Here's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

Armor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken. Conceptually, people understand absorbing damage better, but it is often simpler to abstract that to preventing hits. So, go for reducing damage if the flavor is more important, and go with preventing hits if speed of resolution is more important.

Initiative can be thought of two ways as well, though both focus on "when". These are "when you do something" or "when you do something that matters." In a game that attempts to model the real world or a fairly realistic genre, a look at statistics says the vast majority of blows or shots attempted fail, even when the person acting is trained. Thus with the first concept of initiative, you tend to get get a very short round, with lots of misses, either by target avoidance, blocking and parrying, or by a low chance of hitting. The second concept leads to long rounds with a much higher chance of hitting, but very few actual attempts over that round, because the misses are assumed and not attempted. Changing the ratio of hits over time higher leads to non-realistic combat, which may be your design goal.

Damage in the real world is mostly random. People have survived multiple hits with a machine gun, and died from a single stab with a kitchen knife, yet if you ask people which is deadlier, they will say the machine gun. In games, damage is what you want it to be. In a gritty game, a single stab with a kitchen knife should potentially kill, while in a cinematic game, a character should be able to absorb multiple potentially deadly blows. The problem, of course, comes in modeling the real world, where both should be true. A gritty game need not be realistic, and occasional cinematic results should be expected in a realistic game. With tools like wound levels and penalties, you can make a game seem grittier than it is without them. With tools like luck and hero points, you can make a game seem more cinematic than it would otherwise. Find the sweet spot you want in the game, and build the rest around it.

-clash

I must be a heretic...because I'm pretty much agreeing with your points and observations 100%

I love you, you damned hippy.

"What clash said."

I'm Mcrow, and I approve this message.

Blinks...

MWA?

-clash

Heretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

Quote from: DwightHeretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

That's why God gave unto roleplayers the Intimidate Skill/Intimidation Check.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceHere's my heretical thoughts on combat, in no particular order:

Armor prevents damage. This can be done in game by preventing hits, or by absorbing damage. Statistically, either way works just fine. It doesn't matter for game purposes which method is used. Ultimately, the point is reducing average damage taken. Conceptually, people understand absorbing damage better, but it is often simpler to abstract that to preventing hits. So, go for reducing damage if the flavor is more important, and go with preventing hits if speed of resolution is more important.

And some of us go for both...silly rabbit!

Quote from: flyingmiceInitiative can be thought of two ways as well, though both focus on "when". These are "when you do something" or "when you do something that matters." In a game that attempts to model the real world or a fairly realistic genre, a look at statistics says the vast majority of blows or shots attempted fail, even when the person acting is trained. Thus with the first concept of initiative, you tend to get get a very short round, with lots of misses, either by target avoidance, blocking and parrying, or by a low chance of hitting. The second concept leads to long rounds with a much higher chance of hitting, but very few actual attempts over that round, because the misses are assumed and not attempted. Changing the ratio of hits over time higher leads to non-realistic combat, which may be your design goal.

hmm, sounding familiar....

Quote from: flyingmiceDamage in the real world is mostly random. People have survived multiple hits with a machine gun, and died from a single stab with a kitchen knife, yet if you ask people which is deadlier, they will say the machine gun. In games, damage is what you want it to be. In a gritty game, a single stab with a kitchen knife should potentially kill, while in a cinematic game, a character should be able to absorb multiple potentially deadly blows. The problem, of course, comes in modeling the real world, where both should be true. A gritty game need not be realistic, and occasional cinematic results should be expected in a realistic game. With tools like wound levels and penalties, you can make a game seem grittier than it is without them. With tools like luck and hero points, you can make a game seem more cinematic than it would otherwise. Find the sweet spot you want in the game, and build the rest around it.

-clash

I guess I agree though what you conflate here is play style and system. I dare say you can get a similar effect with proper narration (and I mean that word like it appears in the dictionary bitches! )

That said, I think you are speaking around what I call the Elements of a game. Those aspects of play style the group enjoys.

Bill

Quote from: DwightHeretical thoughts on combat would be more like: You don't need to hit to succeed. You just need to successfully threaten.

Quite so.

I had a system, way back when, where I played with the idea of totally dropping anything that would be considered combat. It would all be a battle of wits or intimidation. Essentially, it would allow for defeating your opponent in a debate or in combat with a similar system. I used it for a pulp setting I called "Bizaar Tales!". PRetty simple system when you boiled it down using stats as your Conviction and Courage. The beauty of it was the ability to swap in any stat, make up a new one, and model something I had not seen in the original design.

Bill

Quote from: HinterWeltAnd some of us go for both...silly rabbit!

Of course. You can go partly damage absorbing and partly hit avoiding. That works perfectly well too.

Quotehmm, sounding familiar....

It's one way of handling combat. If you have 10 six second rounds and a 5% chance of hitting each round, that is statistically identical to having a one-minute round with a single 50% chance of hitting. The first increases the handling time and flavor, the second decreases both. You can again go somewhere between the two. I'm not trying to exclude the middle, just mark out reference points.

QuoteI guess I agree though what you conflate here is play style and system. I dare say you can get a similar effect with proper narration (and I mean that word like it appears in the dictionary bitches! )

That said, I think you are speaking around what I call the Elements of a game. Those aspects of play style the group enjoys.

Bill

System and playstyle naturally conflate, which is why you get a different experience playing one game as opposed to another. You can force any game to match any playstyle, but it's usually easier to get the playstyle you want by matching it with a system predisposed to that playstyle. That's why the forge guys correctly say ""system matters." It does matter. Other things, like setting and group practices, also matter though, so system isn't the only thing that matters, and it isn't necessarily the most important thing.

I think what you are calling Elements of a game are a group of nebulously related things that taken together establish the overall flavor of a game. Am I correct?

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceBlinks...

MWA?

-clash

I'm being dense. What does MWA mean?

Quote from: One Horse TownI'm being dense. What does MWA mean?

It's the sound I make when I am utterly shocked and surprised.

-clash

I thought it was more the sound my grandmother used to make when she planted a big sloppy wet kiss on my cheek when I was a kid.

Quote from: HinterWeltQuite so.

I had a system, way back when, where I played with the idea of totally dropping anything that would be considered combat. It would all be a battle of wits or intimidation. Essentially, it would allow for defeating your opponent in a debate or in combat with a similar system. I used it for a pulp setting I called "Bizaar Tales!". PRetty simple system when you boiled it down using stats as your Conviction and Courage. The beauty of it was the ability to swap in any stat, make up a new one, and model something I had not seen in the original design.

Bill

Yeah? So where is it?