Non-Boffer Combat System idea

In designing the cyberpunk-themed larp I’m currently working on, I realise a (simple) combat system is needed because there will be conflict if everything goes according to plan. As the emphasis on this larp is the socialising and the roleplaying itself rather than immersive combat, I have chosen to go with a non-boffer system. After all, this isn’t a beat-each-other-up camping trip in the woods. This, however, is not a discussion on the pros and cons of boffer and non-boffer conflict resolution systems.

I realise that a lot of the time an easy way out of using a complicated system is to use Rock, Paper, Scissors, to resolve physical conflict. I, however, feel that this simple system, despite whatever augmentation is done to it, doesn’t give the player the full abilities of their character. For instance, a person who knows how to win a game of RPS can defeat someone who is supposed to be above them in combat skill. While this is still a much smaller advantage than, say, someone who has boffer combat experience has over a newbie, it is still an OOC advantage none-the-less.

My aim is to have a system that has less OOC bias than RPS. To that end, I have drafted the following basic system;

[ul][li]For each catagory of combat/conflict (in this case digital and physical), a character will have a stat of 1 - 5, 1 being useless and 5 being super-human (3 being fit/competent).[/li]
[li]Players are given cards that have their combat stat(s) on them and are easily identified as belonging to the specific catagory and character that they belong to.[/li]
[li]To engage in combat/conflict, a player challenges another and declares the catagory of combat as well as their objective (whether that be capture, kill, incapacitate, etc.).[/li]
[li]Players can call on others to aid them in combat. An ally who agrees to help adds +1 to the declared combat catagory of the player involved in combat. However, a player with ‘1’ in the declared catagory can not be an ally in the combat.[/li]
[li]Plot items could potentially add +half to a catagory stat (I feel that +1 would be too advantageous considering that an inanimate object doesn’t need to be convinced to help).[/li]
[li]Once willing allies have been established the combatants reveal their relevant catagory stats to each other and the winner is decided by simple arithmetic.[/li]
[li]Highest number wins. Draws result in a mexican standoff.[/li]
[li]All players involved in the combat then act out their part in it to the effect of the mathmatical conclusion.[/li][/ul]

Characters’ stats in each catagory will be based on their knowledge of conflict in the catagory as well as their physical ability (i.e. how suitable their body/soul/whatever is to the catagory). For instance, a fit human with little to no knowledge of self defence would get a 3 in the physical catagory. A trained full-body cyborg soldier would get 5 in the physical catagory. A full/partial cyborg with no self defence training would get a 4 in the physical catagory. A weak old human would get a 1 in the physical catagory.

Similarly, a hacker with a cybernetically enhanced brain would get a 4 in the digital catagory. A simple computer user who knows about firewalls and anti-virus programs would get a 3 in the digital catagory. An A.I. built for espionage would get a 5 in the digital catagory.

I realise a players ability to call on allies in combat can easily be influenced by the relationship two players have in the real world, but I feel that this is an acceptible OOC influence.

I’d really appreciate some constructive criticism on this proposed system from you all and perhaps some predictions on its pros and cons in a larp.

Seems like a good alternative to RPS.

How do you envisage group vs group combat working ? Lets say me and my three friends attack you and your four friends. Would your mates add their skills to you, and me do likewise ? If so, then the outcome is (apart from standoff) one group wins 100% and the other group loses 100%, an outcome that is perhaps too absolute.

Also, how would my allies indicate that they are taking part in the combat ? Would they give their cards to me when I declare the fight, or beforehand ? i.e. can I be surprised by my “allies” as they pull out of the fight as soon as I throw the first punch (whilst saying all along that they’d back me up) ? If the latter, how long do they have to commit ?

[quote=“Tetrajak”]I realise that a lot of the time an easy way out of using a complicated system is to use Rock, Paper, Scissors, to resolve physical conflict. I, however, feel that this simple system, despite whatever augmentation is done to it, doesn’t give the player the full abilities of their character.
For instance, a person who knows how to win a game of RPS can defeat someone who is supposed to be above them in combat skill. [/quote]

I think you’re mistaken here. Even a perfect understanding of RPS really doesn’t help much. Unless you’re aware that the other person has only heard of “rock” :smiley:

RPS gives a 50-50 chance of success to either person. When the “kick-arse” rules are in play, it gives a 50-50 chance to people with equal skill and guarantees that people of higher skill will win.

You may want to re-check your math :confused:

I think the concern is that some people are better than others at guessing what the other person will throw (rock, paper, or scissors) and beating it.

The suggested system sounds quite slow to resolve.

It’s likely to create a “time-bubble”, where the people involved in the conflict resolution take a long time to resolve an interaction that should happen quickly. People outside the conflict have to ignore the conflict until it’s resolved, but their time progresses as normal so they can get an unrealistically large amount of stuff done relative to the players in the conflict. That’s not very desirable, so faster resolution systems are preferable.

One way of making rock-paper-scissors more dependent on character skill (without having to do multiple draws and thus creating a time bubble) is to change what a “draw” means. For example, if both players throw scissors (thus creating a draw), then the player with the higher skill rank can win, meaning they win 2/3 of the time.

For example, all skills could be rated as rank novice, proficient, or expert. When two characters come into conflict, they say what their skill rank is. Expert always beats novice, no need for RPS. Proficient has an advantage over novice, and expert has an advantage over proficient. The character with the advantage wins in the case of an RPS draw. If the skill ranks are the same, then on a draw you could say that a character with more relevant items wins, otherwise the initiator of the conflict wins. That way it’s always just one RPS required.

As for mass conflict, I think it’s best resolved by a series of one-to-one conflicts. That way the problems that Mike mentioned don’t arise.

I see the point about the timelag being the biggest negative aspect to such a system. I hadn’t considered that. Perhaps the simple RPS system with modifiers for skill level would be the easiest way to avoid time bubbles and solve conflict in a simplistic manner. The ability of a combatant to predict the choice of the other in RPS is still something that troubles me, but I have yet to come up with an alternative.

As for how such an advantage in RPS can work; what someone will throw can generally be predicted by their mood; Rock = aggressive, Paper passive, and scissors an attempt at cunning. There’s also the opportunity to fake your throw by starting to open your hand as you lower it, but then close it, and other similar moves. Such manipulations and deceipt are a worry when I want the system to accurately reflect the ability of the character rather than the player.

Thank you all for your feedback, it is most useful!

Whilst I’m not keen on Rock, Paper, Scissors as a solution to conflict, it is more elegant than cards or poker chips or anything else short of boffery/shooty stuff.

My advice would be to try and keep it simple and quick, I’m not sure how exactly to make it work but ideally you want one throw of scissors rock and paper to resolve the conflict, otherwise I’ve seen it get really bogged down, a time bubble like Ryan says.

Happy to get together sometime for a coffee (I’m down in Welly too) and brainstorm a really simple system, which is what I’ve learnt people in Wellington like.

Cheers,

Bryn.

There is of course the slightly more complex version :smiley:

I’m disappointed that you didn’t go with Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.

I’m disappointed that you didn’t go with Rock, Paper, Scissors, Lizard, Spock.[/quote]

Beat me to it :wink:

[quote=“Bryn”]Whilst I’m not keen on Rock, Paper, Scissors as a solution to conflict, it is more elegant than cards or poker chips or anything else short of boffery/shooty stuff.

My advice would be to try and keep it simple and quick, I’m not sure how exactly to make it work but ideally you want one throw of scissors rock and paper to resolve the conflict, otherwise I’ve seen it get really bogged down, a time bubble like Ryan says.

Happy to get together sometime for a coffee (I’m down in Welly too) and brainstorm a really simple system, which is what I’ve learnt people in Wellington like.

Cheers,

Bryn.[/quote]

Thanks for the offer, although I get the feeling sticking with RPS and some skill rankings will give the players less to learn and thus provide little risk of time bubbles during the game.

As for draws; attacker wins when skill ranks are the same between combatants.

If the conflict can’t be role-played out, I think a simple RPS system is the least intrusive way of resolving conflict in these sort of games.

Attacker winning on equally skilled conflicts is neat it stops the retesting problem, does that represent them being more prepared for the situation than their victim? That combined with draws being won by the higher skilled character where they aren’t the same level sounds really elegant.

Looking forward to hearing more about your game.

Bryn.

Yep, the initiator winning on draws represents them being more ready for the conflict, perhaps even having the element of surprise. Also, from a game design perspective it encourages the initation of conflict. If you wanted to discourage conflict, you could say the defender wins on draws.

This is a system I’ve been kicking around for a while, a slightly more complex version of the Kick Arse system that could be used for a campaign. I started writing it up as a generic larp system with the name Realtime, but then I found it became more complex than I wanted for a larp system when I started thinking about all the possible skills characters might have. I’d suggest just having one skill for each thing that really matters in a given larp. In a steampunk larp that might be Fighting, Steamtech, and maybe Magic? Then you’re either Novice, Proficient, or Expert in each of those things. I think that’s few enough items to be able to remember easily, without it turning into a long list of skills like you’d have in tabletop, which isn’t practical to remember in a larp.

Alternatively, for a completely generic version of the Realtime system instead of skills I’d just have three universal stats in the style of Tri-Stat: Body, Mind, and Soul. Body is used for all physical challenges or conflict including fighting, Mind is used for all tests of intelligence (which could include steamtech in a steampunk setting), and Soul is used for all tests of willpower and psychic ability, including magic.

To generate a character, my thought is that everyone starts out Novice in all three stats, and then you can buy two ranks in any of the three stats. So you could buy one stat up two ranks to Expert and leave the other two as Novice, or alternatively buy two stats up one rank to Proficient, and leave the other stat as Novice. That gives six different possible combinations of starting character stats.

For advancement, I imagine gaining further stat ranks would happen very rarely, probably after a number of events in a campaign.But there would probably other ways of advancing, like gaining special items or knowledge. You might have Expert in Soul, but have to learn spells individually, for example. Or be Proficient in Mind, but have to learn mental abilities like Navigation or Crafting separately. There’s a lot of ways you could cut it, and it would probably depend on the genre.

[quote=“Bryn”]If the conflict can’t be role-played out, I think a simple RPS system is the least intrusive way of resolving conflict in these sort of games.

Attacker winning on equally skilled conflicts is neat it stops the retesting problem, does that represent them being more prepared for the situation than their victim? That combined with draws being won by the higher skilled character where they aren’t the same level sounds really elegant.

Looking forward to hearing more about your game.

Bryn.[/quote]

As it’ll be a one-off game rather than a campaign, there’s a high chance of characters dieing (this has been taken care of by other system elements so the players can still be a part of the game despite being dead). Since this is the sort of conflict that I as a GM don’t want to have to attend on every single instance, it would be easier to have a very simple system to resolve conflict and disagreement.

When it comes to the equal-skill draw having the attacker win, I’d say that pointed towards the attacker being more prepared and having the advantage of time; i.e. they have already chosen to attack and are moving accordingly while the defender has yet to react to the attackers movement.

The RPS system proposed is a simple one that I have come across on the net and at the Fleet Street larp. It seems like quite a popular system for many reasons.

The end result of this discussion, so far as the conflict resolution system for my Cyberpunk larp goes is as follows;

[ul][li]There are two catagories of conflict that require quick resolution in game-time, these are Physical and Digital[/li]
[li]Each character will have a rank in these two catagories, ranging from 1 - 3 (rank is based on innate ability as well as knowledge of the catagory)[/li]
[li]To engage in conflict with another player, where the aim of the conflict is to the detriment of the person being challenged, the challenger declares the intent to engage in conflict with another player and declares the catagory of said conflict (specific word use doesn’t matter for the declaration, so long as the intent is understood and the catagory established)[/li]
[li]Some plot items will add +1 (offensive item) or +1/2 (defensive item) to the possessor’s rank in a specific catagory (+1 is to motivate combat while +1/2 is a tie-breaking advantage)[/li]
[li]If the person challenged refuses the conflict then the attacker can either choose to back down or the person challenged instantly loses the conflict[/li]
[li]If the difference in rank in the chosen catagory between the two players is 2 or greater, including plot items, the person with the higher rank automatically wins the conflict[/li]
[li]If conflict is agreed to take place, the attacker and defender use Rock, Paper, Scissors to determine the winner of the conflict[/li]
[li]If the conflict results in a draw, the person with the higher rank wins the conflict[/li]
[li]If the conflict results in a draw and both characters have the same rank, the attacker wins the conflict[/li]
[li]Players then roleplay the result of the conflict[/li][/ul]
The system proposed here is only a mildly more complicated form than the RPS system I am familiar with, the complications being different catagories of conflict and the augmentation of plot items. I’m hoping a brief demonstration of a few different conflict scenarios and outcomes should sufficiently explain the system to the players.

I like that a lot. It’s so simple, but at the end of the day, that’s all you need to know. If you want to break down your knowledge as an in-character thing you always can. “Son, I did my apprentiship with dirigibles, get out of my way!”

You could also use RPS in conjunction with this by saying that you can have “re-rolls” based on your level. For example:

Novice – 1 attempt
Proficient – 2 attempts
Expert – 3 attempts

So, if a Novice Fighter fought a Proficient Fighter and they contested it with RPS, the Proficient Fighter could elect to have a second RPS contest if they didn’t like the outcome of the first (i.e. they lost).

I like that a lot. It’s so simple, but at the end of the day, that’s all you need to know. If you want to break down your knowledge as an in-character thing you always can. “Son, I did my apprentiship with dirigibles, get out of my way!”

You could also use RPS in conjunction with this by saying that you can have “re-rolls” based on your level. For example:

Novice – 1 attempt
Proficient – 2 attempts
Expert – 3 attempts

So, if a Novice Fighter fought a Proficient Fighter and they contested it with RPS, the Proficient Fighter could elect to have a second RPS contest if they didn’t like the outcome of the first (i.e. they lost).[/quote]

In a skill catagory where the conflict could indeed take that much time, it would make sense to have reroles, but a gunshot in a physical conflict takes a lot less time to hit and kill someone than 3 RPS draws.

[quote=“Derek”]You could also use RPS in conjunction with this by saying that you can have “re-rolls” based on your level. For example:

Novice – 1 attempt
Proficient – 2 attempts
Expert – 3 attempts

So, if a Novice Fighter fought a Proficient Fighter and they contested it with RPS, the Proficient Fighter could elect to have a second RPS contest if they didn’t like the outcome of the first (i.e. they lost).[/quote]

I think it’s best to avoid multiple RPS, it takes away from the real-time flow of the mechanic and creates those time bubbles. That’s why I suggested that the Proficient fighter beats the Novice fighter on a win or a draw in a single RPS. So they have a 2/3 chance of winning the conflict.

Just a thought, have any of you played Masquerade by White Wolf? The last edidtion of which was easier to change from Vampire the Masquerade (table top roleplaying) to Vampire (LARP) was set in what is now called The Old World of Darkness. White Wolf has now gone with (a pathetic) card draw system, which is cumbersome, for Requiem.

Masquerade had traits that were desireably role played and had to be used in tests.

E.G; (Use of “Brutal” trait vs use of “Tough” trait during a physical (combat) challenge).
(Attacker)“I BRUTALLY thump you!”
(Defender) “I’m so TOUGH that you hurt your hand when you thump me!”
(Paper-Scissors-Rock) Win = winner’s use is what happens. Lose = lose one physical trait and winner’s use is what happens. Draw = Higher trait (in this case Physical) total wins - winner’s use is what happens, looser lose one physical trait and winner’s use is what happens.
In the unlikely event that the combatants have equal number of traits, the Defender wins.

Hope this helps! :unamused:

Thanks for the input, Keeper, although this was resolved two years ago when it was originally posted.

I once was involved in a LARP where hand to hand fights were solved by comparing (numbers) skills of fighters. No support, no aid, just straight numbers, It was ok. Only drawback, once you know you are better, you’ll always be better and can kick someone’s a… over and over again…

once the players were about to fight, a small whisper of number at everyone’s ear and let’s fake a fight “wrestling style”!