Coded Combat

[Farin]

Luthor and I were chatting the other day about things we'd like to see when and if the main coded combat system came out. Skills and whatnot aside, most of the banter turned out to be equipment, and its effects on battles and duels.

For example, leather armor. Nice, light weight, perhaps give those who wear it a small bonus to offense, while making them slightly weaker to blades and piercing weapons, while a blunt weapon would do normal damage. Then look at chain...medium weight, so nothing offense, and a fair defense...say, slightly weaker to piercing weapons, but a bonus to slashing blades, with blunt weapons doing normal damage. And then you have heavy plate, which might make its wearers take a slight penalty to offense, while giving them slightly boosted defense to slashing and piecing weapons, though blunt would do normal damage.

Weapons, then, would have to be implemented as well, which adds further dynamics: most knights have to be trained in around 8 different types of weapons, which gives them an advantage if they get unarmed from their main weapon, since they're likely to have at least some skill with whatever is on hand. It also adds the strategy of disarming your opponent as viable - if you take the sword away from a knight with 80 in sword and only 30 in spear, and a spear is the only thing around for him to grab, congratulations.

But either way, with respect to each other, it would make players have to choose what to bring to every battlefield, and really emphasize the importance of being trained in multiple skills: you don't want to bring the same armor and weapons to a battlefield with the Dornish as you would against bandits in the Kingswood. And of course, all of the bonuses and penalties would be light (maybe a 5 point swing?) so that skill really plays in more than anything, then luck. But it gives an edge to players who have either an eye for detail, or the smarts to keep things balanced...instead of guys running around with 80 in mauls, who magically happen to keep hold of that maul the entire battle long, etc.

What are everyone's thoughts on something like this? Or conversely, what would YOU like to see in an updated coded combat system?

[Renys]

I've only been playing for a little while, but I've got some thoughts on coded foot (and perhaps mounted) combat. I'm thinking melee only for now, and I'd like to start with a few of my basic assumptions:

1) The system should be simple, and not too detailed that it gets in the way of fun.

2) Both Skills and Stats should have an effect on combat.

3) Based on the Skill/Stat range, all dice rolled are 1d100.

4) The Shield Skill should have some benefit.

Based on those assumptions, I would suggest the following system:

There are two options which can be set prior to or during combat. Those are: Block vs Parry and Weapon Skill.

Block vs Parry shows whether your character is using a shield, or defending himself with his weapon. Blocking lets you use the Shield Skill to defend, Parry lets you use your Weapon Skill, but gives you a penalty to attack rolls (20%?) and maybe to defense also (because of this, Block/Parry would not be able to be changed during a combat)

Weapon Skill just lets you choose which Weapon Skill you roll, to represent using different weapon in a fight (an axeman may still train with a sword, or may lose his axe and have to use a dagger or spear, after all, and that should be represented).

There are two rolls to every attack, and attack roll and a defense roll.

The attack roll is Weapon Skill + 1/2 Reflex or Strength (whichever is higher) + 1d100.

The defense roll is Shield Skill (for Block) or Weapon Skill + 1d100.

If the attack roll is higher than the defense roll, then the attack hits and does damage.

Damage is already handled in Mounted Melee, and I'm sure it works just fine. I just haven't seen enough of it to know how it works.

The "last ditch" roll that is currently Riding would be Constitution instead.

A few notes on armor and weapons: I think that linking weapon type to damage/armor type is just a layer of complexity that isn't needed, but armor -should- have some effect. Like I said, I don't know how damage is handled currently, but perhaps showing 4 levels of armor (none, leather, chain, plate), each giving an increasing benefit to resisting damage, but an equally increasing penalty to attack would work (I suppose it could just be a penalty to the attack roll and a bonus to the defense roll in my system above, but that seems a little off).

Assuming that I've heard correctly, and Archery uses Dexterity and Jousting uses Nimbleness, five of the six physical stats would be used in combat in the system above. The last, Endurance, could be added in as a roll to resist minor penalties after a certain number of rounds of combat. For example, after every 5 (2?) rounds of combat, Endurance is rolled (1d100, trying to get equal to or under your Endurance). If the roll is failed, the character gets a -1 to all skills (cumulative) until reset.

That's another point... we need to have a +melee/reset command. It can be frustrating trying to "reset" one another if two people are sparring repeatedly.

One last point: I think it would be beneficial to RP to see the number rolled on the 1d100 for each of those rolls. This can tell the players whether their character got lucky, or is simply better than their opponent. Of course, it wouldn't give away exact skills (except through long trial and error), but that's as it should be ICly. If you face someone time and time again, you should gain a good measure of their skill. As the system runs right now, it's impossible to tell if one character is just getting (un)lucky, or if they're actually overmatched, and that's an important detail to know for the poses that accompany the rolls.

Thoughts?

[Linda]

Its not really my area, more of Balerion's, but I don't think its in the direction of what he is looking at. Simple, yes, in that there will just be a single attack command (possibly allowing for more or less commitment to the attack). But we won't make any block and parry distinctions. There also won't be any visible +rolls all, it will just be the one command which tells you how your attack goes and how the opponents defense goes.

[Renys]

Another option that I was thinking about even as Linda responded was one that would mesh more easily with an overall +roll system for testing skills:

Attacker rolls 1d100 and compares it to their weapon Skill. The closer to the Skill %, the better.

Defender rolls 1d100 and compares it to their Shield Skill. The closer to the Skill %, the better.

If the attacker came closer to their Skill % than the defender did, the defender is hit.

If the attacker rolls over his Skill %, the attacker misses.

If the attacker rolls over his Skill %, but is further from his Skill % than the Defender is to his Skill %, the Defender blocks the attack.

Again, the "did you fall down" roll would be Constitution rather than Riding.

This is a classic "The Price Is Right" percentile system. Unfortunately, it makes it easier to defend than attack, but that would lead to longer fights, which would probably be better (and more in keeping with the book than the current relatively quick combats). If you wanted it to be easier to hit than defend, you could add a bonus based on the Stat (perhaps just adding the 10s digit of an associated Stat, so from +1 to +9).

This option melds nicely with general +roll code to test non-combat Skills, in that it uses the exact same system--you're trying to roll as high as you can while remaining below your Skill.

-------

As a note, in my mind, both of these systems would be a single-command system. In the first system, Block vs Parry and Weapon Type would just be choices made outside of the specific +melee command. In the second, the attack and defense rolls would be handled behind the scenes after the use of a single +melee command.

The reason I suggested a Block vs Parry distinction is because Waterdancers, for instance, do not use shields, but they still can counter their opponents' attacks. This could, of course, be solved instead by just renaming the Shield Skill as "Defense," or simply stating that if fighting in a style that does not use a Shield, the Shield Skill incorporates defensive fighting.

If this system has already been decided on and is being coded already, that's great, I'll leave off, just hadn't heard anything further and so I thought I would toss some ideas into the ring.

Whatever the system is, I think that being open with what goes into the system would be a good idea--keeping the system quiet won't keep min-maxing down, it will only restrict the ability to min-max to those oldbies who have figured the system out. Cuendillar is a great example of that danger, in fact. Their help files weren't accurate as to exactly what went into rolls, so those who knew the breakpoints of bonus Ability dice, and that Luck was one of -the- most powerful things to boost did well, while those who didn't know those things did poorly.

[Ran]

We do largely know everything that goes into the system, in terms of how dice-rolling works and so on. All the coded systems -- rumors, melee, joust, the little archery and hunting objects -- use a unified system based on percentile dice used to measure levels of success or failure, and comparing them to a number (in the case of the archery and hunting objects, an arbitrary one; in the case of joust and melee, your opponent's own levels of success). HarnMaster and Chaosium's BRP as primary influences on our thinking.

In terms of trying to figure out if the person wiping the floor with you is really good or just lucky, I'm not sure in a single contest whether one would necessarily be able to figure that out. That said, all the result messages actually give a hint as to the degree of difference between you and they. A really big hit means lets you know that someone got a big success vs. a poor defense, a narrow miss means that one person edged the other out by just one success level, and so on. So I think there's enough in there for players to figure these things out. I'm not keen on directly showing numbers because it feels very intrusive having mechanics thrown in your face when what you really want is just the notion that you're in combat.

[Renys]

Cool, sounds like y'all are well on the way to getting things settled for foot combat and the like.

I disagree that what's shown tells a player if they're getting beaten due to luck or skill, and that it's not possible to tell based on a single combat, but that's just a difference of opinion, and totally not a big deal.

As for knowing what goes into the system, I meant that letting the -players- know what goes into the system would be nice. I know that the Admin knows... but I've heard a lot of confusion as to exactly what is rolled when you type +melee/attack <name>. How much stats matter, exactly what skills are used when, etc. If y'all think it's better to keep that stuff behind the Staff Screen though, that's not something that I'm going to convince you to change, so I'll leave off there too.

I -do- definitely agree that immersion is great, but in my personal opinion, I don't think that the messages listed by the combat code right now really add a ton to immersion compared to a quick note of what each person rolled and the results would. Again, totally personal preference.

[Serry]

Just wanted to chime in with support for a +melee/reset command. It would be remarkably useful, as the current alternative involves beating on the person enough to unhorse them while trying to either be unhorsed right before or after, or by taking as little damage as possible, which sometimes is difficult to arrange. Mind, it should have some public output, that way others know it had been used, thereby preventing any foul play.

Also, just wanted to note, it seems that +melee often has really quick bouts. I see two-hit unhorsings pretty frequently (and not only on me), and one-hit isn't as infrequent as it should perhaps be. Is there any way it can be lengthened out some? If not, perhaps we can make remounts the norm? It always seems rather weird when one fights an opponent of supposedly equal skill... and manages to defeat them in two attacks. Or maybe that's just me :)

[Rook]

If we start adding armor in, there is a LOT of work to do. What sort of armor? Mail has leather padding under it (usually) as does plate. What about brigandine? What about pieces of armor, or mixed (a breastplate and hauberauk)? What if the fighter is using a helmet or just a coif? What if they have a leather pad under the helmet rather than a cloth one?

If we're going to have different armors, we need different weapons with various values against those armors. People facing armored opponents are going to want picks and hammers. We would need more polearm-options, etc.

It seems like a pretty daunting coding task, plus the coder has to have good data (what armor was real as opposed to RPG fantasy... more importantly, how does GRRM's armor work in this world, how weapons really react against armor - arrows don't penetrate any armor very well, for instance, the fact that swords are pretty useless against armor except maybe as metal clubs), and etc.

I think combat would be better off in general just removing the large randomness factor. Of course I can't see the code, but I have to assume that there's a d100 being rolled and added to weapon skill and riding. It seems to me that the randomness should be reduced (to d20 or something) or the skill value multiplied by 2 or something. Of course there's room for luck, but people with twice as much skill as someone else shouldn't be defeated very often by the lower-skilled person(and we know that happens).

If the combat system we have now is not acceptable to a lot of people, it seems to me that a stop-gap measure would be for staff to give guidance on what they want armor to do, what different weapons to do vs different armors, and either create a +roller or just have us use the hard-coded random number generator (rand/roll, I forget now) and let people run their own combats if they wish. Even easier would be to encourage people to just RP their combats rather than resorting to the code.

If we use the code and want to emphasize the "gritty" nature of the setting, players could be encouraged to take hits and be hurt. The code that we have now does not give guidance on injuries as it is, we have to assume players are going to be hurt by any blow... but how often does it really happen that someone is seriously wounded in a joust or melee on the game? Perhaps we just need more guidance on how we should be responding to coded messages? Shouldn't 'shattering blows' be ending combats, causing horrible wounds, possibly maiming characters? So on and so forth.

I actually think the code is fine for events (though again I would like to reduce the randomness) where we need to strike a balance between speed and impartiality. As I think there's just too much for Bal to do (as always - not a criticism!) for him to wade into an intricate coding project, I think for duels and such a better option is to either use someone to run such a scene for the players involved or for those involved to negotiate the scene's outcome in advance.

Luthor and I were chatting the other day about things we'd like to see when and if the main coded combat system came out. Skills and whatnot aside, most of the banter turned out to be equipment, and its effects on battles and duels.

For example, leather armor. Nice, light weight, perhaps give those who wear it a small bonus to offense, while making them slightly weaker to blades and piercing weapons, while a blunt weapon would do normal damage. Then look at chain...medium weight, so nothing offense, and a fair defense...say, slightly weaker to piercing weapons, but a bonus to slashing blades, with blunt weapons doing normal damage. And then you have heavy plate, which might make its wearers take a slight penalty to offense, while giving them slightly boosted defense to slashing and piecing weapons, though blunt would do normal damage.

Weapons, then, would have to be implemented as well, which adds further dynamics: most knights have to be trained in around 8 different types of weapons, which gives them an advantage if they get unarmed from their main weapon, since they're likely to have at least some skill with whatever is on hand. It also adds the strategy of disarming your opponent as viable - if you take the sword away from a knight with 80 in sword and only 30 in spear, and a spear is the only thing around for him to grab, congratulations.

But either way, with respect to each other, it would make players have to choose what to bring to every battlefield, and really emphasize the importance of being trained in multiple skills: you don't want to bring the same armor and weapons to a battlefield with the Dornish as you would against bandits in the Kingswood. And of course, all of the bonuses and penalties would be light (maybe a 5 point swing?) so that skill really plays in more than anything, then luck. But it gives an edge to players who have either an eye for detail, or the smarts to keep things balanced...instead of guys running around with 80 in mauls, who magically happen to keep hold of that maul the entire battle long, etc.

What are everyone's thoughts on something like this? Or conversely, what would YOU like to see in an updated coded combat system?

[Serry]

Just a random thought I had: maybe in addition to mounted and foot combat, we could see a shipboard version which takes Seamanship into account?