Combat on a Mu

[Lotherio]

Just fishing for thoughts on preferences. Do folks like minimal, hybrid or full combat?

By minimal, I mean a +sheet and some for of +roll or resolution. Its could be +roll dice or +roll skill and it spits out results. For combat the GM and story teller need to know the rules enough to guide everyone in what to roll.

By partial, I mean +sheet and some form of +attack. Pose order and stuff can be maintained or +initiative used, but each person +attacks opponent on their turn. It spits out the rest . Give or take.

Full on +combat is where folks all join the system, setup things each turn, and someone +runs a turn each time. It does initiative, everyone's attack roll for them based on targets set at the beginning of the round, and spits out results.

Or some combination otherwise. It system depending for some folks I get that, but what I'm looking at any could fit so it made me curious.

[Arkandel]

@lotherio What I want from a MU combat system:

• It has to be straight forward enough to not be intimidating. It's a real blocker for (especially new) STs who often won't run plots if it is. Fit the rules in one page and you're on the right foot.
• It needs to be relatively fast-paced. This may be a personal preference but I don't want to spend more than an hour in one combat session.
• It should offer diversity in viable 'builds'. If two-handed swords are the best then somehow everyone ends up rolling characters who use two-handed swords.
• If possible it should let non-combat or support-oriented characters contribute meaningfully.

So given your choices above I'd go with a midway automation approach. It's tempting to just have the combat system spit out the result but the key to all MU*ing is interaction, and having the big climatic battle resolve in 10 seconds flat feels wrong. Let characters take turns, make decisions and then resolve those in swift order.

[faraday]

It depends. Do you care about tracking wounds and healing? How complex is the game system you're trying to model? How often are combats likely to come up and what will the scale/scope be?

A big dogfight on a BSG game or an assault on TGG? You'd be insane NOT to have a full-fledged combat system. It'd take all day to resolve one scene and it would be a tremendous burden on your GMs and players.

A duel on a low-stakes swashbuckling game? Who needs stats at all?

So I don't think this should be up to player preference of vanilla vs. chocolate. Different games have different needs.

[silverfox]

All I want is that is take as little effort and time as possible.

Also I hate systems where everyone has to roll for who goes first, then has to say what they are doing, then rolls, then poses. It makes a single combat scene into an hour plus affair and I dislike that.

[Seraphim73]

As long as everyone involved knows the system really well, I don't mind using a TT system for combat and doing the Initiative, each turn, each pose thing. But @silverfox is totally right that it takes forever (I think the -best- I ever got at Saga Edition was 30 minutes per round for 4 PCs and a GM).

As @faraday said, it depends on the setting/theme--if you're soap opera characters, you don't need a combat system, but if you're on a war game, you definitely need something at least partially automated.

@Arkandel also put out the important note that choice needs to be important and so is the ability for support characters to feel useful.

All of that is why I like a system that automates rounds, but allows GMs some freedom to add a variety of mods to represent things that support characters might do. Something that has enough variety that not everyone is armed the same (unless that's a thing, like they all have standard military weaponry), without taking forever to learn.

Yeah, I like FS3.3. Is it perfect? Naw, I've got points where I disagree with @faraday about the design philosophy, but we've talked that over a bunch and I totally understand her reasons. But does it provide automated turns, a somewhat steep but short learning curve, enough detail to have variety and allow GMs to tilt the rolls, and the ability to feel in-universe? Yup. That's that's well beyond "good enough" for me.

[mietze]

I have experienced far more actial rp during combat in full system plug and play (like fs3). The combat was also quicker and so people were not dropping like flies before aftermath or important stuff because it took 6 hours to get through a single round and people deciding what to do/having to look up special rules, ect.

[Carma]

This post is deleted!

[Lotherio]

This is all good stuff.

My personal pref is how folks used to do it on 90s d6 games and a lot of comic games (that I've played at least). Roll then pose, in pose order. Just a +attack and pose the result. That works better on less meaty/gritty combat systems.

The system I'm pondering can be gritty (or is, it is pretty gritty) and folks like @Seraphim73 can get the options, like axe vs plate is better than sword vs plate and such, options. But in the meaty systems, the folks that want the quick get bogged down by the rules and the min/maxing that can take place. These work better like in FS3 plug n play (Ares and prior on PennMush), just sometimes folks still ask 'how do I set weapon and stance and such'. The bonus is a scene runner can quickly set mods to the rolls to help.

I'm considering some mix between. Like a +combat to join, with some HUD for the folks that want to see it all in detail that isn't required. Instead when someone joins it might prompt for choices like which side/team, what weapon, what armor, and then in pose order when its someone's turn it prompts them to ask what they do (attack/heal/etc) and gives options rolls and lets them pose the outcome.

I want it simple on the face but detailed, just getting a feel is all.

[faraday]

@lotherio said in Combat on a Mu:

Just a +attack

In most RPG systems, attacking is "just" a skill roll.

The hard part is:

• Figuring out what to roll. In many cases this involves knowing what your opponent is doing, what skills they have, etc.
• Figuring out what modifiers apply to the roll based on a given situation. Range, wounds, reach, visibility, and a billion other potential combat modifiers.
• Figuring out what should happen based on the die roll(s). Damage being the obvious result but many systems have other side effects too. Subdue attacks, etc.

The more you try to automate these things, the more complex your combat commands necessarily become.

The more you try to leave these things up to the humans, the longer it takes with OOCs back and forth trying to sort things out.

So in practical terms, there's really no such thing as "just a +attack" in any but the most simplistic hand-wavey systems.

[Lotherio]

@faraday Exactly, I meant like +attack john/<withweapon>/<modifiers> and such, but all in one roll with options included as needed. Sorry I didn't express I meant to include details beyond just +attack. But again, as you noted, it takes knowing the options for the roll and putting it in each time. The more options for like stance, dodge skill or melee counter or parry, various cover makes it more complex.

[Tinuviel]

Along with all that has been said, I want something that's quick enough to be worth it but slow enough to have RP involved. Automated enough not to think about it but manual enough for story decisions to be able to affect the mechanics. Also it doesn't need to be able to make sandwiches but if it did I'd want them to cut the crusts off.

So, you know. The impossible, please. And I need it by Tuesday.

[Jennkryst]

One issue with a +attack PC command is that it falls apart when fighting NPCs, unless a object is made with stats that you can target.

As for combat and pose speed, that's more cultural. Gotta wait for the person ahead of you to pose before you decide what you do, and all that. I'd say do all combat in OOC, then do one pose each after all the dice get rolled.

[Tinuviel]

@jennkryst said in Combat on a Mu:

One issue with a +attack PC command is that it falls apart when fighting NPCs, unless a object is made with stats that you can target.

Depends on how the command is built. Using @faraday's system as an example, you can set up NPCs in the combat scenario that have stats and equipment as necessary.