In my "haunted Forest/Medieval STALKER" world I've been investigating RPGs for ideas (even since someone pointed out Symbaroum kinda covers what I've been trying to do - i.e. 'relic hunting' with adventurers in a forest with radiation corrupting magic.)
Advantage
Somewhere along the way (D&D 5th ed?) I recall seeing the idea of "Advantage" i.e. if a player has the advantage, they can roll an extra dice and pick their best of the two rolls. If they had disadvantage, they roll an extra dice and must pick the worst.
In context of the game, it was just a very strong modifier that made the other modifiers pretty irrelevant. Basically a 'choose your best re-roll' is a lot stronger than a +1 or -1 here or there; so having 'the advantage' was all-important.
So it was kinda an extra complication in how it was used but didn't add much to the game besides a very strong modifier.
Trench Crusade takes this idea further; it removes modifiers and replaces them completely with the advantage concept. I.e. you roll 2d6, and depending on your level of advantage, roll extra dice/s and pick the two best. Disadvantage means extra dice and picking the two worst. Basically it doubles down on the advantage concept and removes modifiers entirely which is nicely streamlined....
....the downside is that even a +1 or -1 extra dice 'advantage' is very strong. As TC also uses +/-1 "advantage" as its "stats" to show differentiation in melee/shooting etc between units, there is a bit of a problem in that having a +1 in melee is a very big advantage (I forget the math but it was about 50% better). In a game all about fantastical troops, this lack of detail/differentiation is a bit meh. Even a +1 in melee means the better side wins the great majority of the time, and +2 advantage is a cakewalk.
Melee
But the 'advantage' concept interests me. D&D used it as an all-powerful modifier, TC uses it a bit heavy-handedly to replace all stats/modifiers, but what if different advantages or disadvantages gave different effects? i.e. we used the advantage concept to add decisions to melee?
To keep it simple, in my example "stats" are shown by different size dice. d4 = bad, d6 = meh, d8 = good, d10= great, d12= superhuman. They have to beat a target number. Say 4+ to succeed. (I lifted this from Savage Worlds but I'm trying to keep it familiar so we don't get hung up on the mechanics).
Example
Let's say we roll opposed melee dice. One dice each for starters. Say a d8 for an orc warrior and d6 for a peasant militia.
a) The way melee will work is we remove any fails (rolls of 3 or less) and resolve the successes in order, highest to lowest.
b) Before either of you roll, you can choose to strike (i.e. usual e.g. score damage on a hit) or parry (if the weapon is capable of it) to cancel enemy hits. So we have a bit of choice right out of the gate, albeit just 'attack - hurt them' or 'defend - try not to get hurt'
.....now we can add extra advantage dice depending on what you choose to do. This also relies on what you are equipped with. Some weapons will offer no inbuilt advantage i.e. an ordinary dude armed with just a dagger, for example. Other weapons are just not suited i.e. you cannot parry with an axe.
These are just random ideas and not carefully thought through. Regard them as the 'concept.'
1. Advantage: Reach. If you have a longer weapon held in two hands.
Roll extra melee dice, choose highest. You basically get a better strike, but only one hit.
2. Advantage: Block. If you have a shield or parrying weapon, and equal or better strength than opponent.
Roll extra 'defensive' melee dice, of a different colour. It cancels an equal or lower opponent hit. You may hold your ground and push back opponents 1".
3. Advantage: Dodge Roll. Any - but better agility stats = better chance of success.
Roll extra agility dice. It cancels ANY hits (own or enemy) equal or below, and must move back/away 1" from opponent.
4. Advantage: Dual Wield. A 1h weapon in each hand.
Roll an extra lower level melee dice (ie. if usually d8 melee, extra dice is +d6); however you count (and inflict damage) for both rolls.
5. Advantage: Mighty Blow. If a two handed polearm or hefty weapon like an axe or mace.
Roll an extra strength dice. If it beats the opponent melee roll, do double damage.
....etc etc. Point is, the players in melee get some choice.
Their likely action will be dictated by their loadout and stats. I.e. a spearman with shield and spear could choose reach, dodge or parry. However if he was heavily armoured, dodge may be less attractive than block. A barbarian with a two handed battleaxe might only choose mighty blow or reach. A duellist with a sword and dagger might choose block or dodge or dual wield. So models which are equipped differently actually ACT differently, and are not just +1/-1 to hit or be hit.
Obviously these skills would need to be balanced (I stole them from Skyrim) and could be tied to the use of a stamina stat, for example, to add further depth. I guess my idea here is: Can we use the D&D concept of the extra 'advantage' dice to give some flavour and choices in melee?
WIDER TOPIC: How can melee be made interesting, offering choice? ....Vs just "push models together and roll til someone dies?"
What is the simplest way to do this? Compared to my example which is aimed at a Mordhiem-a-like, ME:SBG gives ideas for the simpler end of the spectrum. You can push back enemies or stay locked in combat, choose to defend (extra dice to better win fights but cannot strike blows) and have some simple weapon-based choices (elf swords can be used as 2h or 1h; the former less likely to win a fight but doing more damage)....
At what point does melee bog down? Overly complex mechanics and too many decisions may make melee unfun.....
Sounds a bit like greathelm.
ReplyDeleteA medieval based skirmish game quite interesting actually and has a free version on itch.io
https://malev-da-shinobi.itch.io/great-helm-pt
I am experimenting with a bucket of d6 combat system. Rolls of a 6 explode and your trying to beat the TN of your opponent. You can choose to not explode a roll of 6 you can trade or for a combat maneuver instead - push your opponent, move it off combat, etc. higher level models (more attach dice) can have really neat turns - roasting around an opponent to push them off a ledge, disengaging to attach a weaker nearby enemy. I still don't like how melee largely comes down to chugging dice, but there have been some near moments.
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to minimise the mechanics of the melee i.e. so it doesn't turn into a whole minigame that needs tracking/excess time. I started with buckets of dice/ideas like Bushido and End Garde and am trying to see how much I can slim it down/keep decisions.
Deletea) single dice that depends on gear.
b) 4-5 choices that reflect rpgs and popular pc game mechanics
c) depending on loadout, different melee choices are better on different characters i.e. a knight is better off blocking then dodging... but the other way round for an elf ranger...
-eM
I really do like your idea, I spent a couple years of game development a while back on how to organically create historically accurate formations - ie. incentivize behaviors that match period accurate behaviors. It worked but was a couple dozen modifiers. Your approach seems a lot slicker.
DeleteIf you ever formalize it a little more I would love to see the rules written up.
In general, I would say that the following aspects should have an influence on the outcome of melee combat: troop skills, positioning, equipment, maybe something like stance (offensive, defensive).
DeleteI still love the melee combat mechanics in the 2nd edition 40k as they include most of the aspects mentioned above. I think that especially for a low number of troops, the system works well. It really feels like dueling instead of just engaging, rolling dice and removing casualties.
You do a comparative dice roll of one or several D6, choosing the highest, plus Combat Skill. The difference between the results is the number of inflicted hits with the typical GW To Would Roll following. You could gain additional dice by wielding two close combat weapons (equipment advantage) or by overwhelming the enemy (e.g. multiple models in base contact with one enemy, positioning advantage). In addition, there were conditions (frenzy), equipment (combat drugs) and psychic powers that could increase your dice pool. If you carried a Sword, you could parry one attack die, forcing the opponent to re-roll it. In addition, there were also multiple conditions that increased the combat result like being the attacker, being behind an obstacle or by overwhelming the enemy (which was very strong, e.g. +1 combat result plus +1 combat die).
In the Eldar codex, you could add special close combat abilities to your Exarchs like disarming the opponent, combining multiple hits into a stronger one, etc. This sounded very much like RPG abilities. So, maybe this could be an inspiration for your special abilities.
It is much more exciting than what was implemented afterwards for 40k: roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, remove casualties.
You should take a look at Bushido by GCT. Its melee is pretty funny at its core. Only gets fiddly after too many special rules are added.
ReplyDeleteI'll address "making melee interesting".
ReplyDeleteI have a few ideas, yours may vary.
First determine what your figure or base represents.
* The Coldstream guards.
* A section of around 10 soldiers.
* One individual.
This is central to picking appropriate actions in your game.
Large bodies of man are great at volley fire, organised charges or resisting.
Individuals are great at nipping in to strike a distracted opponent, fire and change position, disengaging in melee.
Some of the worst skirmish mechanisms apply wargame unit mechanics to figures representing individuals: Angles of fire, charge bonuses, penalties for disengaging.
Disengaging is a particular bugbear: Notoriously difficult for a body to 200+ men in melee, trivial for individuals with a few week's fencing training.
So rule one - make te actions appropriate to the scale.
Rule two - how many actions in a turn?
Here we don't want the active team to dance about slaughtering an enemy forced to stand like statues.
To few actions and nothing gets done - or worse, everybody stands still and shoots.
One combat action and a free move seems to work quite well.
Too many actions invite interrupt mechanisms, which are notorious for slowing the game, or killing it as a contest.
I find that micro actions (reload X rounds, exchange weapons) bog the game down.
It helps if the winner of a melee round gains an advantage, but one that doesn't require a memory state until next round.
Pushing an enemy or stepping out of contact are both good options.
Next a personal preference. If a figure attacks another I like a contest to ensure. Both combatants at risk and able to compete.
The whole "I attack you, you ca attack me next time, if your survive" never feels quite realistic.
Finally, make melee resolution swift. 2 minutes totting up modifiers completely break immersion from my perspective - you'll also start making mistakes.
This is an area where "advantage" or other dice pool mechanics seem a lot more user friendly than a 7 point modifier list.