What is an "Action Movie RPG"?

I've described this system as "my own little action-movie RPG". Just yesterday, the question came up: What do I mean by that? Since this goes to the heart of what I intend the system to be, I thought I'd give a good answer.

1. It's an RPG. It's not a storygame, not a larp, not a wargame. You sit around the table, rolling dice, joking with each other. The players play characters, the GM runs everything else. If you're good and decent people, there's soda, pizza, and chips involved at some point.

Everything else is subordinate to this. If something ruins the RPG-ness of it, or ruins the play of the game, it's out.

2. It's an action movie game. The mechanics of the game are meant to allow for, and encourage, the feel and events of action movies: fast-paced scenes, furious combats, confrontations and duels, sardonic quips, and heroism.

So how do I do that?

Fast-paced action depends on mechanics that are as simple as they can be, keeping in mind other considerations. Combat is 1 roll, 1 stat for each combatant, and one simple mechanic for damage (said mechanic being used everywhere else). The other mechanics are equally straightforward.

Simple, clear, direct. That's my motto.

Furious combats are implemented by giving players something to fight for every single round. Combat isn't just about killing the enemy, it's a fight to gain or keep the Initiative. (I'll explain this in a bit.)

Confrontations and duels depend on the combat and social rules, so I've made sure that the same rules that work for parties also work for individuals.

Sardonic quips? Combat Interaction skills. Taunt, Intimidate, Overbear, and so on. These provide benefits in combat, and can be quite useful.

Heroism? Well, other than the bit in the XP rules, that's pretty much up to the players and GM. Everyone has a different definition of heroism — some like or prefer anti-heroes, others don't — so I leave that to them. A smidgen of subtle nudging here and there, but nothing overbearing.

Then I made the rules amenable to description, so GM's can bring the world to life. Plus a mechanic to encourage player descriptions of character actions. This doesn't directly implement any of the action-movie goals, but it does make the game world come alive a little bit more.

The above goals and ideas may not be obvious to people reading these posts, but I do have a clear concept of what I want the game to be. Everything in the game is built to support that.

(With that out of the way, I'm gearing up to start Combat again. Hopefully tomorrow.)

Part 1, Again. Again.
Combat, pt. 1

Since the last post, I've had some discussions with The List and my playtesters, run some numbers in Numbers, prototyped weapon damage and Wound variants, and put together at least 5 different versions of the central combat mechanic. The following rule (which will seem very familiar) is the end result of all that.

We'll start with skills. Everything, including combat, is based around skills.

Your Firearms skill is used for guns and energy weapons, your Melee skill is used for punching and swords, your Missile Weapons skill is used for bows and crossbows. Like all skills, you have Skill Points (reflecting your training and experience) and a bonus from an Attribute.

Example: 7 Skill Points +3 bonus = 10 Skill Rating.

Then there are defensive skills, like Dodge and Melee. (Melee both attacks and defends.) Skill Ratings for these are calculated exactly the same way.

Weapons have a Damage Rating (calculated in different ways for different weapons). For an assault rifle, this is a flat value: an AK-47 does Damage 18.

Last, armor. All characters and objects have a Toughness, which measures their resistance to damage. For people, this is their Endurance attribute, plus a modifier for the armor worn, if any: a leather jacker provides +2, a Kevlar vest +5.

Example: Endurance 10, +0 (no armor) = Toughness 10.

So how do we do combat? The attacker picks a weapon, say the AK-47. They take their Firearms Skill and add it to their Damage Rating. That's their Attack Rating.

The defender takes their defense Skill (in this case, Dodge) and adds it to their Toughness. That's their Defense Rating.

Like all mechanics in this system, you roll a bonus and add it to the Attack. Compare that to the Defense, and calculate Success Levels (1 SL for every 3 Points). Each Success Level is 1 Wound, plus 1 Stun for 0 SL.

Let's run the numbers, using the examples above:

Attack Rating: Firearms Skill 10 + AK-47 Damage 18 = Attack 28

Defense Rating: Dodge Skill 10 + Toughness 10 = Defense 20

The Attack: Roll +0. Attack 28 - Defense 20 = result 8. This is 2 Success Levels, or 2 Wounds + 1 Stun.

That's it. 1 game value for attacker and defender, 1 roll, period, 1 simple mechanic for damage (the same that's used everywhere else). There is no fundamental difference between combat and any other skill check. If you can count by threes, you can play the game.

Wait! I Got A Question!
Combat, pt. 2

"You add your Damage Rating to your Skill to Attack. Doesn't this mean a really big Damage Rating helps people hit more often?"

It's a really good question, with a really simple answer that operates in two dimensions, the theoretical and the practical: No. No, it doesn't.

Theoretical: No, because you're not hitting more often, you're doing better on an attack.

When you thrust with a sword, loose an arrow, or squeeze the trigger of a sniper rifle, there's no "to-hit" or "damage".  There's just the attack.

You do well, you do more damage. You screw the pooch, you don't. Either way, there's just the attack.

And more powerful weapons make for more effective attacks. By definition.

There are four elements in each Combat Challenge: weapon Damage, attacker Skill, Toughness, and defender Skill. The role of each must be comparable to the rest: no one element can predominate. To see if weapon Damage does, I ran the numbers.

I took all sorts of characters, from the most pathetic specimens of humanity imaginable to experienced PC's, and gave them all sorts of weapons, from large caliber assault rifles to plasma weapons designed to burn holes in the side of tanks. I then faced the characters off against each other, and recorded the results.

At every level, bigger guns meant more damage. (Obviously.) But the damage was never disproportionate to the (very favorable) shooting conditions: the target was 4 meters (12 feet) away, in the open, standing still, not wearing any armor. (This maximized the damage done, to make the rule look as bad as possible.)

Even in such overwhelmingly favorable conditions, against an assault rifle, wholly incompetent attackers didn't enjoy walk-away victories. They killed equally statted people, but average people were only hurt, not killed (assuming a roll of 0). As for the experienced characters... sometimes not even that.

In other words, the outcomes made sense. Which is fairly high praise for a game mechanic.

In other, other words, no — a high damage weapon doesn't make bumbling jackasses into supa ninjas. It does, however, allow them to do better on an attack.

Now, playtesting is very different from number crunching. And it can reveal flaws that have previously gone overlooked.

If playtesting indicates weapon Damage is still too high, I've already prototyped two different solutions. So I'm not real worried about this.

On the other hand, it is a very good question and exactly the sort of thing I need to pay attention to. Thanks to the two commenters who brought it up: Dominick Reisland (back in 2012, I believe) and Phil Dack.

I'll start covering the effects of damage — Wounds and Shock — tomorrow.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;733357And more powerful weapons make for more effective attacks. By definition.

To me it still comes down to why a weapon is effective, or not, in a given situation.

I can imagine a number of situations with small quick targets, where power is not really an issue---because you can probably take out the target---if you can hit it. But the real problem is that you can't hit it.

For a somewhat extreme example, I could visualize going after a house-fly with various different weapons. I don't think that the heavier, more powerful weapons, would be any better in that situation than the lighter ones.

Now, I will admit that I can't remember actually trying to kill a house-fly in any RPG situation. But there are a number of possible targets that would tend to fit a similar (small, fast, hard-to-hit) profile. For example, creatures such as pixies.

Quote from: warp9;734016To me it still comes down to why a weapon is effective, or not, in a given situation.

I can imagine a number of situations with small quick targets, where power is not really an issue---because you can probably take out the target---if you can hit it. But the real problem is that you can't hit it.

For a somewhat extreme example, I could visualize going after a house-fly with various different weapons. I don't think that the heavier, more powerful weapons, would be any better in that situation than the lighter ones.

Now, I will admit that I can't remember actually trying to kill a house-fly in any RPG situation. But there are a number of possible targets that would tend to fit a similar (small, fast, hard-to-hit) profile. For example, creatures such as pixies.

I concur. I'd also add that more powerful attacks are not always more likely to succeed. Consider rolling a boulder down a hill. It will do enormous amounts of damage if it hits, but it's not all that likely to hit.

And then you have the shotgun, which becomes more likely to hit the further away you are from the target but will also do progressively less damage.

[Sorry about the posting gap. I've been writing up material for Storm Knights that's being posted in a couple of places. I hope to get back to a regular schedule soon. Also, if you're interested in the Q&A session about ∞ Infinity and Storm Knights, check it out here: http://gmshoe.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/qa-jasyn-jones-infinity-gaming-system/.]

Pixie Problems?
Combat, pt. 3

Warp9 asked a good question about very tiny and very fast targets, like pixies. The suggestion is that these tiny, fast targets should be difficult to hit, but that low-skilled characters wielding high DV weapons would be able to hit them and kill them quite easily.

The proposition: A character with a high defensive Skill but a low Toughness will be treated unfairly under the rules.

To test this proposition, I ran the numbers with a high Skilled but low Toughness character. To make my rule look as bad as possible, I gave the test character a ridiculously high Skill (without resorting to actual superhero stats). With a superhuman Dexterity of 21 (Dex bonus +7) and 10 Skill Points in Dodge, the pixie has a Skill Rating of 17. He has an Endurance of 1 and wears no armor, making his Toughness a 1.

The assumed conditions were the same as the earlier tests: the target was 4 meters (12 feet) away, in the open. (This maximized the damage done, to make the rule look as bad as possible. And, as with the other test, we're assuming a roll of 0.)

I then shot at the pixie with the other sample characters, from the most pathetic specimens of humanity imaginable to experienced PC's, who each used three different weapons, ranging from a large caliber assault rifle (an AK-47), to a highly lethal laser pistol, and even a plasma rifle designed to burn holes in the side of tanks.

So, how did the rule fare?

The least skilled characters did nothing with any weapon less powerful than the AK. Even with the AK, they only barely succeeded, getting 0 SR (meaning they only did Shock damage). Even if we assumed a roll of +9, the best possible attack, they still couldn't have killed the pixie. Upgrading to the laser pistol did more damage, obviously, but it took the insane damage of a plasma rifle for them to kill the pixie outright.

The other characters fared better, as all were better shots, but none could 1-shot the pixie with the AK except the AK-wielding pixie I threw into the mix. And there, obviously it was the skill of that character which made the difference.

With the laser pistol, only the two most experienced characters got 1-shot kills, and it wasn't until the attackers broke out their plasma rifles, the highest damage non-heavy weapon in the game (so far), that 1-shots became the norm.

This rule does not, and will never, exactly duplicate the results of a traditional "to-hit, then damage" mechanic. And a more deadly weapon (higher Damage) will make for a more potent Attack.

So, yes, an increased Damage will, to a certain extent, substitute for Skill. This is inevitable. But is it a problem?

IMHO, it would only be a problem if a high Damage weapon was so significant that it broke the game. To test for this, I've ran the numbers for various defenders and attackers, and the most incompetent human character possible — 0 Skill Points, +1 Attribute bonus — cannot reach godhood even with a DR 30 weapon. He's dangerous, but not to an unreasonable or unbalanced extent.

Even when shooting at a pixie.

In other words, while the results don't exactly duplicate a traditional split, the mechanic didn't break down even in this extreme situation. (I even ran the numbers with a ninja pixie, Skill 22 or "one of the best in the world", and a super-pixie, Skill 30 or "the best in all history". Even with that extreme a character, the rule didn't break.) I'm not saying it's perfect, adjustments may yet need to be done, but so far it appears solid.

Warp9's question is a good one: it could very be a problem in this kind of system if the Damage Ratings were too high. I'm not discounting that.

All I'm saying is that, so far, with the weapon values I'm currently using, it doesn't seem to be. (Especially once the Skill Penalty rules — the subject of the next post — come into play.)

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734020I concur. I'd also add that more powerful attacks are not always more likely to succeed.

I'm not sure what you mean. All else being equal, an attack which does more damage will tend to cause more damage. Almost by definition.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734020Consider rolling a boulder down a hill. It will do enormous amounts of damage if it hits, but it's not all that likely to hit.

Which is why other factors come into play, like accuracy, range, and situational modifiers. There are a great many strange situations, and if a very peculiar one calls for a situational modifier, then the GM can certainly apply it. The rules will encourage it.

All games have corner cases. I intend to admit this, and give the GM carte blanche to deal with them as he sees fit.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734020And then you have the shotgun, which becomes more likely to hit the further away you are from the target but will also do progressively less damage.

Depending on range, choke, and so forth. I'm doing research on squinky weapons, including talking to people experienced in those matters.

Though, again, if a GM is experienced, apply modifiers as desired.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;734204I'm not sure what you mean. All else being equal, an attack which does more damage will tend to cause more damage. Almost by definition.

Well, what I mean is that a more powerful attack isn't more likely to hit in the first place. Just because you're firing an artillery piece at a dove doesn't mean that you're more likely to hit it.

QuoteWhich is why other factors come into play, like accuracy, range, and situational modifiers. There are a great many strange situations, and if a very peculiar one calls for a situational modifier, then the GM can certainly apply it. The rules will encourage it.

Right, but unless there's a bonus to damage factored in after the attack roll, you're going to have an attack that should do loads of damage but that is more likely to nick its target if it hits at all.

QuoteAll games have corner cases. I intend to admit this, and give the GM carte blanche to deal with them as he sees fit.

Fair point.

QuoteDepending on range, choke, and so forth. I'm doing research on squinky weapons, including talking to people experienced in those matters.

Though, again, if a GM is experienced, apply modifiers as desired.

Well, let me give you a rather unfortunate example.

While dove hunting many years ago, I was drawing a bead on a dove and didn't realize that it was flying in the direction of my two friends on the other side of the field. I fired and hit both of them.

Now, they were far enough away that they were just burned a bit by the birdshot (and were understandably annoyed).

But let's look at this in RPG terms.

The spread on the shot made it possible for me to hit not one, but two people in one shot. So, in Infinity terms, the shotgun must have had a huge damage rating. Except that it didn't, because my "targets" didn't take any appreciable damage at all. But my attack still would have done enough damage to take down a small but highly agile target.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734234Well, what I mean is that a more powerful attack isn't more likely to hit in the first place.

Absolutely true. And a high Toughness doesn't mean you're more likely to be missed.

Except that's not what the mechanic is adjudicating. It's not specifically determining whether you hit or missed, but rather what the overall attack achieved, taking into account all relevant factors: accounting for everything pertinent, how much damage did the target take, if any?

Both damage and skill are relevant factors of an attack, they both increase the chances the attack succeeded. So both are factored in.

The mechanic doesn't specifically determine whether you hit or missed, because you don't need to make that distinction. There are three possible consequences of a separate “to-hit” and damage mechanic:

• "Missed" = no damage.
• "Hit, but no damage" = no damage.
• "You hurt 'em" = damage.

The first two are exactly identical: no damage was done. In game mechanic terms, there is no difference.

So why spend time and energy in play to determine which one happened? They are the same, why not just use a mechanic which treats them the same? Especially when that mechanic is simple, quick, and easy to use.

GM's Role

One of the primary roles of the GM, in this game, is to translate "my character does this" into game mechanics. And, on the other side, translate "you do 2 Wounds and 1 Shock" into a vivid description. This extends to "Attack Challenge was a Failure".

A Failure on an Attack Challenge is no Damage. Maybe that means the person missed. Maybe it means they hit, but didn't harm the target. Maybe it means they hit, and only did cosmetic damage (bruises, bleeding, whatever).

The GM picks one on the spot, describes what happens to the players, and play goes on. No damage is no damage, there's no need to complicate it beyond that.

But…

This approach only works if it gives plausible outcomes, if the results of Attacks make sense. If a low-skilled attacker wielding a high-damage weapon suddenly becomes an assassination machine, the mechanic is broken.

Too-high Damage Ratings would cause that. I've been running tests to see if this is the case, and so far, it doesn't seem to be. If further testing or playtesting indicates it is, I've got two different adjustments waiting in the wings.

But "plausible outcomes" can't be fully judged in a vacuum. Other rules influence combat, and they impact this judgement. One set of those, the Skill Penalty rules, I'll be posting later today. (I hope.)

[This is kind of a long response, so I'll give other answers in separate posts.]

The other response.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734234Right, but unless there's a bonus to damage factored in after the attack roll, you're going to have an attack that should do loads of damage but that is more likely to nick its target if it hits at all.

Let me start by saying this: I'm not dismissing your concerns. You're making some very good points (as did Warp9). They're detailed and incisive.

They're the kinds of questions I wish I could get more people to ask, because they're what helps me make this system better. Fact is, even after I post this reply, I'll continue to think about the issues you raise.

(Seriously. I just made a 4-part post about rebuilding the Glory mechanic in Torg, based on comments made to me 3 years ago. Even though I went a different direction, I kept thinking about the comments until I could come up with a mechanic that satisfied his concerns.)

Preface finished. Let's talk about the questions you asked: an inaccurate, but very powerful attack and a weak area-effect attack.

In general, Accuracy modifiers (the boulder example) are Skill Penalties (or negate same). I'll talk about those in the afore-mentioned post 4. (I know this doesn't fully address your point. I'll have to think about it some more and get back to you.)

As for the shotgun, the wide choke would apply a Skill Bonus, which would counteract the Skill Penalties for a super-fast and super-small target. (Again, post 4.)

Area-effects attacks (including suppressive fire and explosives) are something I'm still thinking over. I wish I had a better answer for you, but I don't right now.

Sorry. Perils of an unfinished system.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734234because my "targets" didn't take any appreciable damage at all.

In ∞ Infinity terms, that was a Failure on the Attack Challenge. You did no Damage, so you Failed.

For which your friends are no doubt eternally grateful.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;734308Let me start by saying this: I'm not dismissing your concerns. You're making some very good points (as did Warp9). They're detailed and incisive.

They're the kinds of questions I wish I could get more people to ask, because they're what helps me make this system better. Fact is, even after I post this reply, I'll continue to think about the issues you raise.

(Seriously. I just made a 4-part post about rebuilding the Glory mechanic in Torg, based on comments made to me 3 years ago. Even though I went a different direction, I kept thinking about the comments until I could come up with a mechanic that satisfied his concerns.)

No worries, DW. I didn't think you were being dismissive and appreciate your well-reasoned responses.

Quote from: Dan Davenport;734326No worries, DW. I didn't think you were being dismissive and appreciate your well-reasoned responses.

Cool.

Skill Penalties
Combat, pt. 4

In general, penalties represent anything that makes a Challenge harder to accomplish. If you're trying to drive along a road, and it's icy, a penalty applies. The penalty either reduces your Skill total or it increases the Challenge Rating. The effect is the same.

(One of the nice aspects of the core mechanic is that it doesn't matter which: add to CR, subtract from the Skill, it's all the same. Bonuses are equally flexible: +3 Skill and -3 CR are both identical in effect. Stack 'em up wherever it's easier or makes the most sense.)

Skill Penalties are a specific type of penalty that applies to Combat Challenges only (and hence, only affects attackers). Skill Penalties actually reduce the effective Skill of the Attacker. All Skill Penalties stack, no matter their cause.

If an Attacker's effective Skill is reduced to 0 (or less), they can no longer pick their targets. More, they are Stymied.

Example: Billy Bumbles, Skill 1, is shooting an AK at Medium range. Because Medium range applies a Skill Penalty of -3, his Skill is reduced to -2 (meaning he is Stymied and can no longer choose whom to shoot at). If he had a Skill of 4, he'd still suffer a penalty, but not the other effects.

Picking Targets: If Skill Penalties reduce your effective Skill to 0, you can no longer pick your targets. This is a fancy way of saying that you can't choose a specific enemy to attack. You can attack an area (rules for this later) but not a specific target within that area. You might still get lucky and hit a target (anyone entering the chosen space could be hit), but you can't choose a specific target to attack.

Example: Billy is shooting at a target behind a car. The car provides very little cover — bonus to the defender's Toughness — but it does provide concealment. Because the penalty for concealment reduces his effective Skill to -4 (in this case), Billy can't shoot directly at the person. Instead he has to hose down the car, hoping to catch them behind it.

Stymie: When you are Stymied, you only roll a Cold die for your bonus (treating "0" as 0). This gives you a bonus of 0 to -9.

[Note: There is an equal and opposite mechanic to the Stymie, the Up. When you're Up, you roll a Hot die for your bonus, treating a "0" as 0. Up's apply to Reactive Defenses.]

Between the Stymie and being unable to pick targets, Skill Penalties can make an Attacker's life very difficult. Fortunately, they're rare. As of right now, there are only three categories of Skill Penalties: distractions, impairments, and situational penalties.

Distractions: Most of the time, Combat Interaction skills (Overbear, Intimidate, Trick, etc.) cause a distraction, represented by a -2 Skill Penalty per Success Rating. This means that not only does the victim do worse on attacks, and have a lower defense, they can be Stymied if their Skill dips low enough. Characters who are distracted and disoriented can't pick their targets, and aren't very effective combatants.

Impairments: Both Shock damage and Wounds cause characters to become Impaired (as does non-lethal Attacks and being drunk, among other things). The Impaired condition imposes a -3 Skill Penalty. Multiple Impaired conditions stack.

Situational Penalties: Range modifiers impose Skill Penalties, as does weapon accuracy, concealment, firing blind, and auto fire. Unusually fast or small targets (relative to the attacker) also apply a Skill Penalty. (Other situational penalties may be added, as needed.)

There are many possible penalties, but only these three categories are Skill Penalties. Only they reduce a character's effective Skill.

The converse of the Skill Penalty is the Skill Bonus (provided by, for example, a laser sight). A Skill Bonus provides a bonus to the Attack Challenge, by raising the effective Skill of the attacker. This can counteract Skill Penalties which might be in effect.

Analysis

After running the numbers on various attackers and defenders, fighting with various high-damage weapons, the combat mechanic works well for most combatants. A few cases, like pixies, aren't perfectly addressed by the rule. Fortunately, no mechanic exists in a vacuum, and Skill Penalties and Skill Bonuses allow it to address a much wider range of situations.

Wounds
Combat, pt. 5

Lethal attacks are very straightforward: each attack does 1 Wound per Success Rating, plus 1 point of Shock for any level of Success.

SR's = Damage
Failure = You did no damage.
0 SR = 1 Shock (2 if Encumbered)
1 SR = +1 Wound
2 SR = +2 Wounds
3 SR = +3 Wounds
+1 SR = +1 Wounds

Characters who are encumbered, due to heavy armor or excessive weight, take an additional point of Shock.

Wounds

Wounds are an abstract representation of physical damage done to a character, the accumulation of which can kill them.

Wounds accumulate with each successful attack. A character with 1 Wound who takes 2 Wounds now has 3 Wounds.

Taking Wounds causes impediments and eventually death.

Wounds = Effect
1 Wound = None
2 Wounds = Impaired
3 Wounds = Dying
4 Wounds = Dead

Impaired: Characters who take 2+ Wounds (cumulatively or in one attack) receive the Impaired Condition. This gives them a -3 Skill Penalty to all Challenges. (Skill Penalties from multiple Impaired conditions stack.)

Dying: Characters with 3 Wounds begin Dying: they will expire in a number of rounds equal to their Endurance. They are also considered Incapacitated (can only take Simple Actions, and will go Unconscious if they receive another Incapacitated).

Dead: A character with 4 Wounds is Dead. Immediate and extraordinary medical (or other) intervention might be able to save their lives, but the chances are dim. (A character with 5 Wounds is just dead. Period.)

Characters (and objects) can take Wounds in excess of 4. 6 Wounds represents dismemberment and 8 vaporization.

I'll talk about Shock damage next post. (Unless, well, you know.)

Quick question. Why not triple each characters wound limit? Then you wouldn't have to do the extra success rating calculation, you would apply the damage directly.