt him, though Joe could theoretically lose the Fu anyway. Joe could fail, in which case he automatically loses the Fu he resisted with, and if he exhausts it (rolls really badly) he might lose an additional Fu as well.

Note: Steve still has to roll, even if Joe doesn't resist, on the Damage check. Damaging objects always demands a roll unless the object is 'fragile'. Joe is not Fragile (though he COULD be if he took it as his disadvantage).  If Joe was Tough, Steve might have to beat an 8 on his damage check.



As for the previous question about why Joe or Steve are rolling at penalties: that's due to unresolved questions about how to apply bonuses and penalties. A strong guy against a 'not strong' guy in a contest of strength might have two advantages... his own strength (making his rolls easier) and his opponents comparative weakness (making his opponent work twice as hard).

That's not set in stone, and I don't know how applicable it should be to Fu yet.  One idea is to keep bonuses to rolls to relatively small numbers, despite the fact that they can be raised pretty high.

Quote from: SpikeOkay... here is how it goes with lores and techniques.

Lets say you have 'Tiger Claw Fu'.

The first Dot you buy gives you five points of 'Tiger Claw Lore' automatically. You divide it up, and this is what makes your 'tiger claw' different from your 'Crane's Wing'.

Now, you define Tiger Claw Fu as an unarmed Fu, which costs 0 points.  You decide, however, that Tiger Claw is an incredibly aggressive Fu, useless on the defence but powerful on offence.

So, you put your five points like this :Attack +2
                                                  Damage +3

nothing in defence or resistance.  

Now, whenever you do ANYTHING with Tiger Fu, you roll +2 on attacks and +3 on damage, but roll only straight dice for defence.

Now, you get another dot of Tiger Claw.  You can get more points of lore, which add to the existing lore, OR you can buy a technique. Let's say you buy a technique, and you call it 'Blades of the tiger'.

You make 'Blades of the Tiger' require a weapon.  This is also a 'zero point' decision, you can only use blades of the tiger if you have the right weapon.  Notice that you still get to use your Tiger Claw lore, even though it was bought 'weapon-less'.  

Now, you have five points in the technique.  Having a weapon gives you certain weapon advantages but well leave those alone for the moment.  The technique you decide gives you

Attack +1
Damage +1
Defence +2
Resistance +1

The attack and damage ratings add to the Lore, the defence and resistance also adds to the lore, but as that was zero...

Here is the thing. Let's say you use your Tiger Claw Fu in a fight.  In the first exchange you exhaust a dot of the Tiger Claw Fu.  You only have one dot of TC Fu left over.  Since your "Blades of the Tiger" is a 'Two Dot technique' you can no longer use it. And since you are currently holding a weapon, you can't use your TC Fu until you drop them, as the Lore is unarmed.  

Now, lets say you get a third dot of Tiger Claw Fu later down the line. If you buy another technique...

It doesn't stack with the previous technique. You have to declare you are using Blades of the Tiger, your old technique, or Breath of the Tiger, your new technique.. one OR the other.

On the other hand, you could use that third dot instead to get more Lore Points.  Let's say you get two points of Lore.  You spend one point to make Tiger Claw Fu useful armed or unarmed (a one point ability) and spend the second point of lore on 'resistance'. Now you can roll TC fu for resistance checks without risking exhausting it too easily.

Make sense?

This is a great description/write-up/example/explanation - much better, thanks.

I like it alot - sounds interesting.  My only concern would be keeping track of it all during game play.

I'll let it digest before commenting on specifics, but overall, sounds really cool and flexible but in a systemic way - very nice design approach.

Spike - it's all very cool.  I like the "fluid" initiative.

All I can say is - lots of play examples.  I'm not familiar with a lot of other games, so I cant' say this is or is not like anything else.  I can say it's not like anything I've ever played, and is different enough that I'd need lot's of examples.

Take these recent exchanges. I'm sure it makes perfect sense in your head.  I bet if there's anything like it, and people have played it, it makes sense to them.

But I want to play it - only I'm intimidated by it. Examples of play that explain how these various choices affect play are a great help in easing that discomfort.

And I love the gambling aspect - that a character can decide to forgo something for the possible greater payoff but at increased risk.  Fantastic, I just need to read it three or four (dozen) times to comment in any specific way.

Fair enough?

Hopefully things like Lores and Techniques will be a lot easier to absorb when presented properly within the context of actually creating a character.  Those make perfect sense.

The issue with Fluid Initiative is working out... and clearly knowing... the order things get resolved in.  Every interaction gets resolved in turn. Right now, unfortunately, its looking like the GM gets to do a fair amount of arbitration.

In our Joe vs Steve example it seems to work perfectly smoothly, even if it's hard to convey.  The problem comes in when Frank jumps into the fight. Who decides when Frank get's to roll?  The GM.  

That's fine, but it would be nice to have a good framework in place. One of my biggest complaints with the Riddle of Steel when I reviewed it was that any fight involving mulitple people rapidly became impossible to fairly run.

 Right now I really need to work up a crude, functional list of 'advantages', maybe work with my players to add to it.  It's too early to playtest what I've got, even informally 'in house'...

EDIT::: to be honest, I can't think of any game I have that looks just like it. There are elements of it that seem familiar, but the overall whole is more unique than I expected when I started out.