Thank you for this video. On both seeing the insights on your designs is very helpful and your unique take on combat. I really love the idea of flow making combat more dynamic and more interesting.
for the brave/default idea: you have to keep in mind that an issue that can arise is that interruptions feel 'better' in a charge setup rather than a point per action skipped setup. you can also use it as a GM to warn players that a specific action is coming as a part of rule rather than fluff. Especially since you could still have the time it takes to charge up spells be affected by you INT just like how you have flow gained 2+INT
Honestly it reminds me of a system I was messing with a few years back where each turn you had to roll (1d10 for every roll) your initiative to see if you could act, tallying your rolls until it beat your initiative, but you could do as many actions as you wanted but they added to your initiative preventing you from acting for a while if you went all out, an example I wrote many years ago was something like "Aaron is trained in combat, and has an initiative of 3. He rolls and gets a 3, he almost failed, but his combat readiness helped prevent that. He Readies his Rifle (+2) and fires 3 shots (+2 per shot for his rifle, +6) hitting one of the mooks enough to stop them. He stops and re-enters cover (+1) to prevent using too many points." in that example because Aaron's actions he probably wasn't going to be acting for a while as next round he'd have to beat a 9 on a d10 to be able to act
Interesting system, I think it risks slowing things down a little with the extra dice roll but not too much. sounds cool if a little crunchy. I'm not sure exactly what you are saying about interruptions and charge setup in your first comment. Can you explain a bit more what you mean? There are no reactions so there are no ways to really interrupt someone.
I had a quick look and it definitely is interesting and suits the genre it's going for I don't think it is quite the system for me. I think the combination of dice and tokens is a little to much complexity, and having multiple actions per round is not something I wanted in the Verve. It looks like a fun system when you have really understood it but I imagine your first few combats would be very slow going as there are so many micro decisions to make and passive effects to keep in mind.
I know you already have a system you were happy with but something you could have done to make your first system better would be to crib from ad&ds notes a little. In that game each character declares what they are doing in the round (first the GM declares in secret, then the PCs declare), each action has a speed that determines when in the round it will occur (lower speed numbers are unfortunately faster, because you count up from zero, So a speed speed 1 attack with a knife out paced a speed 15 attack with a sword. And then you just acted on the map as it then exists. Ad&d had a rule where if a caster took damage in the middle of casting a spell it just fizzled which gave characters a good reason to keep a fast but weak weapon in then for mages, and ment that the faster but weaker lower level spells retained value because they were harder to outspeed
Nice, I’m currently refining my own combat system for a solo TTRPG that is more abstract and theater of the mind. So it’s cool to see how someone else approaches designing it.
interesting thing about the 1 action per turn short turns thing that might be a reference point: GURPS uses 1 second turns with you only getting a single action, even with the option of only activating everything at round end, but it has an interesting idea as a recommendation to keep the game flowing: unless you have a specific advantage* you each get 10 seconds (some people give less time) to figure out what you want to do during your turn, otherwise your character is said to have combat paralysis and your character does nothing, some have said it can be punishing, but truth be told in my experience at least it has lead to players being much more engaged with the game, as they are encouraged to actually pay attention during other peoples turns, rather than the system basically giving them permission to "switch off" when it's not their turn. *think feats in D&D, but this is a point based system rather than a class&level one
Speaking about magic, I say their damage overall should be higher than normal weaponry, that's why anyone would dare dabble into magical arts, otherwise why bother learning fireball when a bolt from a crossbow with a flaming tip would be enough. What could be done instead is having a form of stress mechanic which can be managed either with potions/consumables in case one cannot rest or is mid-battle and meditation/sleeping to lower one's stress when out of combat. Costs wouldn't be immediate, but they would accumulate until it becomes too much to deal with while fighting.
The problem with that early system you described is that you had 2 problems, not just 1, but were treating them both as a single factor that needed a single solution. I think the issue can be resolved, but it would require a multi-layered solution to make it work and still feel intuitive. I've solved both problems before, and seen one of them solved by people other than myself, but haven't actually tested any system which tries to solve both in a single game. I think there's a plausible way to do it, though, and after watching this video, I kind of want to try and make a system that does solve them.
Also, one of my experiments which solved one of the problems was a skirmish game (small squad based tabletop combat system without a full RPG built around it), which actually worked similar - in some ways - to how you described this early iteration of your game. The game had movement as one of your available actions, and you couldn't do other things while moving, *except* that's not true because of the way I was tracking your previous round's actions... It takes a bit of explaining (especially when doing it just in text instead of having the pieces available to show a round of the game being played), but bear with me while I try: Setting up the fight works normally, you place miniatures on the board to show where each character starts. Things change when you decide you're going to move a character, though. In order to move, you don't just pick your mini up and put it in a new location that's within range of where you started. You place a token touching the model base, then move to a location which is within range of the token, and that token remains to show your *current movement path* - and certain attacks can target you anywhere along that path, so while dashing from cover to cover is still sensible, it's not a guarantee that you'll always have a bonus for being in cover just because you ended your movement in cover. There are restrictions on how a character can interact with your movement path, though, so the enemy might not always have that option available to them. On your next turn, the part which makes it so you *CAN* move and attack at the same time comes into play - you can use your own movement path from the previous turn as a location from which to perform an attack (or other action), so you and an enemy can run past each other while trying to duck from cover to cover, and one of you (or both) can attack the other as you cross paths.
10:10 "something about simultaneous combat." Look no further than OSRIC. Here's how combat works. Each round of combat has 2 phases, a declaration phase, and a resolution phase. In the declaration phase, every player declares what they're doing. In the resolution phase, all dice are rolled, and the GM describes the results of all actions in one smooth narration. Done.
I have played with a system like this, I think a variant rule for D&D or something and it played quite clunky. Limited experience, sure, but not something I wanted to go for in the Verve. I think I found in the declaration phase there was way to much back and forth. "Oh if your doing that, I'll do this" wait hang on if your going there I can't do my thing" etc. In the end it played much slower. I might need to look into OSRIC to see if they fixed that main issue. Also, just a personal thing, but as a player I like being able to describe my own actions rather than the DM describing what my character does.
@@TheVerveTTRPG I recognize this weakness of this simultaneous initiative system as potentially taking a player's opportunity to describe their own actions away, but I've seen an actual play where the players who wanted to describe their own actions still managed to describe what they did and how they did it, and also say what they wanted their character to say. For this simultaneous initiative system, I watched a 2-hour actual play of people playing AD&D. There were three combat encounters, each one was 15 minutes. That's my goal as a GM is being able to run through combats like that! Look up Bandit's Keep youtube channel. House rules for declaration phase are: 1. once you declare your action, you can't change it; it's metagaming for players to change their action based on someone else's declaration. 2. Keep your declaration simple, really simple, like "move" or "missile" or "magic" or "melee", and specify an object or character you want to interact with. If I say melee, and the opponent I choose is further than 5ft away, then movement is implied. A declaration of "Move" means you're running into cover, withdrawing from engagement, fleeing, or chasing someone. OSRIC also prescribes a priority for these types of actions. Movement is resolved first, then missile fire, then magic, then melee. I don't know if it's based on realism, but I don't think it needs to be. This gives structure to simultaneousness.
I am a bit confused about the Pierce and Thrust attacks. A thrusting attack results in a pierce, no? I think renaming pierce to "Exact" would help here and it would describe your quick and precise strike well enough.
Most of my skills use more than one ability. Perception is typical 2 spirit 1 dexterity (I understand as a combination of instinct and physical/sensory precision) but the skill system is pretty flexible so it can change based on context. If your curious about the skill system it is talked about in this video: ua-cam.com/video/QFeB3Wt6Pmw/v-deo.html
I'm really interested in your take on combat! I have some questions in mind: From the GM's perspective, isn't it hard to keep track of flow points when you have to run multiple monsters in a combat? I sometimes find it difficult just keeping track of 5+ monsters' HP. Secondly, I don't understand "when" players declare their actions. For example, if two players both want to make a melee attack as the first thing when combat starts, what happens first? Or if a PC and a monster both want to hit each other as their first action and they both deal fatal damage, what happens first, and who declares their attack first, do both die at the same time? I like the idea behind the system, but I'm uncertain how this would play.
Hiya! From the DM side it can be a little tricky but I recommend using a d10 to keep track of ones flow. So you can just have a d10 for each monster and rotate it to the new number after each action. Stamina and morale and wounds can be tracked on paper as you would with HP. Players declare their actions when their turn comes up. With the old system, yes weird simultaneous things could happen like that where both could die at the same time. With the new system, each round you start with whoever has the highest Flow, they do their action, then you move down until everyone has gone once. Each action being declared and resolved immediately. If two or more participants have the same Flow then I tend to allow the players to go first or to do some combo move if it applies, and then do the monsters. But I might narrate the consequences as simultaneous if it makes sense. This does give the players a slight edge but I think it's fine to favour the players generally. If you want to run a harder game you can always favour the monsters.
@@TheVerveTTRPG Thanks for the clarification! I'm excited for your next video. I'm working on my own TTRPG, and it's fun to follow along and see where you are in the process.
Yep true I haven't played shadowrun, I am very open about my influences and it certainly means there are ideas I haven't heard of. If there's something specific about shadowrun which you think would be interesting I'd be keen to know where to look! but for the record I have also played cypher, cyberpunk, fate, dread and a couple of one pagers, I have researched several more systems even If I haven't played them.
Hi whats the game you mentioned grandeer or something. I cant find anything about it on google (probably because i dunno how its spelled) I've always loved the idea of simultaneous turn based games but they're so hard to find. Another good game in the genre is Atlas Reactor (RIP). Also not sure its a good idea to make int responsible for both action economy and turn order. Maybe int only affects initial flow, not wait flow gain? Int shouldn't be a requirement for martials like barbarians (does int-1 mean your wait only gives you 1 flow point?). Right now it seems like casters only need 1 or 2 stats but martials need all 4 or at least 3,,, or maybe im misunderstanding. if str-1 means your carry weight is unusably small and dex-1 means you go prone everytime you get hit casters would need them in the same way martials are gonna need int now. Very thought provoking video nonetheless, Good Luck with your system
Grandia, I think. As I say never played it myself. I'll have to have a look at Atlas reactor, I always like games that try to do something different. In my game all 4 abilities are a score between 1 and 6 but 3 is the average score for a human and 2 would be a pretty low intelligence human. 5 would be the smartest a human in our world has ever been. So there isn't that much range in values in comparison to D&D or similar. Definitely no negatives. If you are playing a lower intelligence character with a score of 2 all it would mean is that you always better off taking the move action (+4 Flow) than waiting (also +4 Flow) which I actually think makes some sense narratively. You aren't the type to stop and think, but the type to run into action. On the other hand if you have a high INT and spend turns waiting to benefit, gaining lots of Flow, then you are going to be less mobile which could be a real disadvantage depending on the terrain, cover, any dangers on the battlefield etc. If waiting is being used too often, that may be a sign to the conductor that they need to make the battlefield more interesting. Encourage movement. I think it is balanced but more playtesting is always valuable.
Long video, long comment ... what you gonna do 3:23-3:50: I like the goal of aiming for comparable strengths of fighters and magic users, but that is hard to do if using magic can make you a better fighter. So if you can use magic to give an advantage that can carry over into the melee combat you're about to engage in (like a witcher preparing himself with alchemy) or if it can be used simultaneously or quickly in between strikes. Let's say if play a "sword master" class that cannot use magic. Would the sword master be a better at his sword fighting skills, if he could also use magic ? That can only be prevented if magic effects don't linger and if using magic requires physical activity (which you said it does with the hand motions and concentration) 6:30: Alternative defensive option for pierce to use "deflect/redirect" (to impact the the enemy weapon in a way that makes it miss its target, not to throw back the attack like a mirror) for the quicker attack option of pierce and thrust, since it might be harder to dodge the quicker attack. 15:20-17:50: I lost the timestamp on where you said it, but i currently handle combat in a similar way, but with longer rounds and the action results being applied immediately. I handle ranged attacks by splitting them into 3 different stages each with different costs.(1. attack preparation , 2. aiming, 3.firing) It allows you to take your arrow out of your quiver and on to your string /drawing your crossbow with a lever, then raise your weapon, prepare to aim and fire. If the intended target moves between your aim and fire action, because you couldn't complete both in the same round, you can either keep your target for a set number of moments (in case someone jumped into cover), change to a different target in a 30° angle without extra cost or just retake the aim action onto another target and fire onto that target. I know it's quite cumbersome, but as you said, the sync problem with turn based combat is a tricky one to solve and always requires some sort of compromise somewhere. 18:37-19:30: If considered saving action points or actions for the next turn in the past, but this always had the undesired effect of punishing the proactive character in a melee standoff. Two characters standing 20m apart. First one uses his actions to close the gap, the other one waits and saves his actions. Once character 1 arrives he looses the duel, bc the waiting character beats him with his saved up actions. 23:30-25:50 Giving action points(flow) for moving solves this from a game design or balance perspective (and i still thinks its a very cool system), but it hurts the timeline feel of the combat that you were referring to earlier, since you do not have more time to do things when moving, than when attacking. When i interact with a lock for 5 rounds (-10), hear someone charging at me, turn around (would that cost flow in your system ?) and draw my weapon (-2) then i am not prepared enough to attack for two rounds (given i did not have any flow saved up after picking the lock). Also just realized that the 20m apart characters example still works if the defending character uses the move action to move from the other person. The second character probably is required to dash to close the gap (if character 2 doesn't have a higher DEX level), which leaves character 1 with more flow points at the time of engagement. You could explain this with the second character being exhausted by the sprint, but that should be represented in a temporary debuff or disadvantage on his actions, not by not being able to attack as often as his opponent. If for example flow points were replaced by "energy points" or "exhaustion points" it would make sense that you have to catch your breath once you run out of "exhaustion points" or that you get a temporary debuff until you get to a positive exhaustion level again. There would probably a max. exhaustion level of -25 or something that prohibits you from taking any actions, but until then even when out of exhaustion points, you're still able to take an action of your liking every round but with a weakened effect. (Run a shorter distance, hit with less strength, react slower on a dodge) The problem here is that you would loose the whole elegance of the flow system managing both energy and turn execution at once, but well ... :D Another issue is the possibility to save up flow by hiding, waiting or even running away to perform 3 ranged attacks (or spell casts) in 3 rounds (3 seconds). I think the ranged attack has to be priced higher, but even that doesn't solve the issue of being able to quick-cast multiple actions in a very short time frame, that would have to take much longer. Is it correct that reactions do not consume flow ? And if not why not ? I think the idea of having to decide whether to attack or to defend on low flow points would be a cool choice to have instead of just defaulting to attack whenever you can and always defending when you get attacked automatically. I don't remember if you mentioned something about chases or fleeing in another video, but with the current version one character using the retreat action (+2) running away from another way faster character (like a wolf or some creature) can always keep running, since the following character that might overtake him or catch up to him easily can never attack before the first character starts running again or was there an opportunity attack style system in place and that's why you removed the "retreat" movement option ? (if there is an opportunity attack system, does an opportunity attack consume flow if defensive reactive actions outside of your turn do not ?) 26:20: While a very quick foe like an elf in the tolkin universe or some magical creature could get more flow or consume less flow because of their speed, it would feel weird if more cumbersome and sluggish creatures like trolls, giants or big enemies could attack more often. This very much depends on which creatures exist in the verve universe, but i feel like for your "strong enemy attack often"-solution to work it would either need to be very fast, or have ways of attacking simultaneously like a hydra or a kraken. Thanks for reading, feel free to numerate your responses haha
Hiya, long answer: 1. Martial users can be buffed with magic, there are whole classes designed around those ideas, but they are still attacking in melee if they want to benefit from the faster attack rate. Additional non-magical classes (of which there are really only 2/12) gain features roughly equivalent to many of the effects of magic just achieved through different means. For example there is a artificer like class who can craft different weapon modifications which cause there arrows to explode or strike lightning. The main thing I wanted to balance was, being at range (and therefore safer) should have some disadvantage to balance it out. And attack rate makes the most sense. 2. Dodge and block being the two physical defensive options is based around having two physical stats. Pierce as an attack style is intended to bypass block, the idea being that it is very precise. Similarly Swing is such a wide coverage that it is not by default dodgable. What you are talking about with a deflect or parry is much closer to blocking, and indeed there is a fencer subclass who gains parry-type abilities. 3. Your system for ranged attacks is similar to my old system and if it works for you that's great. Personally I never was able to make it feel good to play. 4. Yes in general if one player rushes in to melee while the other stands still, the one standing still will have more Flow and so have the advantage. However, many martial classes get “Charge” type attack modifiers which means that first attack after rushing in will be significantly more dangerous so it should balance out. 5. The timeline is a goal I had to slightly abandon. However by simply making the duration of a round 1 second as opposed to 6 seconds. Everything is much smoother narratively. It isn't that hard to understand how things happen when everyone only has one action. Moving gaining flow doesn't disrupt this understanding of the timeline at all. In my opinion. Turning around would be done as part of whatever action you took on that round. It doesn't cost extra. Picking a lock would probably not take 5 rounds worth of interacting, unless you were really unlucky with the rolls, but yes theoretically you could be caught out with no flow left if you were ambushed while trying to pick a lock. This feels pretty realistic. 6. Flow being a positive resource is kind of critical to the design. Also should be noted it can only be between 0 and 9. So you can't ever cast a spell multiple rounds in a row unless you have the ability to quicken your spellcasting in some way (make it cost less flow) 7. There are no reactions (other than defending this is also quite important to the narrative flow. I removed reactions when I went to the Flow point system as they didn't fit with the design ethos. If Defending costs flow it makes it too easy to shut down one target by everyone focusing them until they have no flow. While perhaps realistic this would break action economy. 8. Yes if you are chasing another player but you have more speed two things will happen. First eventually both of you will max out your Flow at 9. Then you will catch up with the fleeing person because of your greater speed. Then when you are in melee you can make an attack because you both have flow 9 and so your actions can be handled at the same time. So you could catch them. There are no reactions so no opportunity attacks. 10. Yes certainly this system is flexible to allow for exactly the kind of thing you talk about. Creatures and players can get features which make their attacks cost more flow to deal more damage or gain other benefits, or cost less flow to attack quicker. Generally at higher levels. I think that a many headed snake creature like a hydra would definitely have faster attacks due to having so many heads. I think that's everything responded to. :)
I love what you’re after, a lot of similar goals as I’ve been after. Good luck!
Thank you for this video. On both seeing the insights on your designs is very helpful and your unique take on combat. I really love the idea of flow making combat more dynamic and more interesting.
for the brave/default idea: you have to keep in mind that an issue that can arise is that interruptions feel 'better' in a charge setup rather than a point per action skipped setup. you can also use it as a GM to warn players that a specific action is coming as a part of rule rather than fluff.
Especially since you could still have the time it takes to charge up spells be affected by you INT just like how you have flow gained 2+INT
Honestly it reminds me of a system I was messing with a few years back where each turn you had to roll (1d10 for every roll) your initiative to see if you could act, tallying your rolls until it beat your initiative, but you could do as many actions as you wanted but they added to your initiative preventing you from acting for a while if you went all out, an example I wrote many years ago was something like
"Aaron is trained in combat, and has an initiative of 3. He rolls and gets a 3, he almost failed, but his combat readiness helped prevent that. He Readies his Rifle (+2) and fires 3 shots (+2 per shot for his rifle, +6) hitting one of the mooks enough to stop them. He stops and re-enters cover (+1) to prevent using too many points."
in that example because Aaron's actions he probably wasn't going to be acting for a while as next round he'd have to beat a 9 on a d10 to be able to act
Interesting system, I think it risks slowing things down a little with the extra dice roll but not too much. sounds cool if a little crunchy.
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying about interruptions and charge setup in your first comment. Can you explain a bit more what you mean?
There are no reactions so there are no ways to really interrupt someone.
You should take a look at Panic at the Dojo, I think you'll find a pretty good execution of what you're trying to do here and more
I had a quick look and it definitely is interesting and suits the genre it's going for I don't think it is quite the system for me.
I think the combination of dice and tokens is a little to much complexity, and having multiple actions per round is not something I wanted in the Verve. It looks like a fun system when you have really understood it but I imagine your first few combats would be very slow going as there are so many micro decisions to make and passive effects to keep in mind.
I know you already have a system you were happy with but something you could have done to make your first system better would be to crib from ad&ds notes a little.
In that game each character declares what they are doing in the round (first the GM declares in secret, then the PCs declare), each action has a speed that determines when in the round it will occur (lower speed numbers are unfortunately faster, because you count up from zero, So a speed speed 1 attack with a knife out paced a speed 15 attack with a sword. And then you just acted on the map as it then exists.
Ad&d had a rule where if a caster took damage in the middle of casting a spell it just fizzled which gave characters a good reason to keep a fast but weak weapon in then for mages, and ment that the faster but weaker lower level spells retained value because they were harder to outspeed
Nice, I’m currently refining my own combat system for a solo TTRPG that is more abstract and theater of the mind. So it’s cool to see how someone else approaches designing it.
DO you have a name or place where we can see it
Super cool and love the insight! Definitely subscribing to see more, keep it up!
interesting thing about the 1 action per turn short turns thing that might be a reference point: GURPS uses 1 second turns with you only getting a single action, even with the option of only activating everything at round end, but it has an interesting idea as a recommendation to keep the game flowing: unless you have a specific advantage* you each get 10 seconds (some people give less time) to figure out what you want to do during your turn, otherwise your character is said to have combat paralysis and your character does nothing, some have said it can be punishing, but truth be told in my experience at least it has lead to players being much more engaged with the game, as they are encouraged to actually pay attention during other peoples turns, rather than the system basically giving them permission to "switch off" when it's not their turn.
*think feats in D&D, but this is a point based system rather than a class&level one
I'll have to have another look at Gurps, I have skimmed it but don't really know that much.
Speaking about magic, I say their damage overall should be higher than normal weaponry, that's why anyone would dare dabble into magical arts, otherwise why bother learning fireball when a bolt from a crossbow with a flaming tip would be enough. What could be done instead is having a form of stress mechanic which can be managed either with potions/consumables in case one cannot rest or is mid-battle and meditation/sleeping to lower one's stress when out of combat. Costs wouldn't be immediate, but they would accumulate until it becomes too much to deal with while fighting.
The problem with that early system you described is that you had 2 problems, not just 1, but were treating them both as a single factor that needed a single solution. I think the issue can be resolved, but it would require a multi-layered solution to make it work and still feel intuitive. I've solved both problems before, and seen one of them solved by people other than myself, but haven't actually tested any system which tries to solve both in a single game. I think there's a plausible way to do it, though, and after watching this video, I kind of want to try and make a system that does solve them.
Also, one of my experiments which solved one of the problems was a skirmish game (small squad based tabletop combat system without a full RPG built around it), which actually worked similar - in some ways - to how you described this early iteration of your game. The game had movement as one of your available actions, and you couldn't do other things while moving, *except* that's not true because of the way I was tracking your previous round's actions... It takes a bit of explaining (especially when doing it just in text instead of having the pieces available to show a round of the game being played), but bear with me while I try:
Setting up the fight works normally, you place miniatures on the board to show where each character starts. Things change when you decide you're going to move a character, though. In order to move, you don't just pick your mini up and put it in a new location that's within range of where you started. You place a token touching the model base, then move to a location which is within range of the token, and that token remains to show your *current movement path* - and certain attacks can target you anywhere along that path, so while dashing from cover to cover is still sensible, it's not a guarantee that you'll always have a bonus for being in cover just because you ended your movement in cover. There are restrictions on how a character can interact with your movement path, though, so the enemy might not always have that option available to them. On your next turn, the part which makes it so you *CAN* move and attack at the same time comes into play - you can use your own movement path from the previous turn as a location from which to perform an attack (or other action), so you and an enemy can run past each other while trying to duck from cover to cover, and one of you (or both) can attack the other as you cross paths.
Interesting design story thanks for sharing fyi 1/2 second is the rough length of time for consciousness and instant if you will.
10:10 "something about simultaneous combat."
Look no further than OSRIC. Here's how combat works. Each round of combat has 2 phases, a declaration phase, and a resolution phase. In the declaration phase, every player declares what they're doing. In the resolution phase, all dice are rolled, and the GM describes the results of all actions in one smooth narration. Done.
I have played with a system like this, I think a variant rule for D&D or something and it played quite clunky. Limited experience, sure, but not something I wanted to go for in the Verve.
I think I found in the declaration phase there was way to much back and forth. "Oh if your doing that, I'll do this" wait hang on if your going there I can't do my thing" etc.
In the end it played much slower.
I might need to look into OSRIC to see if they fixed that main issue.
Also, just a personal thing, but as a player I like being able to describe my own actions rather than the DM describing what my character does.
@@TheVerveTTRPG I recognize this weakness of this simultaneous initiative system as potentially taking a player's opportunity to describe their own actions away, but I've seen an actual play where the players who wanted to describe their own actions still managed to describe what they did and how they did it, and also say what they wanted their character to say.
For this simultaneous initiative system, I watched a 2-hour actual play of people playing AD&D. There were three combat encounters, each one was 15 minutes. That's my goal as a GM is being able to run through combats like that! Look up Bandit's Keep youtube channel.
House rules for declaration phase are: 1. once you declare your action, you can't change it; it's metagaming for players to change their action based on someone else's declaration. 2. Keep your declaration simple, really simple, like "move" or "missile" or "magic" or "melee", and specify an object or character you want to interact with. If I say melee, and the opponent I choose is further than 5ft away, then movement is implied. A declaration of "Move" means you're running into cover, withdrawing from engagement, fleeing, or chasing someone.
OSRIC also prescribes a priority for these types of actions. Movement is resolved first, then missile fire, then magic, then melee. I don't know if it's based on realism, but I don't think it needs to be. This gives structure to simultaneousness.
I am a bit confused about the Pierce and Thrust attacks. A thrusting attack results in a pierce, no? I think renaming pierce to "Exact" would help here and it would describe your quick and precise strike well enough.
That's usually feedback actually. The names are something I have gone back and forth on.
Many great ideas, mate. I wonder which stat governs perception in your system. Is it Spirit, Intelligence or Dexterity?
Most of my skills use more than one ability. Perception is typical 2 spirit 1 dexterity (I understand as a combination of instinct and physical/sensory precision) but the skill system is pretty flexible so it can change based on context.
If your curious about the skill system it is talked about in this video: ua-cam.com/video/QFeB3Wt6Pmw/v-deo.html
I'm really interested in your take on combat! I have some questions in mind:
From the GM's perspective, isn't it hard to keep track of flow points when you have to run multiple monsters in a combat? I sometimes find it difficult just keeping track of 5+ monsters' HP.
Secondly, I don't understand "when" players declare their actions. For example, if two players both want to make a melee attack as the first thing when combat starts, what happens first? Or if a PC and a monster both want to hit each other as their first action and they both deal fatal damage, what happens first, and who declares their attack first, do both die at the same time?
I like the idea behind the system, but I'm uncertain how this would play.
Hiya!
From the DM side it can be a little tricky but I recommend using a d10 to keep track of ones flow. So you can just have a d10 for each monster and rotate it to the new number after each action.
Stamina and morale and wounds can be tracked on paper as you would with HP.
Players declare their actions when their turn comes up.
With the old system, yes weird simultaneous things could happen like that where both could die at the same time.
With the new system, each round you start with whoever has the highest Flow, they do their action, then you move down until everyone has gone once. Each action being declared and resolved immediately.
If two or more participants have the same Flow then I tend to allow the players to go first or to do some combo move if it applies, and then do the monsters. But I might narrate the consequences as simultaneous if it makes sense.
This does give the players a slight edge but I think it's fine to favour the players generally. If you want to run a harder game you can always favour the monsters.
@@TheVerveTTRPG Thanks for the clarification! I'm excited for your next video. I'm working on my own TTRPG, and it's fun to follow along and see where you are in the process.
It's very clear that you've only played D&D, and not something like say Shadowrun 4th or 5th edition.
Yep true I haven't played shadowrun, I am very open about my influences and it certainly means there are ideas I haven't heard of. If there's something specific about shadowrun which you think would be interesting I'd be keen to know where to look!
but for the record I have also played cypher, cyberpunk, fate, dread and a couple of one pagers, I have researched several more systems even If I haven't played them.
Hi whats the game you mentioned grandeer or something. I cant find anything about it on google (probably because i dunno how its spelled) I've always loved the idea of simultaneous turn based games but they're so hard to find. Another good game in the genre is Atlas Reactor (RIP).
Also not sure its a good idea to make int responsible for both action economy and turn order. Maybe int only affects initial flow, not wait flow gain? Int shouldn't be a requirement for martials like barbarians (does int-1 mean your wait only gives you 1 flow point?). Right now it seems like casters only need 1 or 2 stats but martials need all 4 or at least 3,,, or maybe im misunderstanding. if str-1 means your carry weight is unusably small and dex-1 means you go prone everytime you get hit casters would need them in the same way martials are gonna need int now.
Very thought provoking video nonetheless,
Good Luck with your system
Grandia, I think. As I say never played it myself.
I'll have to have a look at Atlas reactor, I always like games that try to do something different.
In my game all 4 abilities are a score between 1 and 6 but 3 is the average score for a human and 2 would be a pretty low intelligence human. 5 would be the smartest a human in our world has ever been. So there isn't that much range in values in comparison to D&D or similar. Definitely no negatives.
If you are playing a lower intelligence character with a score of 2 all it would mean is that you always better off taking the move action (+4 Flow) than waiting (also +4 Flow) which I actually think makes some sense narratively.
You aren't the type to stop and think, but the type to run into action.
On the other hand if you have a high INT and spend turns waiting to benefit, gaining lots of Flow, then you are going to be less mobile which could be a real disadvantage depending on the terrain, cover, any dangers on the battlefield etc.
If waiting is being used too often, that may be a sign to the conductor that they need to make the battlefield more interesting. Encourage movement.
I think it is balanced but more playtesting is always valuable.
11:02 "Dexterity is supposed to be ... your speed...." No it's not.
Long video, long comment ... what you gonna do
3:23-3:50: I like the goal of aiming for comparable strengths of fighters and magic users, but that is hard to do if using magic can make you a better fighter. So if you can use magic to give an advantage that can carry over into the melee combat you're about to engage in (like a witcher preparing himself with alchemy) or if it can be used simultaneously or quickly in between strikes. Let's say if play a "sword master" class that cannot use magic. Would the sword master be a better at his sword fighting skills, if he could also use magic ? That can only be prevented if magic effects don't linger and if using magic requires physical activity (which you said it does with the hand motions and concentration)
6:30: Alternative defensive option for pierce to use "deflect/redirect" (to impact the the enemy weapon in a way that makes it miss its target, not to throw back the attack like a mirror) for the quicker attack option of pierce and thrust, since it might be harder to dodge the quicker attack.
15:20-17:50: I lost the timestamp on where you said it, but i currently handle combat in a similar way, but with longer rounds and the action results being applied immediately. I handle ranged attacks by splitting them into 3 different stages each with different costs.(1. attack preparation , 2. aiming, 3.firing) It allows you to take your arrow out of your quiver and on to your string /drawing your crossbow with a lever, then raise your weapon, prepare to aim and fire. If the intended target moves between your aim and fire action, because you couldn't complete both in the same round, you can either keep your target for a set number of moments (in case someone jumped into cover), change to a different target in a 30° angle without extra cost or just retake the aim action onto another target and fire onto that target. I know it's quite cumbersome, but as you said, the sync problem with turn based combat is a tricky one to solve and always requires some sort of compromise somewhere.
18:37-19:30: If considered saving action points or actions for the next turn in the past, but this always had the undesired effect of punishing the proactive character in a melee standoff. Two characters standing 20m apart. First one uses his actions to close the gap, the other one waits and saves his actions. Once character 1 arrives he looses the duel, bc the waiting character beats him with his saved up actions.
23:30-25:50 Giving action points(flow) for moving solves this from a game design or balance perspective (and i still thinks its a very cool system), but it hurts the timeline feel of the combat that you were referring to earlier, since you do not have more time to do things when moving, than when attacking. When i interact with a lock for 5 rounds (-10), hear someone charging at me, turn around (would that cost flow in your system ?) and draw my weapon (-2) then i am not prepared enough to attack for two rounds (given i did not have any flow saved up after picking the lock).
Also just realized that the 20m apart characters example still works if the defending character uses the move action to move from the other person. The second character probably is required to dash to close the gap (if character 2 doesn't have a higher DEX level), which leaves character 1 with more flow points at the time of engagement. You could explain this with the second character being exhausted by the sprint, but that should be represented in a temporary debuff or disadvantage on his actions, not by not being able to attack as often as his opponent.
If for example flow points were replaced by "energy points" or "exhaustion points" it would make sense that you have to catch your breath once you run out of "exhaustion points" or that you get a temporary debuff until you get to a positive exhaustion level again. There would probably a max. exhaustion level of -25 or something that prohibits you from taking any actions, but until then even when out of exhaustion points, you're still able to take an action of your liking every round but with a weakened effect. (Run a shorter distance, hit with less strength, react slower on a dodge) The problem here is that you would loose the whole elegance of the flow system managing both energy and turn execution at once, but well ... :D
Another issue is the possibility to save up flow by hiding, waiting or even running away to perform 3 ranged attacks (or spell casts) in 3 rounds (3 seconds). I think the ranged attack has to be priced higher, but even that doesn't solve the issue of being able to quick-cast multiple actions in a very short time frame, that would have to take much longer.
Is it correct that reactions do not consume flow ? And if not why not ? I think the idea of having to decide whether to attack or to defend on low flow points would be a cool choice to have instead of just defaulting to attack whenever you can and always defending when you get attacked automatically.
I don't remember if you mentioned something about chases or fleeing in another video, but with the current version one character using the retreat action (+2) running away from another way faster character (like a wolf or some creature) can always keep running, since the following character that might overtake him or catch up to him easily can never attack before the first character starts running again or was there an opportunity attack style system in place and that's why you removed the "retreat" movement option ? (if there is an opportunity attack system, does an opportunity attack consume flow if defensive reactive actions outside of your turn do not ?)
26:20: While a very quick foe like an elf in the tolkin universe or some magical creature could get more flow or consume less flow because of their speed, it would feel weird if more cumbersome and sluggish creatures like trolls, giants or big enemies could attack more often. This very much depends on which creatures exist in the verve universe, but i feel like for your "strong enemy attack often"-solution to work it would either need to be very fast, or have ways of attacking simultaneously like a hydra or a kraken.
Thanks for reading, feel free to numerate your responses haha
Hiya, long answer:
1.
Martial users can be buffed with magic, there are whole classes designed around those ideas, but they are still attacking in melee if they want to benefit from the faster attack rate.
Additional non-magical classes (of which there are really only 2/12) gain features roughly equivalent to many of the effects of magic just achieved through different means.
For example there is a artificer like class who can craft different weapon modifications which cause there arrows to explode or strike lightning.
The main thing I wanted to balance was, being at range (and therefore safer) should have some disadvantage to balance it out. And attack rate makes the most sense.
2.
Dodge and block being the two physical defensive options is based around having two physical stats.
Pierce as an attack style is intended to bypass block, the idea being that it is very precise. Similarly Swing is such a wide coverage that it is not by default dodgable.
What you are talking about with a deflect or parry is much closer to blocking, and indeed there is a fencer subclass who gains parry-type abilities.
3.
Your system for ranged attacks is similar to my old system and if it works for you that's great. Personally I never was able to make it feel good to play.
4.
Yes in general if one player rushes in to melee while the other stands still, the one standing still will have more Flow and so have the advantage.
However, many martial classes get “Charge” type attack modifiers which means that first attack after rushing in will be significantly more dangerous so it should balance out.
5.
The timeline is a goal I had to slightly abandon. However by simply making the duration of a round 1 second as opposed to 6 seconds. Everything is much smoother narratively. It isn't that hard to understand how things happen when everyone only has one action.
Moving gaining flow doesn't disrupt this understanding of the timeline at all. In my opinion.
Turning around would be done as part of whatever action you took on that round. It doesn't cost extra.
Picking a lock would probably not take 5 rounds worth of interacting, unless you were really unlucky with the rolls, but yes theoretically you could be caught out with no flow left if you were ambushed while trying to pick a lock. This feels pretty realistic.
6.
Flow being a positive resource is kind of critical to the design.
Also should be noted it can only be between 0 and 9. So you can't ever cast a spell multiple rounds in a row unless you have the ability to quicken your spellcasting in some way (make it cost less flow)
7.
There are no reactions (other than defending this is also quite important to the narrative flow. I removed reactions when I went to the Flow point system as they didn't fit with the design ethos.
If Defending costs flow it makes it too easy to shut down one target by everyone focusing them until they have no flow.
While perhaps realistic this would break action economy.
8.
Yes if you are chasing another player but you have more speed two things will happen.
First eventually both of you will max out your Flow at 9.
Then you will catch up with the fleeing person because of your greater speed.
Then when you are in melee you can make an attack because you both have flow 9 and so your actions can be handled at the same time.
So you could catch them.
There are no reactions so no opportunity attacks.
10.
Yes certainly this system is flexible to allow for exactly the kind of thing you talk about.
Creatures and players can get features which make their attacks cost more flow to deal more damage or gain other benefits, or cost less flow to attack quicker.
Generally at higher levels.
I think that a many headed snake creature like a hydra would definitely have faster attacks due to having so many heads.
I think that's everything responded to.
:)