Non-lethal combat

[mister lamat]

since we see returning antagonists (meh on the term) with the non-lethal combat do injuries inflicted or the severity of them affect future interactions? not sure if the level of sophistication is that high, but there's a difference between just kicking someone's ass and then going to break their legs or cut off their thumbs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

No, none whatsoever.

 

[mister lamat]

yea, seemed overly complicated. still, waving a severed ear in it's former owners face... pinnacle of the rpg experience.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Non-lethal combat? Yay, but with limitations. If you are using a weapon that you have hardly any skill with (say a crossbow), you shouldn't automatically succeed in non-lethal combat. There should be a percent chance that you accidentally kill the target. If you are highly skilled with a mace, then you should have a greatly increased chance of finishing non-lethal. However, there should ALWAYS be a small chance of killing the target, even with fists/feet.

Then you negate the whole point of the non-lethal combat. As I've understood it, it will make killing a 100% player choice. It is a choice with potential disastrous consequences, and it will be entirely up to the player to decide whether or not to satisfy his blood thirst. Further it serves as a save/loaditis-preventing mechanic. What will happen if you accidentally kill the guy you were trying to just kick the ass of, due to some random chance? You'll reload, right? I know that's what I'll do, there's no denying that. That's what the majority of players will do. And that's what this whole game mechanic is about. Now, I really hope that VD does something to prevent Gothics very much exploitable not-lethal combat, like making the NPCs remember that you actually kicked their ass in various ways (examples on this, hint, hint?).

Edit: Oh, and yay, provided that the flaws of Gothics non-lethals combat isn't an issue.

 

[Elwro]

Well, PB tried to implement NPC's "being beaten"-memory and for me it usually worked. To make them forget that I kicked their ass (so that e.g. they'd be willing to trade with me) I had to cast the "Amnesia" spell on them.

 

[One Wolf]

oops critical reload. oops max damage roll reload. oops enemy hp too low reload. oops critical reload.

Well, if you have a habit of reloading every time the game doesn't develop to your liking, I think that's your problem. Oops, I am radiated reload. Oops I got addicted to Buffout reload. Oops I didn't know that I can't complete quest Y after completing quest Y reload.

i think you misunderstood me. i'm talking about the player scoring the crit/max dam. roll, not the NPC. while cautiously working down the enemy's life to the point they are beaten but not dead (dying triggers the bug), scoring a crit would kill the NPC. my point was that in that circumstance you had incentive to essentially knock out your opponent without killing him, and doing so was irritating due to the NPC's accidental death via crit/max damage roll. in that case, i would have preferred that NPC health < 0 would equal knockout. it has nothing to do with "not having the game develop to my liking", unless by "not to my liking" you mean "develop a bug".

 

[Nog Robbin]

Sounds like a great idea. In many cases death is not the desired outcome, either from the PC's point of view, or in the case of the PC being attacked, the attackers point of view.
Sure, in a war situation (or mass battle) you are likely to want to finish people off (though not necessarily if it means having to spend time to do so when they are already down). However, in these cases you will be aiming for disabling or critical blows.
If, on the other hand, you were caught doing something you shouldn't it's unlikely you'd want to kill the person that found you (unless not doing so meant you would definitely have very bad consequences). If there's a chance you'd get away with it it's unlikely you'd stoop to murder.
Of course, accidents happen.

So, having two fighting modes (lethal/non-lethal) seems a good start.
Lethal combat means you don't care if you kill the person, and probably intend to. You could still just knock someone out or disable them and then choose to finish them, but would just as likely kill them as a consequence of the fight.
Non lethal combat means you are looking at disabling or knocking out the opponent. If you manage to do so wouldn't stop you killing them afterwards, but it would be premeditated. As I said, however, accidents can happen, so maybe there should be a chance during non-lethal combat (and depending on character skill) of you inadvertently killing the target. The chance of accidentally killing them may not only depend on the character skill, but maybe also the weapon being used?

 

[Lumpy]

How about yielding? When a NPC gets down to low enough health (how low depends on various attributes), he will yield to the player, who will have the choice to continue attacking, or spare his life.

 

[Naked Ninja]

Hmmm, I like the yielding idea as well.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yes, it's in.

 

[Claw]

i think you misunderstood me. i'm talking about the player scoring the crit/max dam. roll, not the NPC.

No, I didn't. My point is that in your example, killing the NPC causes a bug, while in the hypothetical situation in AoD, it would merely be an inconvenient consequence. A bug is a valid complaint. An intended* consequence isn't.

my point was that in that circumstance you had incentive to essentially knock out your opponent without killing him, and doing so was irritating due to the NPC's accidental death via crit/max damage roll.

That could be said for many situations where a failed skill check results in an undesireable outcome. Let's say you wanted to trick an NPC and had a high enough peruasion skill to get this option, but fail upon trying. Are you clicking on the disk icon already? Should VD have designed the game so that if you choose the option to trick the NPC, you succeed automatically?

Also, your description of meticulously wearing down an NPC's HP strikes me as exaggerated and assumptive. Moreover, I already presented evidence to the contrary. I believe it would be relatively easy (the general difficulty of winning the fight aside) to wear down an enemy's health to a low level and then switch to a more careful combat style.

unless by "not to my liking" you mean "develop a bug".

Is this another of these "you mistakenly assumed my post was meant to be relevant to the discussion" situations? I was only looking at your example as analogy for a similar hypotherical situation in Age of Decadence.
If that's the case, I apologize for wasting my time. Otherwise I'll point out once again that the real problem isn't killing the NPC but the resulting bug.
Sure, in this specific situation it would have been better if a fatal blow hadn't been possible, but.. you certainly realize that this is anecdotal evidence, and only relevant in that specific context. It has nothing to do with my suggestion for AoD. If designed properly, the game should be able to handle (or prevent) the accidental death of an NPC in combat.



*by the game designer

 

[Claw]

Yes, it's in.

Meaning zero health is actually death?

 

[Vault Dweller]

No. Zero health is a knockout at which point it's entirely up to you, without any input from the opponent, to decide whether he lives or dies. Some opponents will initiate a conversation when their health drops to 5HPs (it's nothing new, you can see it in many games), etc.

Maybe we can use this system a lot more and change zero health to death. That's probably a much better way to go. I should have realized it earlier.

 

[galsiah]

However you go about giving the player the choice (e.g. NPC yield/dialogue, NPC knockout...), I think it's best to leave the choice up to the player. Otherwise you're simply turning an interesting decision into a roll of the dice.

@Claw - comparisons with "failed skill check result[ing] in an undesirable outcome" are not valid. The point is that neither the death, nor the survival of the NPC are desirable in every sense. The player gets to choose because it's an interesting choice with pros and cons on both sides.
Comparing this to choosing whether to succeed or fail at a skill check is not useful.

Making death a roll of the dice is more interesting in games where the player is usually very clear on whether he wants the NPC to die (since this adds challenge and suspense to a known objective). Making death a choice is more interesting in games where the player is less certain - since there are benefits/costs for both outcomes.
Personally I'm hoping AoD is in the latter category.

 

[Claw]

The player gets to choose because it's an interesting choice with pros and cons on both sides.

With every single NPC you ever fight against? Is that a fact?


I do find it interesting to add a "random" element, having a margin of error introduces a more far-reaching and substantial gameplay element.
Instead of a simple decision at the end of the actual combat, the player is encouraged to adapt his combat style; instead of just using the most effective killing method the player might try to cripple or disarm his opponent, even if such finesse isn't always his first choice.
As explained before, fast attacks are a simple way of decreasing the chance of accidental kills, yet may be less effective and thus increase the challenge.

If the survival of NPCs isn't always significant, there still remains the statistical distinction and the question of how much effort a player wants to invest to avoid unnecessary casualties becomes more relevant. The player is then given the choice to make a personal goal of avoiding deaths, or take them as they come, incurring a higher bodycount. Last not least the player can of course decide to kill any opponent without mercy.
I'm not sure what Critical Strike does exactly. I believe it does give the player the special ability to attack NPCs from conversation, but does it also increase the chance of critical hits? If there is any way of permanently increasing the chance of criticals (I think there are at least the mushrooms) then this becomes another factor. Increased chance of critical hits means more damage in general, but it also increases the chance of accidental kills, which a player may find undesireable. Hmm, more criticals or more control? Darned decisions!

Comparing this to choosing whether to succeed or fail at a skill check is not useful.

That must be why I didn't do it, although strangely you can't seem to tell the difference. I didn't compare the choice itself to a skill check, I compared whether or not the player gets the result he decided for to a skill check.
If the choice is indeed relevant, we can assume the player settles for one option. Now there are a positive and a negative result, where actually achieving the chosen result constitutes a success and the alternative a failure. I consider this a seperate challenge, and that's what makes games interesting. Just deciding can be ok too, but a little challenge seems more entertaining to me.


By the way, if I read VDs last post correctly, then effectively doing as little as 6 points of damage could outright kill an NPC without a chance to yield first. That would basically achive the same I was aiming for.
And naturally, this would in principle be true for any chosen "yield threshold" value.

 

[One Wolf]

My point is that in your example, killing the NPC causes a bug, while in the hypothetical situation in AoD, it would merely be an inconvenient consequence.

true, but the fact remains that if the bug is substituted for an inconvenient outcome, said outcome is difficult to control, and out of proportion with the player's skills. naturally this is solely my viewpoint, but what i was intending to imply is that i personally do not look forward to spending large chunks of each battle trying to figure out how not to kill my opponent. and no matter how cautious my behavior, a bad dice roll puts an end to careful planning. not to mention a dice roll that had a high likelyhood of not going my way, regardless of skill levels.

Let's say you wanted to trick an NPC and had a high enough peruasion skill to get this option, but fail upon trying.

yes, perhaps i might fail a skillcheck when using persuation, but my chance of failing becomes less likely with higher rank, as opposed to combat, where high skill will likely make your chances of killing accidentally increase as your damage/hit increases.

If killing your opponent didn't cause that bug in FO2, would you ever have bothered to try and not kill your opponent?

yes (and alternately, no) because there were additional consequences besides the bug, i used the bug only to illustrate that poor implementation of lethality makes things bothersome, and does not imporove gameplay in my opinion.

If designed properly, the game should be able to handle (or prevent) the accidental death of an NPC in combat.

this summerizes my point nicely.

There should be a percent chance that you accidentally kill the target. If you are highly skilled with a mace, then you should have a greatly increased chance of finishing non-lethal.

agreed. i also feel that even an unskilled player should still have a low chance of killing his oppenent if he is willing to sacrifice. for example, if there was a non-lethal attack mode that imposed -5 to hit it would make more sense since the sacrifice would be your own depleting health as you miss more often in attempting to achieve your goal.

 

[Lumpy]

No. Zero health is a knockout at which point it's entirely up to you, without any input from the opponent, to decide whether he lives or dies. Some opponents will initiate a conversation when their health drops to 5HPs (it's nothing new, you can see it in many games), etc.

Maybe we can use this system a lot more and change zero health to death. That's probably a much better way to go. I should have realized it earlier.

You mean yielding? If so, I also think that it's better, because it's a much more natural option.
When someone falls down if hit over the head with an axe or stabbed in the chest with a dagger, then gets up partially healed but more obedient to the player, it feels artificial. Yielding doesn't as much. Plus, it also makes negotiation dialogue make more sense. You could have an option to allow the player to take items from the NPC, ask for information, etc. If he pushes the line, the NPC could get angry and attack again (depending on his evaluation of his chance of survival). And of course, the player should be able to kill the NPC after getting what he wants, although if people are around, it shouldn't do wonders for his Word of Honor trait.

 

[galsiah]

I do find it interesting to add a "random" element, having a margin of error introduces a more far-reaching and substantial gameplay element.
Instead of a simple decision at the end of the actual combat, the player is encouraged to adapt his combat style...

I understand all this, but it still seems a poor solution to me. If the player doesn't want to kill his opponent, that should be a direct instruction to the PC. It shouldn't e.g. prevent the PC from going for all the damage he wants to non-lethal areas. A strong PC with a war-hammer should be able to aim for the greatest damage possible to his opponent's legs.

I'm fine with an element of uncertainty to NPC death, so long as the mechanisms for reducing its likelihood make good sense. Any PC should be able to attack non-lethally with any weapon - it might just hamper his attacks to a greater degree with some. Forcing a character into choosing nonsense actions in order to meta-game for NPC survival is not a good idea.

If the survival of NPCs isn't always significant, there still remains the statistical distinction

Right - this (if anything) is the interesting decision. So make it a one-click / one-slide decision (e.g. an aggression slider). Optimizing a range of individual factors to produce the same effect is simply dull. By all means leave the interesting decision (how aggressively do you fight?), but don't turn it into a bout of nonsense meta-gaming.

Darned decisions!

Generally dull decisions (though special-casing berserk seems reasonable). Removing the broader, interesting decision, to introduce a few dull decisions is hardly a worthy enterprise.

I consider this a seperate challenge, and that's what makes games interesting. Just deciding can be ok too, but a little challenge seems more entertaining to me.

Sure, but the more you introduce chance in the outcome, the less investment the player has in the decision. If outcomes are always 50:50, the player has no agency, and so no investment in the larger, more interesting decisions. If he gets to decide with 100% certainty, he's fully invested in the decision, and carries total responsibility for it. In moving from the 100% towards the 50:50, you trade investment in the higher level decision for some tactical interest. That's not great for this type of game IMO.
If you can't introduce this tactical interest without making a nonsense of the decisions involved (quite hard if you're using a HP system), I think it sucks.

By the way, if I read VDs last post correctly, then effectively doing as little as 6 points of damage could outright kill an NPC without a chance to yield first. That would basically achive the same I was aiming for.

And would suck IMO - unless the player always has a means of reducing damage that makes sense for his character (i.e. NOT putting away his main weapon, and selecting a dagger he can hardly use to avoid the risk of killing).

 

[Ismaul]

I agree with galsiah, non-lethal combat should only be affected by the player's choice. Otherwise, when you add some chance to fail at it, you negate the whole point of having non-lethal combat. And players will start reloading saves because of indesired outcomes. I think gameplay wins on realism for this one. IMO, if you don't want the player to always have to deal with a finishing sequence because of non-lethal combat mechanics, a non-lethal/lethal toggle is a better idea.

No. Zero health is a knockout at which point it's entirely up to you, without any input from the opponent, to decide whether he lives or dies. Some opponents will initiate a conversation when their health drops to 5HPs (it's nothing new, you can see it in many games), etc.

Maybe we can use this system a lot more and change zero health to death. That's probably a much better way to go. I should have realized it earlier.

I like it, but there's a small problem with that. Not every opponent is a "yielder". Some would flee, some would rather let you kill them, others will fight to death. And yielding can be different from opponents to others: some might propose money, others plead... If you are making the NPC self-preservation system the norm, might be a good idea to vary the responses. Make it dependant on NPC personnality (if possible, or only for major characters).

Plus, since fleeing is a very common self-preservation response, maybe enabling this at 5 remaining HP is not the best implementation. You usually flee before you're unable to. Yielding might be the last resort. So, what about making the trigger at 10 HP for fleeing? Again, I think it's all about character presonnality: some are much more protective of their lives than others. So, I guess all responses could be tied to a scale of courage, from fearless/nothing-to-lose to coward/please-think-of-my-children. Too much work? Maybe randomize most except those for major characters?

Also, is the player going to have a choice to let live if it's not initiated by the opponent? Examples: the opponent is too stubborn to yield, you just disarmed him, you killed all his allies... Would be nice. On the reverse, are those situation going to happen to the PC? Say an NPC defeats him, is the player going to be able to beg, choose to die, flee? Maybe he might be left alive by the NPC in exchange for something/some deed (quest hook), etc. Last time I asked, I think you said it was in, any specifics/development?


And, for reference and ideas, a thread of the same name started by myself two years ago.

 

[Fryjar]

Actually, I'd like to see a mixture of the afore mentioned ideas.
First of all an expanded yielding range definitely sounds very compelling and leaves room for many interesting strategic elements like interrogation and so on (So I hope, the interrogation element gets implemented if there is still time).
Still, I guess it would be a bit annoying when you are dealing with multiple unimportant opponents to see this dialogue pop up every time. Hence I'd suggest to simply implement an additional attack mode: "Non lethal damage".
I guess no one expects you to create new animations for this mode, so just keep the old ones and even the standard damage model.
But instead of killing your opponents when reaching 0 hp, they should drop unconsciously.
You would even create some kind of trade off for your goodwill: You are limited to a standard attack and don't have access to your special alterations.

 

[Lumpy]

The thing about fleeing is, it's a bit unrealistic. If a guy with a sword comes towards you, either you flee as soon as possible, either you fight him or try to talk out of it. Because in real life, the guy with the sword doesn't hit you repeatedly taking 5 damage at a time. You'll probably die on the second or third successful hit.
So NPCs should either flee at the beginning, or stay in combat till the end.

 

[sqeecoo]

No. Zero health is a knockout at which point it's entirely up to you, without any input from the opponent, to decide whether he lives or dies. Some opponents will initiate a conversation when their health drops to 5HPs (it's nothing new, you can see it in many games), etc.

Maybe we can use this system a lot more and change zero health to death. That's probably a much better way to go. I should have realized it earlier.

This is much better than having a switch that turns on non-lethal combat. If you are hitting an (unarmored) person with a sword, there is not much you can do to make the hit "non-lethal", except hitting with the flat part of the blade, which should do very little damage (but you still might bash someone's head in).

I like the idea of most opponents surrendering if wounded (at which point you can kill them, which might be considered dishonorable). That's a nice, realistic option, more so than *every* opponent you fight still being alive after a few hits with a sword.

Perhaps you could have knocked out opponents with HP reduced to 0 described as "unconscious and dieing"? Realistically, instant death is quite rare, so as your setting does not seem to feature much magical healing, and even modern medicine can't reliably heal wounds from swords, most serious wounds would be fatal, mostly due to infection if the bleeding is stopped. But it would take days or weeks for them to die.
Not performing a coup de grace (a "death blow intended to end the suffering of a wounded creature", in fact), might even be considered cruel. Most opponents left to die should actually die, but you can have some be saved by friends, and make an unexpected recovery (maybe not a full recovery - it would be nice to see an old enemy limping around). They would then probably hold a grudge against the player.

Of course, if you don't care all that much about realism, do whatever goes best with the other gameplay mechanics already in place.

 

[Claw]

And would suck IMO - unless the player always has a means of reducing damage that makes sense for his character (i.e. NOT putting away his main weapon, and selecting a dagger he can hardly use to avoid the risk of killing).

I give up. Your thickness is impenetrable.

 

[galsiah]

In any remotely coherent world, the most certain means for an expert swordsman (unskilled with other weapon types) to take down an opponent non-lethally is with a sword. Other weapons are less effective for such an individual whatever the intended purpose. An individual skilled with a sword, but unskilled with a dagger is more likely to kill an opponent by accident using the dagger, than using the sword.

This is what will turn the goal of non-lethal victory into an incoherent meta-game in most systems without specific mechanics to handle non-lethal PC goals.

If you can think of a way to have things make reasonable sense, I'd agree that you have a point (though I'd still prefer that player choice be emphasized). Otherwise I don't think you do.

 

[Ismaul]

The thing about fleeing is, it's a bit unrealistic. If a guy with a sword comes towards you, either you flee as soon as possible, either you fight him or try to talk out of it. Because in real life, the guy with the sword doesn't hit you repeatedly taking 5 damage at a time. You'll probably die on the second or third successful hit.
So NPCs should either flee at the beginning, or stay in combat till the end.

You're talking about one on one combat. I agree that it's a bit too late to flee if engaged actively in melee combat. I'm guessing the PC won't be able to engage/threaten all opponents at once, so those unthreatened can easily flee, with the mere usage of legs and cover. Plus, you can always try to flee from ranged combat.