I should mention, as i omitted this, that this idea works on the assumption that all combatants can act as 'normal'. The GM would calculate initiative and that his characters can act against the players - rather than a passive system where the villains are just set dressing. Villains would have abilities they can use, be they attempts to mind cointrol players, fire arrows at them, or just get in their way. Initiative then orders the actions as it always does in games.

I have also decided, though perhaps this is one step too far (some will think, but i think there's merit to this) that the difficulty for ALL actions is determined by the villain's own stats. This is because the villains are always getting in the players' way. Of course gaining an advantage can reduce this baseline. In situations without a villain (which are unlikely, tbf, as encounters), difficulty is decided otherwise.

So the antagonists, whatever they are and whoever they are, don't track individual hit point systems. If they are targetted then either:
1. Threat is reduced by a successful action.
2. The player receives a bonus to his next action against the threat (as i mentioned above).
Once the encounter is beaten, the antagonists are considered defeated in an appropriate a way, perhaps decided by the players: perhaps the cops arrive and arrest them, perhaps they are bound into a magical prison, perhaps they escape to a far away enough place they don't return for a while. After all good villains should never be wasted!

So Threat can handle two situations as varied as:
1. Giant Robot with android henchmen ravage the city. The threat represents solely the Giant Robot. Attacks against it damage it until it's beaten. Attacks against the henchmen confer a greater chance, through reducing their individual presence (perhaps reduced adds for a time or whatever), against the main threat itself.
2. A bomb set to release poison into the water supply guarded by the Joker, Riddler and Poison Ivy. The threat represents Joker and the Bomb - but not his two allies, even though individually they are more powerful than the henchmen in the above example. Well, basically, it's the same as the above. Attacking Riddler and Poison Ivy confer a bonus while attacking Joker and working on the bomb reduce the Threat which, if reduced in the prescribed time limit, saves the day. If not the water is poisoned and the players screwed - Joker and Co escape (perhaps an extra wrinkle can deal with a situation that allows the players to trade dealing with the bomb's effects vs crooks escaping).
3. But what about dealing with just the bomb? Well is that an encounter? Well do we need to set this up as an encounter if only time is working against the players, no antagonists?

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but:

Take the batman example. If you attack ivy or twoface, you get a bonus on the next roll. If it were pathfinder and you get a good shot in, maybe they are no longer flanking the bomb disarmer, or moving, or whatever. So normally there is a bonus.

When disarming the bomb, lowering the threat rating is basically the same as monitoring the clock and no less complicated.

Your system is also screwing yourself into having badguys that almost never go away. In a lot of games, joker would be knocked out in 2-4 combat rounds. In this, you have to GM him every round for the whole thing.

I'm not sure any of this is less complicated. You are rolling for more badguys because they don't leave the fight and you are still tracking a round counter.

I think that there might be a better way of getting some of these features you want.

_____________________________________________

Groups sharing hit points

Allies and minions share hp pools, though they take actions separately. This reflects that when one goes down, the other will run, but both are protecting each other or attempting to capitalize when the other is hurt. Beating one means beating the other.

Simplified Maneuvers

Attacks in combat can have three effects: they can damage an individual or groups hp, set up an attack for another character, or set up an immediate heavy attack.

Setting up an attack for another character is a lower difficulty roll than a normal attack, but it lowers the difficulty of the other guys attack roll significantly. This includes tripping, disarming, grabbing, throwing, or whatever else.

Setting up an immediate heavy attack is a more difficult roll than just attacking, but if successful, the attackers gets another attack roll which deals double damage. This would include following a jab with a cross, or pulling out a gun after a hip throw.

___________________________________________________________

So grouping hp will cut down on book keeping and treating all combat maneuvers the same give the player more to RP while creating less status effects and rules to look up. Also, sense groups share HP and are beaten together, you don't have to worry about NPCs being taken out - they all escape at the end of the fight.

Quote

Quote from: Cranewings;466445I'm not trying to be obtuse here, but:

Take the batman example. If you attack ivy or twoface, you get a bonus on the next roll. If it were pathfinder and you get a good shot in, maybe they are no longer flanking the bomb disarmer, or moving, or whatever. So normally there is a bonus.

I don't see much of a difference beyond the narrative aspect. Ultimately it's the same thing.

QuoteWhen disarming the bomb, lowering the threat rating is basically the same as monitoring the clock and no less complicated.

Well no, the threat value repreents how difficult disarming the bomb is, not the time limit. Adding a time limit obviously adds a complication but that's obvious.

QuoteYour system is also screwing yourself into having badguys that almost never go away. In a lot of games, joker would be knocked out in 2-4 combat rounds. In this, you have to GM him every round for the whole thing.

If the npcs are defeated then the encounter ends anyway. What else will remain? Some tedious rolls to defuse a bomb? I see no point in pursuing that; if Batman can't defuse a bomb having bested three villains, for instance, then there's no point playing.

Now i can undertnd the incongruity in having the villains seem to persist, but really what's the focus of the encounter? What are we trying to achieve in this game experience?

So how about this:
If a player hits an enemy he can add a Capture token to that enemy (a simple visual tool) . When it comes time for the enemy to act, if he has any such tokens he forfeits his action to remove one token.
If hitting the enemy would reduce the threat then give the players the choice of whether to compromise the enemy or reduce the threat. A tactical choice.
If the enemy has Capture tokens remaining when the players beat the encounter then the enemy is considered significantly beaten in some way - the Joker is sent to Arkham or whatever.

Quote from: Cranewings;466445Groups sharing hit points

Allies and minions share hp pools, though they take actions separately. This reflects that when one goes down, the other will run, but both are protecting each other or attempting to capitalize when the other is hurt. Beating one means beating the other.

Simplified Maneuvers

Attacks in combat can have three effects: they can damage an individual or groups hp, set up an attack for another character, or set up an immediate heavy attack.

Setting up an attack for another character is a lower difficulty roll than a normal attack, but it lowers the difficulty of the other guys attack roll significantly. This includes tripping, disarming, grabbing, throwing, or whatever else.

Setting up an immediate heavy attack is a more difficult roll than just attacking, but if successful, the attackers gets another attack roll which deals double damage. This would include following a jab with a cross, or pulling out a gun after a hip throw.

Those are all good ideas, but I'm not seeing how they solve any issues the threat idea has, or if those issues are valid as yet.
The actions above also dont include an action that deals with non-npc aspects of the encounter. That's the strength (if i do say so myself) of the threat idea. It isn't just about the enemies, it's about whatever other factors - and there may be none - are present the players have to contend with.
Dealing with group HP is not really any different than reducing threat though surely? Maybe there's a need to deal with defeating enemies as separate from threat, hence the capture token idea (which i realise is more complexity). Group HP doesn't address things like defusing bombs or climbing the ladder in the ring to grab the title belt hanging from the ceiling, or whatever.

I get that you don't like the idea; that's fine. But i think it's got legs...for now.

There is something about it I'm starting to like. I'll probably like it better once you have a whole idea together on the system.

Attacking:
During an encounter, players may target antagonists that may or may not be part of the threat; this is an action. Doing so is classed as an attack. To determine the outcome the player must roll =< Combat on 2d6.
If the roll is successful, the attacker has three options:
•   Reduce threat (if the target was part of the threat). The amount is determined by the class abilities of the player as well as the type of attack and the GM has final say. Regardless, 1 is the minimum amount of threat damage.
•   Gain Advantage according to the GM's reading of the situation. Advantage is either Hard or Soft. Hard confers +2 on the player's next action which must and legitimately target Threat. Soft Advantage represents a change of position or movement and confers +2 to the Player's next Initiative roll. Gaining Advantage may confer other conditions as well such as giving Advantage to others instead (or as well).
•   Apply pressure to the Villain, reducing his power level for the remainder of the round (so as to affect when he might act). Or, in the case of Henchmen, reduce their Strength by the result.

Villains:
A Villain can act in two circumstances:
•   Immediately after an player whose initiative is lower than his power level acts.
•   Immediately after any player fails an action that targeted the Threat.

With his action the Villain gets to activate one Menace Move. Some Menace Moves have a cost; they can only be used if this cost is met. Usually this means activating other Moves a certain number of times first. As such they are more powerful effects. These cost requirements are unique to the move and must be tracked by the GM. As soon as they are met the Move can be used from that point on as any other. Menace Moves are Villain abilities that define how they attack and act. Most Villains have the following as generic Menace Moves:
•   Repair the Threat (where possible): Threats capable of repair have that marked as a quality (thus affording the players the opportunity to discover beforehand). Clues can be spent to remove this option entirely, for the right cost. Repairing involves moving the Villain within range of the Threat (if he cannot do so, this move is impossible) and have the presence of mind to do so in which case he adds the amount of Menace to the Threat. This cannot take it beyond its starting limit.
•   To My Side: this is a move that represents the, perhaps inexplicable, calling forth of more henchmen by way of adding the amount of Menace to the Strength of a depleted force already in existence. It may allow the GM to call forth a new army of mooks, or to use excess Menace (from healing, above) to create a new force. In either case, Villains have a set number of Henchmen groups they can call on, as recorded on their profile as the Minions stat.
•   Destroy Them: this move allows the Villain's henchmen to make an attack against the Players. The effect of a Henchmen attack is listed as part of the Henchmen's description.

Initiative:
Players roll d6+ reflexes (the total is on the same scale as the Power levels of villains) and that's the order they will act. The random factor means that each turn has the potential to change up the order of opportunities a villain can act. Power level is just a means of determing how tough an NPC is. It's not a terribly efficient idea, but it works.

This idea is even more like Danger Patrol, which makes me uncomfortable. But it's such a simple system that I like. The GM has much more memory space freed up to come up with cool things rather than having to roll dice for enemies. In the same way this predetermines when antagonists act. The difference here is that GM's create villains with their own Menace Moves - abilities and powers they can use to determine everything and anythign they can do - rahter than the single list as per DP.