OK, *mutter* World of Darkness

[bryant]

Obscenity ahead. You have been warned. In order to provide a proper buffer, I give you this picture of a typical pastoral landscape in Warhammer 40K:

There. Now. Where was I about to be? Right.

Fucking World of Darkness! I was looking at jeffwik’s list of systems and thinking about my go-to systems, which led me to think about Adventure. I’ve run Adventure in the D20 version and it was fun cause I had great players. But the system was a bit of a hack and eminently prone to abuse, so why was I not going “Oh, yeah, the original version, yeah.”?

Well, because there’s this stunningly elegant skeleton in the middle of Storyteller. Dots are great, the attributes are great, every shuffle of the names of the attributes and skills and shit has been just fine. Skill plus attribute is the best system, because even if you’re mostly using Guns and Dexterity, hey, the ability to use Guns plus Intelligence is fun. Yes it is.

And then there’s this steaming pile of wacky complexity called the combat system, and I lose it entirely, because I hate it, and while various and sundry people at White Wolf have made great attempts at revising it — the Aeon version of the system is pretty OK! — it’s still just oh god my head hurts. Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuck. I get trapped in this every single time, too, I go “but the character creation system is great, how bad can combat be?” and it’s bad.

You roll! And then you maybe roll again, or maybe there’s soak, and you lose some dice for armor, or do you lose successes based on armor? Do you add Strength to your damage? Do you add Dexterity? Do you add an attribute sometimes, but not sometimes? Does it matter how much you succeed by? Can I dodge? Can I parry? Do I roll for dodge? What do I do with my dodge successes? FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!

I mean. I play Champions. For fun. Don’t get on my ass about complexity, it’s my breakfast cereal. This shit makes no fucking sense!

Fuck this noise. I’m rewriting it. I even have design goals. Look, here they are.

1. Maintain compatibility.

That’s huge. I mentioned I like the character creation system, right? The character sheets, those are awesome, let’s keep those. Also let’s avoid the terrifying bit where you wind up rewriting every single power, okay?

2. Speed saves lives.

This, both in terms of how many rolls it takes to resolve a combat and how fast combats go. That latter bit is trickily personal. I like to run fast, hard, mean games. Not necessarily deadly, but I don’t want my combats to linger, so I’m in favor of people taking damage.

I.e., I’m writing a combat system which is optimized for two humans getting in a gun fight and one of them dying before very long. Alternatively, it should be good for one vampire ripping apart an entire night club.

I have an alternative system floating around in my head that I think would encourage longer, more delicate combats with a lot of parries and tactics and so on. It has action points and is based on Feng Shui’s shot system. But that’s later.

3. My brain is small.

I basically don’t want to have to store more than like three numbers in my head at once. Like, to just hit someone with a sword in D&D 3.5, you need to know a) what your current +attack is, b) how much damage the sword does, and c) any modifiers, like say you have your target flanked. A lot of the time that’s only two numbers. Three is OK. Four is scary. Five sucks.

Sidenote: there are three ranges in an RPG unless it’s played on a grid or a hex map, OK? And none of them are measured in feet or meters. There is too close to shoot at safely, medium, and risky shot. 50% of the time, when you hit someone at the risky shot range, you miss anyhow. There done.

The previous paragraph was not absolutely true but I’m still pissed off because for the life of me I can’t remember how to figure out if someone dodges in the new World of Darkness system, and I’ve run a Vampire game using it for a year, and I’m in a Changeling game, and it’s so fucking confusing I haven’t internalized it. So you can blame dodging for my knee-jerk reaction to the question of ranged weapons.

Again: there is only room for three numbers in my head.

OK, so let’s write down a system. Let’s not playtest it yet. But let’s do playtest it someday.

How It Works

This is aimed at Vampire, in that I’m noting some things vampires can do. But only a few.

Basics: target number is still an 8, unless it changes, which it will sometimes. Dice pools are dice pools. Roll that many ten sided dice, and the number of dice that get 8 or over, that’s your number of successes. Tens roll again and accumulate successes. All that is very good.

Combat is in rounds still. Initiative still exists. Declare and resolve actions in order of initiative. Why the hell does the old “declare, then resolve in reverse order” thing stick around for some people? It’s another thing to remember! I’ve been over this already.

OK, I am going to hit you. This is a fight. You are going to be able to hit me back. You roll your dice pool, I roll my dice pool, the person with more successes does damage as follows:

Number of successes + weapon damage - 2 if you’re the defender

In theory you could do something where each additional time you defend, you take an additional -1. Whatever. Too much in my head. Screw it.

If I shoot at you and you can’t shoot back, obviously you’re not getting to do damage. If you can shoot back, hey, maybe you get in a shot.

Let’s simplify the fuck out of weapon damage. A weapon gives you +1 damage. A big weapon gives you another +1 damage. A badass weapon gives you another +1 damage.

I have a knife; that’s +1. It’s a badass knife that I stole from the Prince with mystic runes inscribed on it that hurt you a lot. OK, +2. I have a sword, that’s a big weapon, also +2. Badass sword, +3. Pistol is +1. Rifle is +2. Do you think shotguns are badass? OK, +3.

The GM may make stuff bigger at his discretion.

Injury. You have as many health points as you always did. If you drop to half, -1 to all pools. Done.

If you defended, you still get to attack stuff, but take a -1 to your attack pool. That’s one thing to remember: was I attacked? Acceptable.

There is a big interesting side effect to all this, namely: if ten mooks attack a scary person, all of them may die. That’s OK. I want things to be scary and quick, remember?

Oh, yeah, mooks. Like this.

Mooks: fixed number of successes. This is stolen from Cinematic Unisystem. Most mooks just always get 1 success. Beefy mooks always get 2 successes. Beefy mooks can take two points of damage, and normal mooks go down after one. Done.

Multiple attackers coordinating: attack goes off on the lowest initiative. Maximum number of attackers = lowest Wits value among all of them. Add up all the die pools, subtract 1 die from each pool for each person attacking. I.e., two attackers, lose 2 dice from each of their pools. Three, lose 3 dice from each of their pools. Etc. You need to be competent to make this work.

Armor: what the hell? It’s not a military game, dude. Fine, add the armor value to your defense pool.

Dodge: you don’t get any attacks this turn. In exchange, you get to add dice to your defense pool, like this. For every die you add up to a maximum of your Dexterity, you lose two points of damage if you win the roll. Clear? So you have four dice of defense base, and you add two dice, and you roll six successes, and your opponent rolls two. You have four successes over him, so four points of damage.

Subtract two for being the defender, add two for the sword, still four points! But you added two dice, so subtract another four, and no damage. I.e., you can be pretty defensive, but you won’t hit anyone while you’re doing it.

Is this keeping too much in my head? Defensive pool, that’s one thing. Amount you dodged, that’s another thing. Weapon damage, three things. I think we’re cool.

Stunts: describe a cool thing. If it makes your character’s life easier, it’s worth a die to the pool. If it makes it harder (aimed shot, whatever) subtract a die.

Feel free to keep all the existing stuff about cover and prone and aiming; it’s all compatible. Love the die pool. It is your friend.

OK, some vampire stuff. This is really pretty optional, this is just me wanting to make vampires kick more ass.

Burn a blood point, reduce your target number by 1 for a turn for a single stat. I guess it could be just physical. I’ve always liked the idea of burning blood for charismatic stuff or thinking faster or whatever, but that’s me. If you want really scary old vampires, let them reduce target numbers by 2 if they can burn 2 blood points in a turn, and so on. If you only want sort of scary old vampires, they’re still scary, cause you burn 2 blood points and reduce both Str and Dex targets by 1.

For megascary, make it the entire encounter rather than just one turn, but better not let ‘em stack it. Alternative or additional megascary: vampires always have a target number of 7. Always. They kick your ass, hombre.

Originally published at Imaginary Vestibule.

Comments

[promethius.livejournal.com]

I won't lie. I didn't read the entirety of your entry, yet. I will, at some point, because I'm interested. But I'm hungry, and thus spaced out right now. (Edit: Ok, well, by now I've gone back and read most of it. ;) )

However, I personally found the combat system in the "new" World of Darkness to be relatively simple and elegant compared to many I've played. I didn't have that much trouble figuring it out. I feel as though, at times, many players who did a lot of playing with the old system tend to misinterpret the new system. I definitely think the new system has its flaws, but they're the kind of "flaws" that come up in any combat system, because you just have to make some choices about what you're willing to do and what compromises you're going to make to accomplish it.

In the end, when I hear complaints about the new world of darkness combat (a few of which I have heard), my first question is always, "Are you sure you're doing it right?" There are no soaks in the new system. There is always, always one roll. It is the roll of the attacker. All defensive and armor bonuses of the opposer reduce the dice pool of that roll. And that's it. It's really that simple. What dice pool do you use? In close combat, strength + skill + item bonus. In ranged combat, it's dexterity. In the exclusive case of firearms, you can use intelligence instead of dexterity. And that's it. Again, once you put it in plain terms, it's pretty simple.

But, of course, the reality is that you might just not like it, and every individual is going to like or dislike different systems more or less based on all sorts of different stuff. But, I guess I figured I'd throw it out there because I find myself coming back to the new WoD system over and over again for all sorts of games and ideas because I enjoy the system so much. So hey, do what works best for you and yours. But speaking at least for myself, after I actually sat down and read the new system - divorcing myself from the old system and trying not to drag carryovers in that weren't there - I found it to be a lot simpler and more well thought out than I originally suspected.

[head58.livejournal.com]

Why is the defender rolling and potentially doing damage instead of having a static defense number (higher of Dex or Int or Stamina maybe?) that reduces the 3 of successes rolled? That would seem the simplest mechanical way out, but there's probably a reason for what you did there, I'm guessing.

[bryant]

I wanted attacking to have risks, and I wanted to preserve the possibility of the non-combat oriented athlete who can use Athletics to dodge, mostly.

[bluegargantua]

Have you tried any of the One-Roll Engine (ORE) games? Godlike was the first, but the new Reign game is pretty kickass. It's really true, that one roll pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

later
Tom

[head58.livejournal.com]

Cool. Is it maybe possible to static it out still and avoid the extra roll by saying that if you don't get enough successes to get past the defender's Defense score (Attribute+weapon skill. Doesn't apply if somebody is using Athletics to dodge, I think) you take the difference in hits? Or am I just too fixated on not having a defense roll?

[bryant]

Two reasons.

First, I find nWoD combat to be pretty slow because reducing the die pool means people with the average 2 die attributes and 2 die skills are whiffing a lot against even a minimally competent defender. Note that in this system, someone usually gets hurt every round. Mmm, blood.

Second, note that there's a whole added chunk of communication and math taking place before you can roll, each and every time. "My die pool is this, and your defense is what? OK, math." I prefer enabling the attacker to just roll. The die pool doesn't change. Each participant in the combat has complete responsibility for their own pool.

[bryant]

Yes. I like 'em bunches. I had this aversion to attacker rolls, defender rolls systems until I playtested some Reign.

[bruceb.livejournal.com]

Now THAT'S my idea of a good combat system at the blow-by-blow-ish level.

[bryant]

No, that gets very harsh, because Defense scores are going to be higher than successes rolled on a Defense pool. You could make a table and say "ok, pools of 4 have a target of 2 successes, pools of 5 have a target of 3 successes," etc. but you'll get weird effects where increasing your pool by 1 has no benefit.

I think two rolls is OK. They're independent and (most important) simultaneous -- you aren't making one subtract from the other or anything, just comparing the totals. It does need playtesting. Note that we've saved ourselves a damage roll, so it's still two rolls for an entire attack.

[bryant]

I just wanted stalwarts to be able to kick ass, I swear. And I wanted scions to be able to kick ass. And vampires. Those three things.

[promethius.livejournal.com]

Both fair points. I will admit this much: there were a few things about the old system that I did like that didn't carry over into the new. I kind of enjoyed the active defense, myself. Did it add an extra step into the combat equation? Yes, it did. However, as a defender, I just felt better about being able to make a roll, because it felt like I was actually getting to "defend myself."

[bryant]

Yeah. I think that's sort of a win in some cases.

I'm stealing a lot from Cinematic Unisystem here. Hm. You could say "OK, all NPCs have a static defense value" if you wanted, I guess, although it gets scary as it gets higher. But since they're NPCs you can fiddle the probability some.

Static success value of 3 is pretty beefy and non-mookish. Static success value of 4 is terrifying. That's really the issue with using statics there, you don't get a wide range of values, which is too bad.

[michele-blue.livejournal.com]

Scion! I still yearn to play that Scion/Reign hybrid we talked about someday.

[kodi]

I'm reading this on my sidekick, so I may not have it fully right in my head, but it sounds like if 10 dudes attack a guy at the same time, the only disadvantage the guy has is that he can only attack one of them a round, unless the dudes can coordinate attacks. This makes a lot of sense in every case except when one of the dudes is competent. It seems like Joe Masterswordsman and his 5 thugs should be a tougher opponent than Joe Masterswordsman alone.

[bryant]

Yeah; they are by definition. You are not forced to coordinate attacks, so two cases:

I fight Joe Master, and it is a tough battle.

I fight Joe Master plus his thugs. Fighting Joe Master is a tough battle; I also have to defend myself against his thugs, which won't be too hard but chances are pretty good I'll take a couple of hits in the process of putting them down.

[dcltdw]

Huh. This seems to fix the problem of "WW could not do math, and didn't understand that changing success threshold has much more of an effect than changing dice pool". Okay.

So now you're going for a Titan-esque feeling: I'm badass! I roll lots of dice, mf'er! Cool.

It's interesting that (say) a vampire automatically gets a lower threshold. That is serious power. And kinda cool.

I like the idea of dice pool essentially being combat currency, with the sacred cow of Never Ever Changing The Success Threshold. You just described this awesome acrobatic move that cracked up the entire room? +1 die to your pool for this combat. You tripped in peanut butter? Lose a die this round.

Hmm, not sure what else to say, other than I'm a 2d6 geek and zillions of d10s is a system I don't like. ;)

[bryant]

Just about, yep. Current WW thinking understands that the success threshold should be constant, which is nice, but the probabilities are currently tilted a little too far away from being badass for my tastes.

Dice pool as combat currency is fun. I have something more tactical floating in my head that I think will reward that itch in a stronger way. You have completely nailed how I'd kick the die pool around as a GM with this system.

[kodi]

Ok, so I've been out of WoD long enough I don't know what a reasonable dice pool/health range is. That makes a big difference when you put in fixed numbers. The problem, though, is that as I'm reading, the most efficient way to deal with Joe & thugs is to attack Joe and allow his thugs to kill themselves off as they attempt to attack you. The only thing Joe does to help his thugs is keep you from making one extra attack against one of them, in addition to the free attacks you already get against each of them.

[editswlonghair.livejournal.com]

"there’s this steaming pile of wacky complexity called the combat system, and I lose it entirely"

Amen, brother. I LOVE Storyteller Adventure, but man, did that combat system irk me. Especially when machine guns or dual pistols were being used. So your design principles are right up my alley... esp. "My brain is small." I'd add the corollary "Math is HARD." ;)

BTW: Is that pic a rendering of the landscape design for a nuclear waste site? I think I remember reading a few years ago about a field of thorns concept so thousands of years from now, future generations will know to stay away...

[bdeakin.livejournal.com]

R&K with TNs > attribute+skill with against 7s... Snore

[alex-victory.livejournal.com]

Heh this was going to be my suggestion. I first saw ORE in Wild Talents and thought it was the bee's knees.

Whatever that means.

[bryant]

It is indeed.

[bryant]

Assuming the thugs aren't between you and Joe, sure.

Conceptually, this is a la Feng Shui, which I think was the first game to introduce mooks of this type. Mooks went down on a single hit and weren't likely to hit when they attacked. The difference here is that mooks will eventually wear themselves down by attacking you.

[jeffwik.livejournal.com]

I mean. I play Champions. For fun.

You do?! There's a Champions game going on I know nothing about?!

[bryant]

No. I wish. Someone should run one.

[jeffwik.livejournal.com]

I can only pitch so many games, man.

[bryant]

GET YOUR JOHN WICK SHIT OUT OF HERE.

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

I've read this post twice today, and I'll be honest: I don't see how it's simpler than the nWoD.

I'm probably just missing something, but it reads to me like you're just shifting all the bothersome stuff (i.e., math) onto the damage end of the system as opposed to the attack end of the system.

Like, okay, in nWoD, you wanna punch that dude? Roll Strength + Brawl. Let's say you have 6 dice. Dude has Defense of 2, you subtract 2. So you have 4 dice left. You roll 2 successes. Dude takes 2 levels of bashing damage. Next turn.

Is the dude defending? Double his defense, so subtract 4 dice, you've got 2 dice to attack with.

Wanna toss a brass knuckle in? Add one die. Stabbing with a knife? Two dice. Shooting with a gun? Three dice. (I guess this could be simplified, +1 dice for small weapons and +3 for badass weapons.)

From reading your system, all this stuff still needs to be factored in, except you factor it in when calculating damage instead of determining outcome. Which is just as time consuming. I guess your system would be deadlier, i.e., NPCs dropping left and right, PCs dying more frequently? But frankly I've yet to be in a nWoD game where the PCs can't kill mooks in less than three rounds or where a PC hasn't died a horrible NPC-inflicted death.

[halfway-back.livejournal.com]

This is why I like boffer larps.

"Did you hit me? *WHAP* I guess so!"

[amberley.livejournal.com]

I've been jonesin' to run supers again, you know.

If you just weren't on the wrong coast! (The one that's not on fire.)

Crunchiness

[amberley.livejournal.com]

Nice photo!

Better but still seems very crunchy to my soft head.

Have you considered just rolling pools, high die wins and narrates result? (If top die matches, compare second die, and so forth). I'm probably stealing that from Sorcerer.

Now I kinda wanna run Vampires using something like Don't Rest Your Head's mechanics, with blood lust replacing exhaustion and vampiric disciplines in the place of madness. But maybe it would work better for Werewolf with Rage and Gnosis.

Re: Crunchiness

[bryant]

Note design goal 1. :)

btw, I think you were name-dropped in the latest Sons of Kryos podcast.

[bryant]

Eh. I never threw like ten mooks at once at you in Orlando Trash, and there were times when I wanted to, but the risk of killing a PC meaninglessly woulda been way way way too high. Also fights took for-ever.

Re: complexity -- I still think there's a psychological advantage to letting someone roll the same dice every time they attack. The big slowdown for me is always having to tell someone what an NPC's defense was every time. I like minimizing the time from "I want to hit Bob!" to "I roll the dice!"

[that-cad.livejournal.com]

I can see where you're coming from. In full perspective is seems a little odd to add, say, four dice to an attack roll when you're using a gun, instead of just adding it to the damage. And perhaps it's more fun to add up damage inflicted as opposed to attacks made. Maybe we'll give this a shot in August when Changeling resumes.

[st-rev.livejournal.com]

Lot of UA touches in here. Given your three-numbers goal, you might just want to go ahead and incorporate their philosophy on bonuses/penalties, i.e. bonuses never stack, you just take the highest and ignore the rest.