Game design and weapon styles

[valadil]

So I'm trying to build a diceless RPG system and I've hit a snag on fighting styles.

Melee combat will have a number of maneuvers available. Different weapons will have different sets of bonuses for maneuvers. I'm hoping that they'll have some bearing on fighting style, but I'll have to playtest to see.

What I think is interesting about this system is that it will reward dual wielders who use different weapons. ie, if a rapier has +2 feint but -2 sunder and an axe has -2 feint but +2 sunder having one in each hand always gives you a bonus to feint or sunder. And here is where the problem lies. There's absolutely no motivation to use two of the same weapon and even less to use a single weapon with an empty offhand.

Soooo, what I'm wondering is what is the benefit of each of those styles? Why would a dual wielder use two of the same weapon? Why would someone only use one single handed weapon?

--

To help jumpstart discussion here are some of the ideas I've had, but haven't gone anywhere with.

In D&D dual wielders usually go with two of the same weapon so that weapon focus applies twice. This doesn't help my case because players won't be making two attacks in one turn - instead they get to choose which weapon to attack with. If both hands use the same bonus, having two short swords has no benefit over one short sword (unless an arm gets wounded, but resilience to critical injury doesn't seem like a cool enough reason to make someone want two of the same weapon.)

I'm also not entirely sure how skills will work. I'd kind of like to do the game framework thing where the GM has some additional say over the skills. In a low combat game players might have points in edged weapons, fencing weapons, and archery. But in a dungeon crawl where weaponry plays a bigger role there would be different skills for swords, spears, bows, crossbows, etc. If a GM goes with skill groups instead of individual weapon skills, someone with the sword skill would still be better off with two types of swords than two of the same.

I don't know the game's setting yet. In something high fantasy like D&D, it could make sense to have elemental weapons ready for different enemies and that would be a reason to double up on your favorite weapon, but use different elemental bonuses.

I *might* be okay with giving dual wielders their own bonus just for dual wielding. That would provide a bonus for players with two of the same weapon, and additional bonuses for overachievers who learned more styles. From a balance perspective I'm okay with this, but I was hoping people with two of the same weapon would be cooler than being the diet version of a dual wielder.

I might also be okay with screwing over people with a single one handed weapon. I can't come up with any realistic reason why they wouldn't want a bigger sword, second weapon, or even a shield. I guess it could make sense depending on the setting. If I go with pirates, having a pistol in the off hand is reasonable. Or in fantasy any variety of wands and potions. But I want to see if anyone else has any better suggestions.

[Alejandro]

You already said it, but someone wielding identical weapons in either hand is taking advantage of the fact that they must only master one weapon.

You could give single hand fighting characters a bonus to their balance, armor class, etc from their free hand and turned stance.

[Sinfire Titan]

Why not provide a bonus for wielding the same weapon type in each hand? Two axes could yield a bonus to damage, while two rapiers could yield a bonus to attacks. You'd need to provide a similar bonus to each style, to make sure that no single style is the obvious choice (the way Two-Handed Weapons are in 3.5, for example).


Also, count Shields as a part of TWFing. This way Sword and Board is just a variation on TWFing, instead of a style in its own right.

[valadil]

Why not provide a bonus for wielding the same weapon type in each hand? Two axes could yield a bonus to damage, while two rapiers could yield a bonus to attacks. You'd need to provide a similar bonus to each style, to make sure that no single style is the obvious choice (the way Two-Handed Weapons are in 3.5, for example).


Also, count Shields as a part of TWFing. This way Sword and Board is just a variation on TWFing, instead of a style in its own right.

I was planning on treating shields as another weapon. They add a ton to parry and can't do any other maneuvers.

I'm not sure that the two weapon bonus makes sense from a realistic point of view. I mean, I can see how having two weapons will speed up your attack rate and you'll always be able to parry but that seems just as valid with two different weapons as two similar ones.

[elliott20]

is it okay if you give me a run down or a file that summarizes your current system design? I think that would help me come up with a more solid answer.

[Hat-Trick]

Well, the whole point of dual wielding is to have either another weapon to press the offense with or to defend with if either need arises, right? So why not give a moderate bonus that can be placed on offense or defense, chosen every round. SnBs would get a heavy defense bonus, THF would get a heavy damage bonus and "fencers" would get a to a heavy to hit bonus or something, maybe dodge bonus as mentioned before.

That or make it so dual wielders can either attack twice (or for a random bonus to damage to simulate) or decide to guard and attack. SnB always benefit from a guarding action, THFs damage, onehanded etc. etc.

Edit: Wait, that helped none at all. Well you could make it a choice between a higher bonus to hit versus flexibility in combat. Two short swords are more comfortable than sword and axe, but sword and axe allows for a wider range of ability.

[valadil]

Well, the whole point of dual wielding is to have either another weapon to press the offense with or to defend with if either need arises, right? So why not give a moderate bonus that can be placed on offense or defense, chosen every round. SnBs would get a heavy defense bonus, THF would get a heavy damage bonus and "fencers" would get a to a heavy to hit bonus or something, maybe dodge bonus as mentioned before.

That or make it so dual wielders can either attack twice (or for a random bonus to damage to simulate) or decide to guard and attack. SnB always benefit from a guarding action, THFs damage, onehanded etc. etc.

Edit: Wait, that helped none at all. Well you could make it a choice between a higher bonus to hit versus flexibility in combat. Two short swords are more comfortable than sword and axe, but sword and axe allows for a wider range of ability.

I do like the idea of giving them a bonus to offense or defense at the player's discretion. I was thinking of some static bonuses, but this is a lot more interesting :-) What if the bonus was always given to the dominant hand?

I'm opposed to extra attacks. They bog things down. Extra turns can be abused. I'm also trying to keep the turns shorter than we're used to. Without spending extra points, players can attack or move on their turn, not both (though I fully expect extra points to be spent each turn).

I do think that increasing the flexibility bonus makes sense for people with similar weapons. I'll consider that when I start putting numbers together.

is it okay if you give me a run down or a file that summarizes your current system design? I think that would help me come up with a more solid answer.

I don't have a file that would make sense to anyone but me. I have several aborted attempts at such files, but nothing with relevant information.

The basic premise of the game is that players bid points to resolve conflicts. There are 4 stats, strength, agility, brains, and social, each with their own sets of skills. Add your stat to your skill and compare it to a difficulty (or to someone else's stat/skill for opposed checks). Each character has a pool of bidding points that can be burned to gain bonuses. In the case of opposed rolls, players reveal how many points they're bidding simultaneously and then sum up their scores and see who won.

(This system is inspired by a combination of Deadland's fate chips (wherein the Marshall and the players trade off chips for the first few rounds of combat until someone runs out) and the Game of Thrones board game political bidding system. I don't know if it's an adequate replacement for dice, but it seems interesting enough that I'm willing to put some work into it and eventually run a playtest.)

Anyway, combat at its simplest level will be players bidding an attack against a dodge or parry. The margin of victory determines damage. If you hit with a weapon, that will provide some amount of bonus damage.

To discourage min-maxing, I'm including a maneuver for each stat. The idea being that you use your weapon skill plus the associated stat opposed by someone else's corresponding stat. The brains maneuver, for instance, is called out outmaneuver. The idea is that if you're smarter than your foe you can run circles around him to control positioning. Each point in your margin of victory lets you move yourself or your foe by one square.

As I mentioned, each weapon adds to your damage margin of victory. They'll also add varying amounts to your margin of victory for each of the maneuvers. Oh and there are other things that they'll add to too, like your ability to cripple hit locations (which are being represented by status effects). I may even include a variable for reach attacks. I'm not sure if weapons will have separate bonuses for defending against certain attacks.

I'm thinking the range for these bonuses will be between 0 and 2 (stats and skills range from 1 to 8 and the skill also limits bidding). Maybe a little higher. Two handed weapons will get bigger bonuses. Sword/shield will get a huge parry bonus. Two weapons will give a wider range of bonuses, if you pick weapons that compliment each other. But two identical weapons and one weapon/one empty hand get nothing.

I hope that's enough detail for ya, because that's all I've go so far.

[elliott20]

so wait, does the player have to choose between say, doing damage or doing a maneuver, or can the player do BOTH damage and the maneuver at the same time?

[erikun]

Why not apply double bonuses for wielding two of the same weapon?

Or to be more accurate, wielding a weapon which is supposed to be dual-wielded gives an additional bonus. Sais are meant to be wielding in each hand, allowing one to catch the weapon while the other disarms - you wouldn't get a penality for trying to disarm with a smaller weapon, for example. For a silly counterexample, dual-wielding nets shouldn't give you any additional bonus, because the second net doesn't add anything to your combat style.

[valadil]

so wait, does the player have to choose between say, doing damage or doing a maneuver, or can the player do BOTH damage and the maneuver at the same time?

I was thinking just the maneuver. Some maneuvers may include some damage, specifically, the hit locations will apply a debuff and do some HP damage. This is something that will depend on playtesting though. I was even thinking of letting players use the margin of victory to get several effects if they win by a lot. Maybe you wouldn't be able to feint and disarm at the same time, but trip and damage should be reasonable.

[valadil]

Why not apply double bonuses for wielding two of the same weapon?

Or to be more accurate, wielding a weapon which is supposed to be dual-wielded gives an additional bonus. Sais are meant to be wielding in each hand, allowing one to catch the weapon while the other disarms - you wouldn't get a penality for trying to disarm with a smaller weapon, for example. For a silly counterexample, dual-wielding nets shouldn't give you any additional bonus, because the second net doesn't add anything to your combat style.

Straight up doubling might be too powerful. If two handers max out at 50% more points in any one maneuver than any single weapon, two single weapons would be 100% more points and there would be no reason to ever use a two hander. I was thinking of starting one handed swords off at two damage and two handers at three. Two one handed swords would give plus four. I could start two handers off at five points, but in a system where your skill goes up to eight, five is huge.

I like the idea of bonuses for paired weapons. Two sais makes sense. So does rapier/foil. I'm not sure about two hatchets.

[erikun]

Perhaps, then, two weapon fighting should have its own (independant) bonuses? After all, the benefit of TWF is that one weapon can parry/distract while the other slips under defenses. This is different than Sword-n-Board (where the shield is just used to deflect), Fencing (where finesse and mobility keeps one weapon between you and your opponent), and Two-Handed (where the goal is usually overpowering and keeping them at your range).

[elliott20]

okay, I think that gives me a pretty rough idea of what your combat system is about. I promise I'll get back to you on my thoughts.

[elliott20]

okay, here's my idea. might not work with yours, but let's give it a shot.

instead of having weapons that just do damage or maneuver, have all weapons have a set of maneuvers you can do with them. Each weapon will have inherently different maneuvers. So a rapier might just have the "stab" or "flick" maneuver, while an axe might have the "crush" and something else.

when you reveal your attack, you don't just reveal your bid, you also reveal your maneuver. So what you would do is put down your maneuver cards facing down, with your bid on them. if you want, give the players a screen to cover the bid too. (let's just say each player puts down two maneuver cards)

you can use poker cards for the maneuvers, if you want.

the name of game for two weapon fighting will be a matter of having options.

in this case, I think one way of simulating this is to say, if you're using TWO weapons, you can put down two maneuver cards, with bids on each one of them. The end result is that fighting with two weapons might give you more options but you might also have to expend more bids too.

Interaction between the maneuvers will be the core part to figure out then.

You can do this in a number of ways

1. maneuvers can be split into "defensive", "offensive" and other types. A person using only one weapon can only put down one offensive maneuver, where as a person with two weapons can put down two. right there, the TW fighter already has more options, but also might potentially be spending more bids on it. So two handed sword user will put down one attack maneuver, and one defensive maneuver. And the maneuver will all be aimed towards modifying the player's stats for this round for resolution.

2. maneuvers all interact with each other, which means that if you didn't use a maneuver to counter one of the attacks, the attack will all go through unhindered.

[valadil]

So would cards be used for all combat interactions or just attacks? Having both players always play a card would be interesting, but I don't think it would work for anything bigger than a duel.

Would weapons have unique maneuvers or just different sets of common maneuvers? I was leaning towards the latter, but could be convinced to add a few unique moves for specific weapons.

I like the idea of dual wielders throwing two cards. It does complicate things though. If defense is just a number, I don't see how having two attacks is advantageous. So defense will have to have its own maneuvers too, and each maneuver defends better against specific attacks. Or attack/defense happens simultaneously between two combatants, which would make for awesome duels, but confused brawls. Maybe I should come up with a mechanic for engaging a single enemy and other players can aid an existing engagement?

[elliott20]

you know, I completely forgot the fact that this could be used for brawls...

well, I was thinking that there would a common set of maneuvers (say 13), and a particular weapon would get maybe 2-3 of them. (4-5 if they have specific training), with a couple specialized maneuvers for specialized schools, etc.

and yes, defense would have it's own maneuver cards too. It would be general stuff like, evasion, parry, etc.

but when you start crossing multiple warriors, that can get messy.

one easier way to handle it is to have a set of rules for just fighting mobs, and one set of rules for fighting specific duels.

[Hat-Trick]

Even in a brawl, you're usually only attacking one person at a time. Attack cards need a designated target, while defense cards work against all attackers. You could probably throw in a rule saying that defenses diminish with multiple attempts a round. You start with a, lets say 5 defense maneuver. Attacker 1 attacks with a 3 maneuver. Bid happens, defense wins, lets say. Attack averted, but the defense is dropped by, we'll say just one for now for 4. Attacker 2 attacks with a 2 maneuver, for what ever reason. Bid happens, defense wins. Attack averted, defense down another one to 3. Attacker 3 attacks with a 3 maneuver, let's say. Bid happens, but we'll let the attacker win this time. Attack gets through for whatever effect, but here's where the decision comes in. Failed attacks only took away 1 point from the defense, would a success remove more? Remove the defense for the rest of the round? Or just take the 1 point and continue on?

You decide. Your system.

[valadil]

I already had plans for dealing with one versus many. Basically the many attacks would be squished into one big attack. One combatant would lead the charge and the others would add in their skill or stat (hadn't decided which yet) but only the one leading the charge could bid points each round.

This could still work with maneuvers cards, as the whole thing reduces to a dual (or potentially several duels in parallel). I think the situation that was confusing to me was A hits B, B hits C, and C hits A. In this situation separate attack and defense cards become necessary.

[Eloel]

You could also go with the general tricard rule.
Styles are likely to be; (With 3 offensives & 3 defensives each [Bow&Arrow gets 2 defensives])

Sword & Shield (S&B)
Slash - Stab - Bash
Block - Parry - Bash

Sword & Empty (Fns)
Slash - Stab - Feint
Dodge - Parry - Feint

Sword & Sword (TWF)
Rend - Slash - Throw
Parry - Dodge - Block

Sword Only (THF)
Slash - Crush - Push
Dodge - Parry - Push

Polearm (Rch)
Skewer - Throw - Smack
Set - Dodge - Fallback

Polearm & Shield (Hsk)
Skewer - Throw - Bash
Block - Set - Bash

Bow & Arrow (Rng)
Multishot - Dead Eye Shot - Stab
Dodge - Fallback


Each attack has a 'good', 'indifferent' and a 'bad' defense in every list, and vice versa. Different weapons (Halberd vs Spear [Rch]), would give bonuses to different attacks and defenses (Halberd gets +2 to Smack, Spear gets +1 to Skewer and Throw)
An example, rest are for you to figure out;
TWF vs THF
Attack - Defenses (good to bad)

Rend - Push - Dodge - Parry
Slash - Parry - Push - Dodge
Throw - Dodge - Parry - Push

Slash - Block - Parry - Dodge
Crush - Parry - Dodge - Block
Push - Dodge - Block - Parry

Important Notes: I see Parry as changing direction of enemy strikes, and use Block for complete stoppings of strikes. Dodge is getting completely out of way of an attack. Push is using Sword (or Axe) as if it was a spear, increasing the range, and thus neglecting very-short range attacks. Slash is attempt to cut in any direction, while crush is a full-force attack from directly above. Rending is double-stabbing with both weapons. Throw is the act of throwing a weapon, when out of melee range. A TWFer that has thrown a weapon, and is empty-handed on 2nd hand, has the options of a Fns fighter, without his training on TWF, making him less useful.

Notes are for easy understanding of attacks and defenses, and easy visualization of them.

Attack vs Defense (Attack is better)
Attacker gets +5 on his attack roll.
Attack vs Defense (Indifferent)
No bonuses on either side
Attack vs Defense (Defense is better)
Defender gets +5 on his defense roll.

Individual attack&defense descriptions would have different achievements upon succeeding on defense or attacks by a margin.
Example; Bash (or Push), would damage the attacker, if defense succeeds by 2. Slash may decapitate on a success by 10. Feint as defense may stun on a success by 5. Feint as an offensive action is aiming to stun the enemy. 'Hit'ting means they can't attack this round. Winning by 10 means they won't be defending next round.


You can add different tactics with equivalencies (so, you can, say, try to Disarm, as a Slash action, with the same good-bad relations.


So, how do you feel about it, if you've read it at all?

[valadil]

Ozgun,

Took me a moment to digest, but it looks interesting. It's actually kind of similar to what I'd envisioned (but not yet written out) for social encounters, but with different flavor. I wonder if I could use the same system for each...

Somewhere several posts ago someone mentioned playing cards. I wonder if those could be used to represent both maneuvers and bidding amounts. So, the 9 of spades would be a 9 power slash, a 4 of clubs would be a 4 power bash, etc. Might be less complicated to do this than to keep a stack of maneuver cards and tokens for bidding points.

[Eloel]

If you need, I can help out with getting maneuver cards done. Also, I think you could be better off creating exponential cards for bids.
1 point card
2 point card
4 point card
8 point card
Attack 1 card
Attack 2 card
Attack 3 card
Defense 1 card
Defense 2 card
Defense 3 card
With that, you can achieve upto 15 bidding points, and have 10 cards per person. Since 3 points use just as many cards as 12 points, it'd be impossible to differentiate without looking at cards (thus lets you 'hide' your bid till it's time to reveal it)

And 10 cards per person is a hell lot easier to get than 1.5 decks of cards (3 attack 3 defense, 6 'suits', 1.5 decks), and is easier to keep in mind.

You can increase the max bidding points to 31 with a single extra card, and 63 with another one. That much increase with tokens & playing cards simply won't work.

[valadil]

I was planning on capping individual bids at the skill value, so up to 8. Maybe a little higher for feats/perks so up to 15 makes sense. You're right that that's probably too high to do in base 1.

[elliott20]

hat-trick's method was how I envisioned it too.

basically, you can pick one defensive maneuver for the round, and you can focus on one opponent at a time. That defensive maneuver will basically modify your own defense score that the attacker must overcome. and the reason to use TWO weapons is so that you can use two different forms of attacks, with the more beneficial attack being the one that is counted.

using stats as a bidding limit is a good idea, I think. But how about how much you can bid? how do you handle that? do you have a limit amount of bidding points you can use per encounter or something?

[Hat-Trick]

They should probably be replenished by rest. eight hours pretty much regenerates them all, so sleeping will, but you might want to assign a percentile to lesser amounts of time. This will represent fatigue very nicely. You might want to allow debt betting. If a player wants to bet more than they have, they can but will become unable to do anything until they either get rest or magical intervention, if it's in your game. maybe set a point where the character will be unconscious for an unbelievable amount of time, like a day or more. I'd say neg.ten. It's a good number for that.

They have one chip, but they NEED more to beat the guy, so they debt bet seven more. Bids called, debtor wins. Debtor becomes fatigued in the most horrible way, represent this as some sort of status effect. They can still debt bid, but they risk falling unconscious if they debt bid much more, three more to be exact. If they instead are able and do rest, they'll regain bid points in the usual percentile and bring themselves into positives, removing fatigue, but may want to rest more to be able to bid properly in any sensible amount.

[valadil]

The way I was planning on dealing with the number of bid points complicates the game a little. You get separate pools for each stat. How much you regenerate is determined by your ranks in the stat. I was thinking of capping points at 5*stat. Each time you sleep would be either 2 or 3*stat and each meal (up to 3 per day, unless you have the fast metabolism perk) would give out 1*stat points.

Not sure about bidding up a debt. I was hoping to tweak the above values to the point where debt wasn't necessary, but it may be more interesting with a debt. I'll try it when it comes time to playtest.

[elliott20]

if there is hit points in this game, debt can do direct damage to hit points, which will make it a very real problem.

at least I know you HAVE limits on bids.

that means that now you can let TWF be viable by saying that when using TWF, you have to separate your bids on each maneuver. and when resolving, you can either have 2 separate attack maneuvers, using the more favorable one as the end result, or you can use one maneuver to supplement the other. the game then becomes a matter of trying to figure out what the opponent is going to do, since obviously different maneuvers will perform differently. (obviously, the supplementing maneuver will have to not be nearly as effective as your standard maneuver)

At this point though, this makes taking one more than one person at a time a very dangerous prospect since multiple opponents who know how to coordinate their attacks can have one guy use one maneuver, and another guy use another maneuver that will cover grounds that the first maneuver doesn't cover.

so as a potential power up for later on, you can even allow a player to use multiple defense maneuver cards against larger crowds.

[Hat-Trick]

Unfair numbers give unfair advantages. That'll make party members work together or sink.

[sonofzeal]

I've been LARPing a lot lately, and here's what I've observed:

- One of the most powerful "pro" combinations is a pair of shortswords. Shorter weapons won't get you the first hit, but can strike a whole lot faster and more fluidly in close range. For whatever reason, this doesn't seem to work nearly as well when mixing weapons. I'd give pairs of smaller weapons a big boost to attack speed, if your system handles that.

- One of the biggest and easiest tricks for dual-weilding is to have one weapon with a hook of some sort on the end (even a mace with a head larger than the shaft will work), to draw the enemy's weapon off to the side and create an opening. If you're going for realism, I'd want some way to handle that. Perhaps certain mixed off-hand weapons forgo the speed boost to allow it as a special maneuver?

- Having an empty hand is not actually so bad. The person will generally laps into a sort of "fencing" style, with their body sideways to minimize the target and maximize reach. Single-weapon people are also usually more agile and faster on their feet, because they're less distracted. I'd give single weapons a boost to accuracy (reflecting the larger reach) and to parry, but without the speed boost of dual weapons.

[valadil]

I've been LARPing a lot lately, and here's what I've observed:

...

Some interesting observations there. I don't know how much speed is going to effect this game. I'd really like to see a game where weapon speed matters, but I'm not sure it's going to be this one. Not sure about reach yet either (I've done a little fencing and have a clue about how reach would work).

[sofawall]

Why has no one sent him off to here yet?