More Character Influence Part I: Combat

[The Ninth Circle]

One of the portions of RPG's that always bothers me is the ability to use my abilities and intelligence, whatever level they may be, to improve my character. Now, you say that should be a given, by why should it?

The issue is when combat skills only give a benefit of damage rather than the multitude of benefits experienced battlers would give to an outfit. This, and no matter how much reading done by the player, they will always be light-years behind a great warrior in tactical combat ability. Therefor, no matter how great or poor the character, they'll always have the same combat knowledge based on our own limitations. It's like level-scaling for combat ability, while our character only decides the chance to hit and damage.

Even when wielding a character with low intelligence, combat experience or training, we can still use choke-points and combat tactics effectively. Shouldn't we be more restricted based on our character's skillset? I'm not talking about disallowing certain positioning, but maybe allow better bonuses for character ability. A character with great combat experience and training would be able to recognize enemy tactics and be able to "read" their next moves, with a supposed indication on screen for the player. Say, arrows for proposed enemy movement or possible options for opposing forces.

Even with simple initiation of combat, a inexperience character would make a straight line to the enemy and just hack and slash while an experienced warrior would also utilize better positioning against the opponent in battle to either cut off their advance or try to pin them in.

I'm looking for input as to how others would feel with such an implemented system.

 

[spectre]

That's an age-old dilemma, what to do when the character is less intelligent than the player?

If this were pen and paper, yeah, blah blah blah, its best to stay in character and shit.
When in crpg, however, I kindly refer you to mondblut's sig.

Now, another important issue you rise here is is Intelligence and Reasoning important to a warrior character? Most of real life fighting is muscle memory, lots and lost of stuff is left to reflexes and intuition, just because there's no time to think, dammit.
Partly, that would be why I wouldn't limit combat options based on Intelligence or similar.
The other part is, it's a friggen game. You play it, it doesn't play it for you.

This could be a wonderful way of giving life to AI characters, but for the PC, I am not really convinced.

 

[Mattresses]

http://progressquest.com/

 

[Emotional Vampire]

That's an age-old dilemma, what to do when the character is less intelligent than the player?

That's easy. But what to do if the character is MORE intelligent than the player?

 

[The Ninth Circle]

That's an age-old dilemma, what to do when the character is less intelligent than the player?

That's easy. But what to do if the character is MORE intelligent than the player?

This was what I was getting at.

There's really no way to penalize the player from using a character past their ability. Instead of trying to penalize the poor character, it'd be beneficial to reward the experienced fighter. Imagine a great general, veteran of many great victories -- all that ability and knowledge is assumed to the PC based on skills/stats/experience. Now, imagine that genius of war in the hands of the average Halo fan. To allow a player to utilize the PC's abilities to their fullest extent, most notably when they extend past the player's intelligence, is for the system to allow the PC to "drive a bit". This can be done many different ways.

I'm struggling to find the most balanced solution.

Most Action RPG's are criticized for putting too much control over outcomes in the player's hands. Yet, almost every RPG does that as well.. it's just to what degree. I'm not suggesting automated combat, but there has to be a better solution than the current "puppet on the string" style we see so often.

 

[The Ninth Circle]

Now, another important issue you rise here is is Intelligence and Reasoning important to a warrior character? Most of real life fighting is muscle memory, lots and lost of stuff is left to reflexes and intuition, just because there's no time to think, dammit.
Partly, that would be why I wouldn't limit combat options based on Intelligence or similar..

In the purely one-on-one combat situation, it is definitely tied to just experience. You have no time to think, only act or react. This is to be assumed and is reflected in almost every game. The difference being that there are many strategies that can be called upon before the battle reaches that point. That, in my opinion, is where the factor of intelligence and experience come into play. We're talking about the differences between a great soldier (strength/experience) vs. a great leader or general (intelligence/experience).

 

[zenbitz]

for "single combat" where PC has no team, then a simple way to do this is just to make the Player's INT stat influence combat effectiveness/skills. Ham-handed but will get the effect you are seeking.

(hand waving explaination: Your feints are less effective, your targeting is sub-normal, you don't adjust to your opponents' tactics, strenghts and weaknesss... etc.)

Another simple way is to just use the INT stat to determine the rate at which you learn combat skills/level up.

You have to kind of be careful with giving INT this much influence or the character builds will not balance, especially at higher experience levels when long term effects of high-INT can dominate.

In a party game with tactics - you can use intelligence stat and tactics skills to reduce the amount of communication and control you have over your party memembers. Like if you were smart you could order your flunkies to pin these guys HERE and flank those guys THERE. But if you were just dumb, then the only order would be "GET 'EM'

Obviously this wouldn't apply in party games where you are just the Player hivemind.

 

[spectre]

for "single combat" where PC has no team, then a simple way to do this is just to make the Player's INT stat influence combat effectiveness/skills. Ham-handed but will get the effect you are seeking.

(hand waving explaination: Your feints are less effective, your targeting is sub-normal, you don't adjust to your opponents' tactics, strenghts and weaknesss... etc.)

I think this is just plain wrong. Unless, the int effect is minimal, and be easly suprassed by buffing physical stats. Yes, drooling idiots have no place in combat, but it's not like half-dumb thugscan't be efficient fighters (especially in a group)

In the purely one-on-one combat situation, it is definitely tied to just experience. You have no time to think, only act or react. This is to be assumed and is reflected in almost every game. The difference being that there are many strategies that can be called upon before the battle reaches that point. That, in my opinion, is where the factor of intelligence and experience come into play. We're talking about the differences between a great soldier (strength/experience) vs. a great leader or general (intelligence/experience).

Now, this can be milked, I think. Not really in an rpg, but in a strategy game, perhaps, where leadership is important, and you just need to have an intelligent and charismatic leader, intelligent to assess the situation in a blink of an eye, and tell the others what to do. And charismatic enough to make them listen and move on despite the odds.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I think that low intelligence should somehow limit the ability to command people.

 

[DraQ]

One of the portions of RPG's that always bothers me is the ability to use my abilities and intelligence, whatever level they may be, to improve my character. Now, you say that should be a given, by why should it?

Because they are Role Playing Games. You can't selectively prevent player from exploiting his intelligence without removing him from control, but then it wouldn't be a game any more.

The issue is when combat skills only give a benefit of damage rather than the multitude of benefits experienced battlers would give to an outfit. This, and no matter how much reading done by the player, they will always be light-years behind a great warrior in tactical combat ability. Therefor, no matter how great or poor the character, they'll always have the same combat knowledge based on our own limitations. It's like level-scaling for combat ability, while our character only decides the chance to hit and damage.

More in-depth combat system with things like individual techniques, balance and timing involved and made stat-based would alleviate this. So would a more realistic injury mechanics - whittling down HPs doesn't really cut it.

Even when wielding a character with low intelligence, combat experience or training, we can still use choke-points and combat tactics effectively. Shouldn't we be more restricted based on our character's skillset? I'm not talking about disallowing certain positioning, but maybe allow better bonuses for character ability. A character with great combat experience and training would be able to recognize enemy tactics and be able to "read" their next moves, with a supposed indication on screen for the player. Say, arrows for proposed enemy movement or possible options for opposing forces.

Except player is generally already smarter than AI so throwing in such tactical cues would imbalance the overall situation even further, despite helping to account for character's ability. Will not work.

Even with simple initiation of combat, a inexperience character would make a straight line to the enemy and just hack and slash while an experienced warrior would also utilize better positioning against the opponent in battle to either cut off their advance or try to pin them in.

Might be workable with indirect controls, but it would also be extremely susceptible to cheating through micromanagement. Also, it would not work with direct controls - at least the movement part wouldn't.

That's an age-old dilemma, what to do when the character is less intelligent than the player?

You can filter audiovisual/textual feedback depending on character's stats, effectively putting player in character's shoes when it comes to the senses and partially the mind. You can also block off certain options, for example in dialogues. The problem is that it doesn't work in combat - you can't hide overall location's layout from player, nor prevent them from moving/changing stance or generally acting in smart manner.

Now, another important issue you rise here is is Intelligence and Reasoning important to a warrior character? Most of real life fighting is muscle memory, lots and lost of stuff is left to reflexes and intuition, just because there's no time to think, dammit.

Too narrow perspective. Warrior character is a character first, a warrior second. As a character the warrior must live in the game world, interact with other characters and the environment, etc. therefore attributes like intelligence should be of as much use to a warrior character as to any other when it comes to general activities (as in not highly specific ones like spellcasting or engineering) - you can't solve everything through combat (at least not for long before others team up and put your head on a pike), so a dumb fighter should have much shittier life than a slightly weaker moderately smart one, constantly falling for various ruses, being deprived of vital clues, getting into various trouble and generally being exploited by smarter individuals. If a character is about as smart as a DA laureate let his player taste how it feels to get a Darwin Award.

Partly, that would be why I wouldn't limit combat options based on Intelligence or similar.

My reasoning is much simpler - not doable, therefore won't do.

I think that low intelligence should somehow limit the ability to command people.

Good idea. More importantly it's applicable to both, indirectly ordering followers and directly commanding hivemind party (bleh!).

 

[saenz]

You have to kind of be careful with giving INT this much influence or the character builds will not balance

I think zenzbitz really hit the nail on the head there. In real life, INT is phenomenally overpowered. Should a player put one point into their upper body strength, or one point into a stat that affects their every roll?

Furthermore, can a low INT character even comprehend what the quest is? Accordingly, the narrative of a low INT character look like the first part of Faulkner's" Sound and the Fury," a story told from the incomprehensible perspective of an adult retard. http://www.usask.ca/english/faulkner/main/index.html

Under such an indepth system, I'd imagine a critical fail on an INT roll generating a popup saying, "You have no clue what the fuck is going on right now." Your journal would look like an exceptionally shitty twitter feed: "Bearded guy kept talking. Some peeps tried to kill me. I killz them instead. Bearded guy gave me money. LOL."

 

[spectre]

In real life, INT is phenomenally overpowered.

It's overrated, that's for certain.

I think you're going to extremes, what does it mean low int?
Yes, when we hit the "retarded" treshold, at which point, the character should be unplayable (and there are pnp systems out there which support this). However, that is the very end of the spectrum, and along the way from Genius to retard we get stuff like: intelligent, quite bright, average, not too bright, slow witted. All of these should be perfectly capable living a functional life.

Now, I don't really want to go into this, but let's start the shitstorm and define - what is intelligence, once we have this, we know what it can and cannot do, because tying it to each and every brain function doesn't make the cut for me.

 

[Unradscorpion]

Ah, another RPG discussion that cannot bring any good results in actual games, it's going to be just like that Draq's thread all over again.

 

[DraQ]

You have to kind of be careful with giving INT this much influence or the character builds will not balance

I think zenzbitz really hit the nail on the head there. In real life, INT is phenomenally overpowered. Should a player put one point into their upper body strength, or one point into a stat that affects their every roll?

I thought this was an RPG, not an MMO design discussion board.

1. Balance not just doesn't have to, but plain shouldn't depend on character's relative "power" in a SP RPG, it's very game'y and thus detracts from verisimilitude - a thousand year old wizard is just not in the same league as a rogue, no matter how good.

2. Isn't minmaxing a problem on it's own? penalizing extreme combination of stats (but encouraging moderate specialization, as opposed to jack of all trades builds) seems like a cure.

3. There are other ways of balancing stuff (like different cost) than making it all the same - int shouldn't be another str - not any more than bow should be another fireball or blunt another blade.

Furthermore, can a low INT character even comprehend what the quest is? Accordingly, the narrative of a low INT character look like the first part of Faulkner's" Sound and the Fury," a story told from the incomprehensible perspective of an adult retard. http://www.usask.ca/english/faulkner/main/index.html

Fallout had retard dialogues for low int characters. Also, tough luck.

Ah, another RPG discussion that cannot bring any good results in actual games, it's going to be just like that Draq's thread all over again.

Wipe your nose and GTFO when adults talk, kid.

 

[zenbitz]

for "single combat" where PC has no team, then a simple way to do this is just to make the Player's INT stat influence combat effectiveness/skills. Ham-handed but will get the effect you are seeking.

(hand waving explaination: Your feints are less effective, your targeting is sub-normal, you don't adjust to your opponents' tactics, strenghts and weaknesss... etc.)

I think this is just plain wrong. Unless, the int effect is minimal, and be easly suprassed by buffing physical stats. Yes, drooling idiots have no place in combat, but it's not like half-dumb thugscan't be efficient fighters (especially in a group)

I didn't say you SHOULD do this... I just meant that it's not hard to make INT influence combat. I agree that single combat is mostly experience (SKI!!Z) and secondarily physical.

 

[GarfunkeL]

It's not just INT either but knowledge. Einstein or Hawking are just as useless on the battlefield as Hayloft-Bobby or Joe Sixpack, probably even more so. Most officers and NCO's are pretty average, it's just that they have been trained and they have the knowledge so they actually understand what generally works and doesn't in a given battlefield situation. Of course, the smart ones act quicker and respond better in complex situations but pretty much never can mathematical ability trump military knowledge, unless you go into really extreme/convoluted examples.

 

[GarfunkeL]

Funfact: SAS troops are not the best in the world because everyone one of them has killed over 9000 darkspawn. It's likely that a sizeable part of them has never actually killed a human being. But they train like no-one else and they have experience to tweak that training, to keep it as realistic and useful as possible. They are never finished with the training either, because otherwise you lose the "edge" you need.

Pretty much the same thing with pro athletes.

 

[Kaucukovnik]

I think that the problem is in INT being a single stat. Most RPG systems have quite diferentiated physical attributes (strength, agility, dexterity, vitality...), but only a single value for the character's mental abilities.
There are many ways of being smart, as well as there are many ways to be physically efficient.

All the current systems are basically "combat mechanics + everything else sticked on top of it". I don't know any system that has social or magic skills rooted in the mechanics as deep as the combat abilities. Combat is the core and anything else seems like an afterthought. See the name of this topic? "More Character Influence Part I: Combat"
And please don't start about origin in wargames. For example metal music has roots in hard rock, which doesn't mean it is based on hard rock riffs and structures.

But even the combat itself isn't only taking the right positions, swinging weapons and avoiding enemy attacks. Other things are important as well - where does the battle take place? What impression did you make on the enemy before you drew your blades? Did you manage to get any allies to support you? And if you cannot handle these aspects as well, it doesn't matter how strong or clever you are on the battlefield - you will eventually lose.
A dumb warrior WILL get himself killed one day, because there is always someone stronger (or you can get overwhelmed by a mob). Unlike CRPGs, where it is somehow expected that you can eventually beat anything, becoming the "absolute top of the food chain".


This is how I would implement character's intelligence impact on combat:

1.Make the intellect several stats, preventing it from being a single overpowered attribute and giving much more life to the characters as well
2.Make the circumstances about half as important as the actual combat performance, and let the character change the circumstances depending on intellectual stats/skills
3.Never let the player character(s) become so strong that they can challenge anything in the game world head-on.

Just adding intelligence to combat calculactions/functionality doesn't cut it.

 

[DraQ]

I think that the problem is in INT being a single stat. Most RPG systems have quite diferentiated physical attributes (strength, agility, dexterity, vitality...), but only a single value for the character's mental abilities.
There are many ways of being smart, as well as there are many ways to be physically efficient.

Actually, it's a mighty fine observation, I came to a similar conclusion when musing about ways to distinguish truly different and alien species with similar overall mental capabilities in an RPG system.

All the current systems are basically "combat mechanics + everything else sticked on top of it". I don't know any system that has social or magic skills rooted in the mechanics as deep as the combat abilities. Combat is the core and anything else seems like an afterthought. See the name of this topic? "More Character Influence Part I: Combat"
And please don't start about origin in wargames. For example metal music has roots in hard rock, which doesn't mean it is based on hard rock riffs and structures.

Well and our origin was likely bits of organic goo sticking to the porous precipitates around undersea hydrothermal vents - does that mean we should all dive into the sea over an oceanic ridge and try to dissolve into amorphous sludge in order to honour our ancestry? Another good observation.

But even the combat itself isn't only taking the right positions, swinging weapons and avoiding enemy attacks. Other things are important as well - where does the battle take place? What impression did you make on the enemy before you drew your blades? Did you manage to get any allies to support you? And if you cannot handle these aspects as well, it doesn't matter how strong or clever you are on the battlefield - you will eventually lose.

Now we have willpower and charisma at work here too.

A dumb warrior WILL get himself killed one day, because there is always someone stronger (or you can get overwhelmed by a mob). Unlike CRPGs, where it is somehow expected that you can eventually beat anything, becoming the "absolute top of the food chain".

Adressing this rising to the top issue - my second favourite stat development system (first being good use-based one) would be a mostly static one, where you can't really rise your primary attributes or skills, merely add new individual abilities and techniques by learning them or (rarely) discovering them on your own, in form of perks and/or a skill-tree. This would abolish becoming gods as well as grind and shift focus to chargen, social status development and skill/loot acquisition. Another welcome side effect would be disincentive to be everyone's errand boy - no more XP for mundane tasks, there would have to be tangible rewards.

Just adding intelligence to combat calculactions/functionality doesn't cut it.

Indeed, it's like treating disembowelment with a band aid.

Funfact: SAS troops are not the best in the world because everyone one of them has killed over 9000 darkspawn.

Wait, they aren't?
It all makes sense now...

It's not just INT either but knowledge. Einstein or Hawking are just as useless on the battlefield as Hayloft-Bobby or Joe Sixpack, probably even more so. Most officers and NCO's are pretty average, it's just that they have been trained and they have the knowledge so they actually understand what generally works and doesn't in a given battlefield situation. Of course, the smart ones act quicker and respond better in complex situations but pretty much never can mathematical ability trump military knowledge, unless you go into really extreme/convoluted examples.

Of course, a band of adventurers isn't exactly a group of regulars and often faces different problems during its adventures than such group on a battlefield.
Add to this, that in fantasy settings the middle man in form of costly development and testing new technology is cut out, and knowledge plus intellect can be directly converted into reality bending awesomeness or at least some very destructive big booms - Einstein or even Hawking could probably be fucking badasses if they lived in an universe where fundamental laws of reality conveniently also formed the basis of applied magic.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Funfact: SAS troops are not the best in the world because everyone one of them has killed over 9000 darkspawn. It's likely that a sizeable part of them has never actually killed a human being. But they train like no-one else and they have experience to tweak that training, to keep it as realistic and useful as possible. They are never finished with the training either, because otherwise you lose the "edge" you need.

Pretty much the same thing with pro athletes.

I wish someone would make a cRPG that takes it into account.

 

[saenz]

..SAS train like no-one else ... They are never finished with the training either, because otherwise you lose the "edge" you need.

I wish someone would make a cRPG that takes it into account.

Anybody else remember the original Police Quest: SWAT? (The FMV point and click adventure one.) Your workday consisted of going to the shooting range and obsessively running the same shooting drills. During all of this, there was a random probability that a 911 call would come in, hence leading to the actual missions.

But to get back on topic, if you're looking to bring brainpower into combat, you need to get back to the basics and first settle on what kind of variable(s) you want to use: stat, skill, or experience level. Stats should be conceptualized mostly as natural aptitude. Skills should be conceptualized as learnable abilities. XP levels are a conceptual representation of acquired knowledge from previous adventures.

Going all the way back to basic D&D, brainpower was split mostly into 2 stats: INT and WIS. INT was fast-thinking where as WIS was accumulated knowledge. Theoretically, a high INT character could figure out the weak spot of the big bad, where as a high WIS char would know because the High Wizard Malchior did exactly that 200 years ago at the Battle of Highfane.

Then newer systems came along and skills made everything really complicated. You could now train characters to beat specific and often obscure rolls. In terms of this discussion though, the majority of skills are knowledge based. If you can't remember, analyze, and adapt, you can't improve. Yes, muscle memory is a real thing, but the ability to learn is otherwise INT based.

Then there's experience levels. The thing is though, that XP levels alone mostly shouldn't be used as a variable to roll against. Levels = points to stats and skills. Trying to use it as a variable is either conflicting with or ignoring the players stats and/or skills. It's good as a quick assessment of a character's power, but assumes all characters and challenges are balanced.

To get back to GarfunkeL's example, SAS rock because their selection course finds characters with good stats. Then then train in 'real' conditions to generate experience. Everyone of the SAS has killed over 9000 darkspawn - except that they were cardboard. Still, assuming that training is done right under realistic conditions, they still get XP point for that. By the time the SAS gets on mission, they've already levelled up and grinded their skills.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

A level 1 AD&D fighter represents a highly trained professional like a knight.
Ordinary soldiers are level 0.

 

[DraQ]

A level 1 AD&D fighter represents a highly trained professional like a knight.
Ordinary soldiers are level 0.

And that should be enough to generate loud, prolonged, echoing .