Clash System: Good Idea or Pretty Stupid?

[AnBe]

A clash is a special ability in the new game I have been developing. Basically the user of the clash must spend 1 action point (AP) and then make an opposed melee skill check versus 1 other guy. If the one who initiates it wins, he/she can decide to kill that opponent or leave them knocked out. If the target wins, he/she has the same choice to the one who initiated it. The target can sacrifice 1 AP to avoid the clash.
AP is basically a limited resource that you only get a certain number of per day, depending on your Resolve stat. You have to rest or drink energy potions to restore AP. AP is used for a lot of different abilities in the game, not just clashes.
I designed clash in mind to maybe make some combats a little quicker, so it's not a turn-by-turn slugfest every time. Not that that is such a bad thing, as there can still be plenty of strategic options in such a case.

So, what do you guys think? Fair system, or just dumb? I'd appreciate your thoughts.

[molten_dragon]

I have no idea how the rest of your system works, so I don't know if this is a good idea or not.

[TheIronGolem]

So basically combat is resolved in a single roll? And the winner pretty much decides the loser's fate then and there?

This means combat is brief, deadly, and probably very swingy (depending on the particulars of how that roll works). That could work for survival-horror and similar genres, where the emphasis is more on escaping the threat and physically fighting is a desperate last resort. It would be awful for any kind of action-oriented game like superheroes or fantasy-adventure.

[JNAProductions]

So basically combat is resolved in a single roll? And the winner pretty much decides the loser's fate then and there?

This means combat is brief, deadly, and probably very swingy (depending on the particulars of how that roll works). That could work for survival-horror and similar genres, where the emphasis is more on escaping the threat and physically fighting is a desperate last resort. It would be awful for any kind of action-oriented game like superheroes or fantasy-adventure.

This ^.

It CAN work... But if you're aiming to mimic, say, D&D style combats... It'd be awful.

[Dragonexx]

It's impossible to tell in a void. We'd need more description of the game your trying to develop, what the objectives of the game are, and what kind of stories the system is intended to tell.

[Vitruviansquid]

As said by others, we don't really know enough about the other parts of your system.

But on first glance, it seems to me that this clash system will actually slow down the game, not speed it up.

To speed up a game, you want to have slippery slope mechanics that allow a character who is already winning to win further. Clash instead seems to be a comeback mechanic.

Let's say that you and I are having a duel in this game, and somehow I am getting beaten. Maybe you have a statistical advantage or you played better tactically or you were simply luckier. Now that I am behind, my plan is to reset all the progress you made from before and boil our entire fight down again to one roll. You know this, so you always hold an action point in reserve. So really, the net effect of this mechanic is that people now have to hold onto an action point all the time.

[Altair_the_Vexed]

+1 "Single check to resolve conflict = not great".
There's little build up and anticipation of outcome, no opportunity to try to escape, etc...

I surveyed some folk on another forum (where the d20 / D&D bias is WAY lower), and there was a general agreement that 3 or so "rounds" of conflict works best. You get to see how things are going, make new choices about strategy, decide to quit and run, etc.
Can you tweak the clash system to account for that?

[CharonsHelper]

I surveyed some folk on another forum (where the d20 / D&D bias is WAY lower), and there was a general agreement that 3 or so "rounds" of conflict works best. You get to see how things are going, make new choices about strategy, decide to quit and run, etc.
Can you tweak the clash system to account for that?

Though that varies quite a bit depending upon how fast each round is and what all it entails. You can have the average be a few more if each round is pretty quick and initiative is team based rather than individual.

But yes - as others have said - the above system only works in a game where combat is meant to be a very small portion of the gameplay and definitely not the system's focus.

It might work for a horror game (though it seems a bit subjective) and it could work for a game which is really about something non-combat entirely such as some sort of social system and you just want to keep the option to fight on the table. By making it extremely risky/swingy you might make it only a good choice as a last resort.

[daniel_ream]

It's pretty much how Cortex Plus handles all conflicts, although a bit simpler. It's in the same ballpark as Leverage though.


It would be awful for any kind of action-oriented game like superheroes

I'm going to debate this one, though. One-hit takeouts happen all the time in comic books. The notion that comic book fights are long drawn out slugfests comes from RPGs and current superhero movies.

[LadyFoxfire]

In comic books, yes, but superhero roleplaying games need to have satisfying fights. One hit KOs might be fine for when your superhero is plowing through an army of henchmen, but when you're coming up against the big supervillain it's no fun if you don't have time for witty banter during the fight.

[TheIronGolem]

One-hit takeouts happen all the time in comic books. The notion that comic book fights are long drawn out slugfests comes from RPGs and current superhero movies.

Those kind of one-hit KO's tend to be against baddies who command an army of mooks and/or doomsday weapons through which the narrative provides the hero a chance to do mighty fisticuffs - which in game terms creates a need for something more meaty than a one-roll system. A deeper combat system can give you a villain who's no threat physically (just give him appropriately low combat values) while allowing you to have tactically meaningful fights elsewhere. But a one-roll combat system can't do this; it can only give you glass-jawed villains (or make you a glass-jawed hero).

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm going to debate this one, though. One-hit takeouts happen all the time in comic books. The notion that comic book fights are long drawn out slugfests comes from RPGs and current superhero movies.
I'm going to debate this one, too. One-hit takedowns pretty much only happen when heroes are facing minor fluff villains, when one character is showing off their power, when the hero finally batters their way through the hordes and trials to get to the mastermind-type villain, or perhaps after a dramatic inner-strength moment. If the situation is meant to be dramatic, the one-hit takedown is preceded by some sort of challenge that needs to be overcome, be it inner, outer, physical, or mental.

So getting back on-topic... if you're setting up a system from scratch, there are probably better ways to make a fight quicker. Assuming you've already set the complexity level where you want it, I suggest some sort of downward spiral. Wound penalties, morale, momentum, something that means that once you start losing, it's easier to keep losing (and/or vice versa, I suppose). If you like the idea of decisive clashes, I'd include a bunch of modifiers-- say, adding your level and your current health* to the roll. Make it hard for minions to take out significant characters, and harder to take out healthy people than injured ones.



*As an example; concepts may vary by game design.

[JeenLeen]

if you're setting up a system from scratch, there are probably better ways to make a fight quicker. Assuming you've already set the complexity level where you want it, I suggest some sort of downward spiral. Wound penalties, morale, momentum, something that means that once you start losing, it's easier to keep losing (and/or vice versa, I suppose). If you like the idea of decisive clashes, I'd include a bunch of modifiers-- say, adding your level and your current health* to the roll. Make it hard for minions to take out significant characters, and harder to take out healthy people than injured ones.

*As an example; concepts may vary by game design.

This sounds reasonable as a way to enable Clashes as an option, while not making them nullify the importance of the previous rounds of combat.

Another option could be -- if it fits in your game's framework -- to make a Clash a power a character can buy, one among the other things you can use AP for. If it's something only really powerful martial characters get, as opposed to something anyone can use, it's "swingyness" seems less dangerous. I'm having trouble phrasing why, but I guess players could feel safe spending their AP, knowing that most enemies won't know the Clash skill, and it feels reasonable for some (but only some) really tough fighters to pull out a last-ditch effort.

At least, I read your opening post as saying any character (PC or NPC) could do a Clash. If I misread, the above isn't relevant.

[Satinavian]

It is bad.

It allows characters specialized in melee to force characters that are specialiced in range, or combat evasion or control or whatever into a melee-only challange to the death with the only defense of having more APs left than the melee fighter... who will probably push resolve as secondary stat.

[Anonymouswizard]

So getting back on-topic... if you're setting up a system from scratch, there are probably better ways to make a fight quicker. Assuming you've already set the complexity level where you want it, I suggest some sort of downward spiral. Wound penalties, morale, momentum, something that means that once you start losing, it's easier to keep losing (and/or vice versa, I suppose).

My personal favourite is 'stats as hp'. It has the nice effect of sometimes a hit won't inconvenience you right now, but will come back to bite you later, and sometimes a hit will make it harder for you to use your sword/blaster.

Now, whether or not death spirals are fun is debatable, I like them for encouraging surrender when you begin to be beaten, but many people don't.

Now, I'll reiterate that you should consider the entire system when it comes to this. I'm currently making a heavy list of Traveller house rules for a setting (to the point I've changed most of ship design from the basic at least slightly and increased ship speeds by a factor of ~2). Some of these house rules, like ship weapons being able to fire into all bar one arc or easily replaceable shield generators, can have major effects (in this case on ship combat, delta-V can become more precious due to keeping strong weapons on your opponent's damaged shield arcs or showing strong shields to your opponents). Some I'm still not sure are worth the effort, such as the six-arc system which would work nearly as well using four arcs for 2d combat. The end result is something I like, tactical space combat where fuel and facing are important, but it took effort to get to the point the rules weren't 'the power plant must be large enough to power the FTL drive'.

Generally, the best way to make combat fast is to make hp low and/or give penalties for taking damage.

[Mikemical]

Feels kinda videogamey to me. If you want a fight to end quickly all one stroke anime-style, it's good for dramatic one on one fights. Seeing as that is rarely the case, it might lead to the players getting slaughtered in seconds by nemies who will likely have the numerical advantage.

I would consider it good if it was used onle as a dramatic tool. Like, the heroes have fought the villain down to a fraction of his total HP and the Paladin closes in to deliver a righteous final blow. The Clash occurs:

- Pally wins: Player gets to describe exactly how they end the enemy. "I knock his weapon out of his hands before I swing at his neck, yadda yadda"

- Villain wins: The villain gets an adrenaline boost, pushing the Paladin back and righting themselves up. They recover some lost HP and continue to fight until they get brought down to death's door again.

- Tie: Neither can get the upper hand and the two push each other back. APs are spent and combat resumes as it was before.

There would be a cue for the players to know that a character is within range for a clash to occur. So if they're fighting a giant and they don't want to risk it recovering lost health, they could just hit it with ranged attacks to prevent it from starting a clash because it has and absurd melee bonus.

[LibraryOgre]

My guess is, this is not "combat against an equal", but "combat that you're almost definitely going to win." You don't clash if you're going to lose, you clash when you know you're going to win, and want to boil it down to a single roll, rather than a long process.

I'd lean towards losing the clash being less dangerous for the initiator... I wouldn't clash if there was the slightest chance the bad-guy might decide to kill me. So, depending on your system, I'd say a lost clash might result in a wound for the initiator (whatever that means in your system), but not a chance of automatic death. Death by a single die roll is something that happens to NPCs.

[Mastikator]

If it costs an AP to attack someone and you only have a limited amount per day then that makes it feel like a computer game. If you assault a certain number of people you are just physically unable to attack another person.

I don't even know what that is supposed to be an abstraction of, game mechanics shouldn't just be balanced, they should also be grounded in plausible simulation or they utterly wreck on your immersion.

It's fair that you can use the AP to get out of the clash, but can't the attacker just spend another to attack you again? You've effectively taken all the strategy and simulation out of the game, if that is your goal (which it might be) then it's a good idea.

[daniel_ream]

Those kind of one-hit KO's tend to be against baddies who command an army of mooks and/or doomsday weapons


I'm going to debate this one, too. One-hit takedowns pretty much only happen when heroes are facing minor fluff villains

Debate whatever point you like, but eighty years of superhero comic books disagree with you.

You can argue whether that makes for a satisfying game, but the source material isn't exactly inconclusive on this point.

The problem is that the overwhelming majority of RPGs are combat systems with some extra rules tacked on as an afterthought, while in superhero media actual combat is just one type of action, and not even the most common. People have become socialized into believing that superheroes = big battle scenarios because that's all that superhero games have offered for thirty years. Chasing down a nuclear missile, diverting it into space, stopping a flood, preventing a train derailment, putting California back where it belongs and then travelling back in time to prevent the whole thing involves no combat whatsoever, but it's the climax of the ur-superhero movie (arguably, there's no combat at all in that movie).

[Grod_The_Giant]

Debate whatever point you like, but eighty years of superhero comic books disagree with you.
Yeah? I've read huge stacks of superhero comics from the silver age on, and I think they disagree with you. IF the physical confrontation is the crux of the drama (which, as you and I both noted, isn't always the case), it doesn't get resolved in a single swing, because that's just bad dreams.