Looking for Opinions on Combat Redundancy

Game Development
21

You solve things differently. Let’s say you have a rather classic fantasy stat set up. You can be good at melee, range and magic. In addition you have a few more personal stats in a slider, let’s say charming-intimidating and daring-cautious.

Now, you are going to cross an ancient bridge, but the bridge is guarded by a black knight that demands a duel before you pass.

I could see the following choice setup:

Pre:

1: Try to talk him into letting you pass (written differently whether you are charming or intimidating, really hard to succeed at, failure leads to fight)
2: Decline, and pretend to leave, then take the opportunity to shoot him from afar (succeed if high ranged, if middle range leads to fight with wounded knight, if low, lead to harder fight because he’s angry and ready)
3: Use magic to teleport across (the bridge is guarded by magic runes, high magic gets you across, otherwise you get zapped and ends up in a fight.)
4: Accept the duel gracefully (leads to fight, but easier since you are being honorable).

fight:
Starts with either advantage or disadvantage depending on last choice.
1: melee fight (win if good, win of middle plus advantage from earlier or high caution, lose otherwise. If accepted the duel from 4 above you will be allowed to retreat gracefully, otherwise run for your life, end up hurt or lose things) (special, can be allowed to cross even with low melee, if high daring, because the knight respects your courage).
2: ranged fight (Cannot win, will probably look a lit like a fool. Have an easier time running away unhurt than above if high cautious)
3: magic (win if good, or middle magic/middle melee, or middle magic/high daring to take the risk needed. Otherwise hurt and retreat, less hurt if high cautious.).

end:

Will have either got across and beaten the knight or magicked across.
Otherwise they had to pull back, might be hurt or have lost items. Have to find another way across.

This is just on the top of my head. The players stats should mean things, but success and loss doesn’t need to be clearcut. The important thing is that the choices feel in character.

5 Likes
22

I don’t think I’ve heard of that one. How’s that work?

2 Likes
23

This leads to great narration and immersion no matter what the reader picks, which is ultimately what the end goal is. As mentioned before, it is definitely way more work than the typical 4 Point Trap, Yes/No checks that are provided in many games, however. I’d really love to see more of this sort of thing, though! :star_struck:

1 Like
24

Here is a sample 2x2 … if you go to the thread this comes from, you’ll see more discussion on it too:

2 Likes
25

What I was thinking of is something I’ve done a few times in my own game which is, you have a check for stat A which is difficult for stat A on its own, but if you have stat B as well it’s easier. So making an emotional appeal checks persuasive but is a hard persuasive if you’re not an emotional person (because you’re faking it) and easier if you are.
(and I appear to have hijacked this thread a bit, sorry!)

2 Likes
26

I do something similar in that I have a set of “bonus stats” to help less developed stats overcome checks. The difference between our approaches is an external modifier (my bonus stats) vs an internal modifier.

I still would caution you with your approach because it still seems vulnerable to specialization - just maybe splitting it into a “major” and “minor” specialization.

I purposefully had non-related bonuses apply cross-stat to encourage a generalist approach if the player wishes.

Whichever way it is addressed @Gower’s prose suggestion is the ultimate blending that we do as authors and that can carry you through if the mechanics are not perfect.

3 Likes
27

There’s also the issue of having multiple paths to do the same thing. Lost Heir 1- your Magic user might be a Wizard, a Priest, a Druid, or a Fighter who dabbles in Magic- you need the same Magic Stat to cover all such characters. The same game locks you out of certain Options at times if you’re not interested in certain things. Want to avoid Archery? Don’t ever grab or buy a Bow and you’ll never see a lot of Archery Options. Want to never steal and play a Good Future Paladin? Take a ‘no thieving’vow at the Temple (option locked out if you are a Thief by trade or have less than 50 Good). Such situations don’t always appear but they are possible sometimes.

28

That’s certainly an interesting conversation. I too think that sometimes CoGs become too attached to the “pick the right stat” model, and while a good story might carry through it, it often doesn’t do the narrative any favors, becoming just a way for the reader to pick the right stat, rather than the choice per se.

And a good answer, I’d argue, is in Choice of Rebels. In this game, the main skills are divided in Combat, Intellect and Charisma. The MC, for the first game, will be great at one, okay at another and suck in the last.

It’s simple and intuitive, but Havenstone makes interesting changes to the formula. The most important one, I think, is this: you can’t use all the stats all the time (at the same situations) but the three skills are equally strong. So, while a COM 2 character might not punch their way out of an argument, a CHA 2 rebel isn’t going to convince a good strategy.

There’s no weak pick, but they all show up in different points of the story, which is a hook towards replayability. They also make combat more engaging, since the MC will either lead their followers to victory in some ways and in others, they’ll have to rely on commanders, who will begin to accumulate more influence themselves.

3 Likes
30

Just wanted to clear it up, it’s rarely that we consider posting in a #game-development threads as necroing, even though they’re years old. Of course, posting a post relevant to the old topic isn’t easy.