One big issue with turn based combat - actions in a vacuum

[PorkyThePaladin]

I was thinking about what I don't like about melee turn based combat (swordplay for example), and one big issue is that in turn based systems, actions take place in a vacuum. What do I mean by that?

Imagine an actual sword fight. All the attacks and defenses are interconnected. If one of the combatants attacks, the other will typically respond in the middle of the attack, by parrying for example. The first combatant can then respond to that, by adjusting his attack or following up with another, and so on.

This works similarly in real time combat systems, but in turn based systems, each action is in its own turn, so when combatant A performs an action, combatant B can do nothing. The action takes place in a vacuum. Then, the situation reverses, and combatant B makes his move also in a vacuum.

For ranged combat (guns for example) it's not a big deal, since bullets fly so fast, it doesn't really change the dynamics, but for melee combat, it changes everything in a bad way.

What makes any kind of melee combat (whether swords, martial arts, spear and shield, whatever) interesting and deep is the interconnected nature of it. One party does something, the other reacts to counter that and do something on its own behalf, then the first party tries to counter. So there is this rich back and forth of actions, tactical counters, other actions, other counters. This is particularly important for RPGs, because these games have a low number of characters (1-6 typically), so the tactics must come not from managing a large number of units, but from the tactical options available to the units.

Now, you CAN have tactics and interconnectedness to some degree even with actions in a vacuum (e.g. if that guy is super dodgy, let me hit him with ability first to lower his dodginess, and then follow up with regular attacks) but it seems to me that this leads to a much lower level of tactics and interesting interactions. This is why turn based melee combat generally devolves into a turn based version of spamming - units just exchange attacks whittling down each other's hitpoints, until one wins.

So, what's my solution? I think turn based combat systems involving melee combat could benefit from breaking down actions into partial actions. Instead of having a single attack take 1 turn, how about making the attack consist of 2-3 parts, each of which takes a turn. For example, part 1 would be wind-up (which could transition into several differnt things), part 2 would be release, and part 3 would be the actual directional cut. So during each step, the other party would have a chance to respond with its own defensive/offensive moves (also taking time). There would be almost chess-like analysis involved, because at every step, each party would have to think about all the possible next moves, and try to pick somethng that works given any of them.

Opinions?

 

[Falksi]

Nah.

 

[The Brazilian Slaughter]

Age of Decadence did fairly well, with dodging and blocking. Dodgers are hard to hit and can get counter-attacks, and blockers are tanky mofos who get extra damage reduction from their shields and are better against ranged attacks than dodgers. Then there's stuff like getting free attacks against enemies trying to detach, or spearmen getting free attacks from enemies that got near, etc.

AoD just lacked parrying, I believe because VD didn't have the time/resources to balance Block and Parry together.

I remember someone here had an idea for a system where dodging = movement. Therefore how good you are at dodging depends on how much space for moving-dodging you have, so the system would be built around surrounding dudes or backing them against a wall.

I would like to see incorporation of things like grappling and such in melee combat systems.

 

[DraQ]

Congratulations, you have discovered two areas where TB will inherently cost you:

• Responsiveness (combatants cannot react to one another actions)
• Causal relations between actions

In principle you can reduce the problem by making turns shorter and decomposing complex actions, but then there is no escaping the fact that the entire battle will be really drawn out (simple, responsive interface can help a lot here).

That makes single character TB inherently a bad idea. Period. No ifs, no buts, no "muh cereberal tacticool combat!". Party based TB at least has the undeniable advantage of preventing controlling the party from becoming too much of a clusterfuck, so it's usually better than the RT/RTWP alternative, although there are some other systems potentially worth considering:

• Reactive/Asynchronous TB - turns do not have determined length, characters start their turn whenever they finish previous action or something happens that they might have to react to.
• Variable Speed RT - RTWP with fluid speed adjustment rather than spamming pause all the time, allowing playing in RT while keeping even tense, fast paced situations involving multiple controlled characters manageable.

 

[abnaxus]

 

[Serus]

I was thinking about what I don't like about melee turn based combat (swordplay for example), and one big issue is that in turn based systems, actions take place in a vacuum. What do I mean by that?

Imagine an actual sword fight. All the attacks and defenses are interconnected. If one of the combatants attacks, the other will typically respond in the middle of the attack, by parrying for example. The first combatant can then respond to that, by adjusting his attack or following up with another, and so on.

This works similarly in real time combat systems, but in turn based systems, each action is in its own turn, so when combatant A performs an action, combatant B can do nothing. The action takes place in a vacuum. Then, the situation reverses, and combatant B makes his move also in a vacuum.

For ranged combat (guns for example) it's not a big deal, since bullets fly so fast, it doesn't really change the dynamics, but for melee combat, it changes everything in a bad way.

What makes any kind of melee combat (whether swords, martial arts, spear and shield, whatever) interesting and deep is the interconnected nature of it. One party does something, the other reacts to counter that and do something on its own behalf, then the first party tries to counter. So there is this rich back and forth of actions, tactical counters, other actions, other counters. This is particularly important for RPGs, because these games have a low number of characters (1-6 typically), so the tactics must come not from managing a large number of units, but from the tactical options available to the units.

Now, you CAN have tactics and interconnectedness to some degree even with actions in a vacuum (e.g. if that guy is super dodgy, let me hit him with ability first to lower his dodginess, and then follow up with regular attacks) but it seems to me that this leads to a much lower level of tactics and interesting interactions. This is why turn based melee combat generally devolves into a turn based version of spamming - units just exchange attacks whittling down each other's hitpoints, until one wins.

So, what's my solution? I think turn based combat systems involving melee combat could benefit from breaking down actions into partial actions. Instead of having a single attack take 1 turn, how about making the attack consist of 2-3 parts, each of which takes a turn. For example, part 1 would be wind-up (which could transition into several differnt things), part 2 would be release, and part 3 would be the actual directional cut. So during each step, the other party would have a chance to respond with its own defensive/offensive moves (also taking time). There would be almost chess-like analysis involved, because at every step, each party would have to think about all the possible next moves, and try to pick somethng that works given any of them.

Opinions?

What with do you compare turn based in this post? Because everything you mentioned is also an "issue" in all the popular RTwP CRPGs systems that are derived from turn based (like dnd-based games). It might not be the case is some proper real time game where you control one character but please, don't let me stop You in providing an example of a proper real time party-based crpg that works well and has this kind of reactivity in melee combat You talk about in Your post.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

So, what's my solution? I think turn based combat systems involving melee combat could benefit from breaking down actions into partial actions. Instead of having a single attack take 1 turn, how about making the attack consist of 2-3 parts, each of which takes a turn.

Sounds like that would make combat last forever.

Defensive abilities already play the role you want, except it's automatic. If you try to stab a guy and he's agile enough to block it he could use the opportunity for a counter attack, etc.

 

[Tigranes]

So, what's my solution? I think turn based combat systems involving melee combat could benefit from breaking down actions into partial actions. Instead of having a single attack take 1 turn, how about making the attack consist of 2-3 parts, each of which takes a turn.

Sounds like that would make combat last forever.

Defensive abilities already play the role you want, except it's automatic. If you try to stab a guy and he's agile enough to block it he could use the opportunity for a counter attack, etc.

Not if two or three solid hits against the enemy will take them out of combat.

This would be the logical way to properly build an alternative to HP based systems. It's like trying to do what KCD tried to do to real-time first-person swordplay, in a TB setup: the process of choosing how to attack, swinging your sword, getting past the enemy's resistance, landing a blow, is broken down into several decisions rather than just a single "Attack" button. If so, the series of decisions and contested rolls that usually comprise two fuckers hitting each other 80 times until one drops, is translated onto a process of similar complexity & duration that results in a duel-changing hit.

There are many problems to be overcome, but I'd love to see a game that really tries it, a genuine way to try and do something different with TB. It could also work with some kind of machine or mech-based world: instead of mechs pew-pew doing 20 HP per turn at each other, you need to spend several turns getting the mech to set up, aim, pick your projectile, raise shields, fire supporting projectiles, etc.

 

[The Great ThunThun*]

Games are not all simulations. They are only *partly* simulations. There is a factor of strategy, tactics, and most importantly, enjoyment. If your realistic simulation is not *all* of them, the game will fail. TB has a huge advantage here: It is a transparent system, where feedback to every action is clear and it allows for well thought out actions which have, again, direct well-understood consequences. This makes TB well suited for implementing tactical and strategic layers. It also makes it easy to isolate un-fun factors of the game and discard them.

Just because this is not done very often TB gets a bad press. But look at games like JA2, HoMM and AoD and you have a glimpse of the heights it can achieve.

 

[Mustawd]

I suspect Porky isn't a big boardgamer or wargamer. Abstraction is fun. 100% isn’t always fun.

 

[rohand]

I think a "counter" system is interesting - when you melee attack someone that is also wielding a melee weapon, prepare for a counter attack, a parry, riposte, etc

 

[V_K]

Knights of Legend tried to address that. It separates its rounds into planning phase and execution phase (kinda like Wizardry), and has you select an attack action and a defense action each round. Now where fun comes in, is each phase has its own initiative system. The higher a given char's Foresight stat, the later he plans his action - and thus can see what the enemies with lower foresight have planned, thus allowing him to select his combat actions accordingly. However, while an interesting system, even at that level of abstraction it turns the combat into complete slog.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

... don't let me stop You in providing an example of a proper real time party-based crpg that works well and has this kind of reactivity in melee combat You talk about in Your post.

That makes single character TB inherently a bad idea.

Why does it have to be party based? I was actually thinking more of a single character combat system. This kind of thing I am talking about would probably be too drawn out for party based combat (keeping track of where inside individual attack/defense sequence each party member is in would be too much for sure), but would be really nice for single character combat.

This would be the logical way to properly build an alternative to HP based systems. It's like trying to do what KCD tried to do to real-time first-person swordplay, in a TB setup: the process of choosing how to attack, swinging your sword, getting past the enemy's resistance, landing a blow, is broken down into several decisions rather than just a single "Attack" button. If so, the series of decisions and contested rolls that usually comprise two fuckers hitting each other 80 times until one drops, is translated onto a process of similar complexity & duration that results in a duel-changing hit.

Yes!!! The time has come to end hitpoint systems.

I suspect Porky isn't a big boardgamer or wargamer. Abstraction is fun. 100% isn’t always fun.

Abstraction is good of course, but like anything else, balance is required. If you have too much abstraction, there is no player input or satisfaction, it's just various numbers being compared. So your combat score of 40 trumps his combat score of 37 and you win. But is this fun? This is my big issue with current melee combat in turn based systems. I hit the guy 10 times, and because my attack score is higher than his defense score or his attack score, I win. But this doesn't make my character feel like a master swordsman, and gives me very little satisfaction. There has to be some skill, some decisions involved.

 

[Mustawd]

There has to be some skill, some decisions involved

Positioning and party composition.

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Eyestabber didn't you say that you would have something to say about turn based melee that would broach this subject when you wrote that Vigilantes review?

Spoiler

Looking forward how you solve "lack of footwork" -problem.

 

[Sacred82]

So, what's my solution? I think turn based combat systems involving melee combat could benefit from breaking down actions into partial actions. Instead of having a single attack take 1 turn, how about making the attack consist of 2-3 parts, each of which takes a turn. For example, part 1 would be wind-up (which could transition into several differnt things), part 2 would be release, and part 3 would be the actual directional cut.

that sounds absolutely atrocious tbh

add some RNG hit chance to it and shit's not gonna fly with anyone.

I'll rather take some chance to parry/ dodge and maybe another chance to riposte on my characters if I have built them around doing that.

 

[deama]

Toribash does a pretty good job at a turn-based 1v1 fight. It's hand-to-hand, but you could easily add weapons to the mix; maybe even ranged?
It can be a bit slow, but the low/non-existant hp points help a lot, and you could potentially make it more streamlined by allowing players to create templates.

Spoiler

 

[Eyestabber]

Eyestabber didn't you say that you would have something to say about turn based melee that would broach this subject when you wrote that Vigilantes review?

Spoiler

Looking forward how you solve "lack of footwork" -problem.

Yeah, thanks for reminding me. The thread I want to make in the near future is specific about melee in a setting with guns, so "swordplay" like OP mentions is not much of a consideration. I refused to make my points on the Vigilantes thread because it would derail the thread and it would look like I was singling out Vigilantes for problems that have existed in every other RPG Classic, including Fallout.

I did make a "demo" post on the CSG and had a bit of a discussion with Vault Dweller, but again: the thread was about his game, not my rant on a specific mechanic. Tho obviously I care about his opinion on the topic, since he is developing an RPG that will deal with this same issue. I'll tag you when I make the thread (and maybe VD too).

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

he thread I want to make in the near future is specific about melee in a setting with guns

That's very specific problem to tackle.
When you think real world examples close combat winning firearm comes down to surprise, advance under aversary's ability to aim at effectively or in massed battles; superior numbers and insane bravery (Zulus vs Brits on some battles before Rorke's Drift for example.)
Melee in those situations is usually depicted in fiction to be quick stabbety-stab or struggle of who controls sidearm.

 

[Darth Canoli]

Congratulations, you have discovered two areas where TB will inherently cost you:

• Responsiveness (combatants cannot react to one another actions)
• Causal relations between actions

Dark Sun has a guard option which automatically attacks any enemy moving into range.
Some games have some counter spells options (which i never used so i'm not sure how relevant it is ).
Tactical games have reaction fire as well.

Meanwhile in Real Time mode, without an engagement system (and even with it if you bypass it through skills/feats or spells), it's a clusterfuck and responsiveness is all relative ...

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I suspect Porky isn't a big boardgamer or wargamer. Abstraction is fun. 100% isn’t always fun.

Agree totally, I wish computer games would take some design ideas from modern board wargame design which has come a very, very long way and is really imaginative and cool while still being very detailed and complex...just because a computer can simulate the exact physics of every bullet or piece of shrapnel does not mean it should or even make said simulation more accurate than one with many abstractions.

Board games can't use the lazy way out with regards to game design whereby a computer simply tries to simulate every small detail, whether they are actually important or not... Because of this its my opinion that board game designers have far outpaced computer game designers as far as making a game have fun, tense and meaningful choices while still keeping complexity.

 

[PorkyThePaladin]

I suspect Porky isn't a big boardgamer or wargamer. Abstraction is fun. 100% isn’t always fun.

Agree totally, I wish computer games would take some design ideas from modern board wargame design which has come a very, very long way and is really imaginative and cool while still being very detailed and complex...just because a computer can simulate the exact physics of every bullet or piece of shrapnel does not mean it should or even make said simulation more accurate than one with many abstractions.

Board games can't use the lazy way out with regards to game design whereby a computer simply tries to simulate every small detail, whether they are actually important or not... Because of this its my opinion that board game designers have far outpaced computer game designers as far as making a game have fun, tense and meaningful choices while still keeping complexity.

Ok, so how would a boardgame simulate swordplay in a 1v1 turn based manner, in an interesting way?

To me, boardgames are completely different beasts from computer games. You play them with friends, and the fun is had from human interaction, so the game itself doesn't have to be nearly as entertaining. Single player video games are the exact opposite.

 

[holla_cabezas_de_mierda]

I don't know, I honestly have not played a board game at that tactical level before, it may or may not exist. I would guess it probably does. I was speaking in a more general sense, and not specifically addressing your topic about one on one combat. Also I am not saying I can come up with a good abstraction off the top of my head, but I bet somebody could and that it has even been done. I don't usually play games that simulate that level of combat/time frame, so I am unable to answer the question well.

I have just been impressed with modern board wargame design, especially when comparing it to board wargames that were designed in the 70's and 80's..they are very clever, while being easier to understand and simulating more detail. I am not a experienced designer myself however.

 

[Fairfax]

On top of the issues you mentioned, turns in a vacuum make combat more forgiving and controlled. The player(s) can change their decisions based on what happened in previous turns, which is effectively a form of legal metagaming. Things can only go wrong one turn at a time, so the consequences for bad decisions are softened and the player has multiple opportunities to try and turn things around. When used with stat-based initiative, it also puts a bigger emphasis on the character sheets rather than player skill.

In phase-based combat, you have to take calculated risks with the entire party at once. If you make bad decisions, the entire round is played out and you have to watch your party/character get punished for it. You can't change your actions just because enemies surrounded your wizard and disrupted his spell; you should've considered that beforehand. Speaking of which, spell disruption is also something that rarely happens in TB combat, since very few spells take more than 1 action. As shown in 3E, that alone can be a big buff to casters across the board.

In other words, Gygax had it right in 1979.

 

[Gunnar]

Shigatari has a turn based combat system where actions take a certain amount of time to perform, and you have to anticipate enemy attacks in order to block/parry/riposte. You can change your intended actions in the middle of an attack to a degree based on what you see your opponent doing. It also has location based damage where you can get singular fatal hits (chopped the head off) or crippling damage (severed arm). Each location does have hitpoints but you can only take 1-2 hits to any location before you're dead or crippled in that part.