Tag Archives: Combat

Game Mechanisms, Rules Articles

Order of Battle

It has been said that time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. In a game, that role goes to the Initiative rules. Initiative establishes turn order and action priority. It allows faster, more perceptive, and more decisive characters to have an advantage in the round of action. Initiative brings a little structure and order to the chaos of battle. It’s also a primary determinant of the structure of game play.

The action economy of a game consists of two parts: declaration, and action. Advantage in the economy favors characters that declare last but act first, allowing them knowledge of their opponent’s actions and the ability to invalidate later actions. Most games combine these into a single step, so that actions are declared and performed at the same time. This is intuitive and easy to remember. It also divides the favorable advantage between the first and last actors.

The Declaration Phase

When declaring actions, characters who declare last have the advantage because their actions are informed by the intentions of other characters. This allows them to take actions that potentially invalidate those of other characters and to respond to events conditionally. This advantage favors defensive actions, allowing fast characters to choose to attack, defend, or split their actions based on what their opponents are doing.

Characters who declare last are at a potential disadvantage because they risk losing the advantage of response by holding their actions until the advantageous moment has passed. Allowing other characters to declare their actions first potentially removes agency from the last character by limiting their effective or practical options.

The Action Phase

When taking actions, characters who move first have the advantage because they have the opportunity to directly influence their opponents by reducing their options or potentially removing them from the action round. This advantage favors offensive actions, forcing other characters to respond to actions already taken and potentially removing them from the action round entirely.

Characters who act first are at a potential disadvantage because they lose the option to respond to characters who act last. In games that require characters to split their actions at declaration, fast actors are at a defensive disadvantage.

Interruption

Some games allow characters to hold their actions so that fast actors are given the opportunity to interrupt slow actors and take advantage of their declared action. Interruption adds to the bookkeeping required of the Game Master, but preserves both the action and declaration advantage that fast actors enjoy.

FIFO vs LIFO Initiative Order

First In First Out initiative requires the least bookkeeping on the part of the Game Master. Characters with the best initiative both declare their actions first and take their actions first. Fast actors enjoy the advantage of action, and have the opportunity to hold their action in order to interrupt slower characters. If multiple actions need to be declared, they must be do so during their turn, allowing slower characters a slight advantage if the game allows characters to give up their regular action in favor of a defensive response.

Last In First Out initiative requires moderate bookkeeping on the part of the Game Master. Characters with the worst initiative must declare and act first, with faster actors normally allowed the opportunity to interrupt slower actors. All of the advantages remain with the faster actors, allowing the most opportunity to decide to split actions, respond defensively, or preempt slower actors.

Split initiative requires the most bookkeeping on the part of the Game Master, as it requires slow actors to declare first but act last. The Game Master must keep track of all actions in the order they are declared and execute them in the order they act. As with LIFO initiative, all advantages remain with the fast actors.

Static vs Dynamic Initiative

Initiative can be static (determined at the beginning of the encounter) or dynamic (determined at the beginning of every turn). Neither of these options changes the advantage to fast or slow actors. Static initiative requires fewer player movements and so can make for a faster game. Dynamic initiative requires more player movements which can slow down the game but results in a less predictable and more chaotic encounter flow.

Group and Narrative Initiative

Group initiative divides actors into groups to determine initiative. Individual actions are less important when using this method and are generally ordered based on what the group decides to do and what makes sense in the narrative. Group divisions are almost always players vs NPCs. This method speeds up the game and promotes teamwork, but imparts a massive advantage to the group with the better initiative.

Narrative initiative relies on the flow of the narrative rather than another game mechanism to determine the order of initiative. This method results in a great deal of bookkeeping for the Game Master. It allows the Game Master to emphasize dramatic scenes, but characters who have little narrative impact can have their actions overlooked.

Narrative initiative does not need to be entirely freeform. Narrative impact can be used as a way to further divide the encounter round. For example, priority may be given to characters who speak or move, then those who shoot, then physical attacks, and ending with spell casters. This results in a tightly structured combat round and gives players the ability to affect their position in the turn order by choosing their actions.

Next Turn, You’re Up!

There is no need to rigidly adhere to a single style of initiative. The purpose of the initiative order is to structure the encounter round and allow all players a chance to act. Changing up the initiative method between encounters adds a bit of variety to keep them from becoming predictable. Different encounter types can be assigned unique initiative orders so that each structure has its own flavor and tactics. Proper use of initiative doesn’t just keep everything from happening at once, it defines the shape of an encounter, the flow of the game, and the choices of the players.

Game Mechanisms, Rules Articles

Maneuvering for Position

One of the things I find most frustrating about most any RPG is that the action economy is most efficiently used in a series of attack and defense rolls. Most game systems don’t incentivize any other kind of exchange. Movement especially is given little attention and it’s difficult to force a character to move. When you do force a movement to disadvantageous terrain or gain advantageous terrain yourself, a simple move action by the opponent undoes the work.

When I think of how important footwork is in both cinematic and actual combat it seems like something very important is being overlooked. I have three scenes in mind:

Scenario 1) The Princess Bride: Inigo Montoya vs the Dread Pirate Westley. The fight roams up and down the ruins and the two fighters use their attacks to force each other to move and sacrifice position.

Scenario 2) Batman Begins: Bruce Wayne and Henri Ducard are training on the ice, and Bruce seemingly wins the fight. Ducard then tells him he has sacrificed his footing and knocks the ice out from under him.

Scenario 3) Star Trek TNG, S3 Ep11 – Worf and Danar trade a few punches and then toss each other into stacked crates and bins. Danar wins the fight by knocking a stack of crates on top of Worf.

The biggest determinant here is whether the game is being played on a tabletop map or in the virtual theater. In a map game, the position of the pieces makes it easy to determine if they are at risk or have an advantage based on the map features. In a theater game, this must be determined by the GM, either descriptively or with dice rolls.

In both cases, the three scenarios are attempting to achieve specific goals. In S1, the opponents are attempting to either gain a circumstantial modifier or force their opponent to take a multi-action penalty in order to navigate difficult terrain. In S2, Ducard forces Bruce to defend with his movement skill rather than his combat skill, allowing him to act against a lower defensive score. In S3, Danar leverages a weapon against Worf so that he can roll a larger damage pool.

In S1, one opponent is attempting to restrict the other’s movement options. In S2 and S3, one opponent is attempting to force the opponent to move into a specific position. In both cases, the combat skill can be used, but instead of attempting a strike for damage, it is used to attempt a Combat Option.

Combat Option: force/restrict movement.

This action takes the place of the attack and may use a combat skill, a movement skill, or some other skill. The defender’s defense skill is one that would normally be used against the attacking skill. For example: Melee Combat defends against Melee Combat, Dodge defends against Shooting, Acrobatics defends against Acrobatics, Willpower defends against Intimidation.

If the action is successful, the defending character has their movement either forced or restricted. In both cases, the defending character must move during their turn, though it must be as a free action (less than 50% of their Move). If the movement is forced, the direction or specific location of the defender’s movement is chosen by the attacker. If the movement is restricted, the attacker determines the direction or directions in which the defender may not move.

If the defender then chooses to take any other move action on their turn, it counts as a full action, subject to multi-action dice penalties.

It is generally easier to restrict movement than to force movement.

Using movement as a combat option in this way allows an attacker to control their opponent’s dice pool, inflict penalties, and gain bonuses. It also encourages dynamic movement around the skirmish area and creative use of the environment.