When you mentioned multiple players involved in combat, a game that came to mind is Blood Rage. You are actually trying to pillage a region and others can join the battle to stop you. Any adjacent player can join the region being pillaged if there is space. The strength of units in the region plus revealed cards (like Kemet but with extra special effects) is satisfying as well, particularly given you all drafted the combat cards in advance so you roughly know what’s available but not sure who has what. The bonuses for wins are also scaled to the glory stat you have and if you initiated the pillage you could win a sizable bonus. Lastly there’s the Loki strategy where losing is good for you, which is a great twist and viable strategy.
Blood Rage has a good combat system, but I think Rising sun has an even better one. You can do some wild shit in that game when you are fighting more fights at once.
I'm just your average board game player, but this discussion was incredibly insightful on game design for combat and conflict. Thanks Ira and Jamey for this!
Love the war of the ring shout out. I think the combat system is even better than what Ira pointed out. Regarding the combat cards: every card has a top and bottom effect. The top is for more general gameplay stuff while the bottom is for combat. Often both effects are helpful. So in WOTR, during combat you not only have a way to mitigate the luck from dice rolls, you also have to make the choice and balance spending the card in combat or saving it for its other effect. Tough decisions are what make combat fun in my opinion. Having to decide between making randomness less random, or letting the fates decide. Brilliant game.
I'll watch this later when I have time but what I loved about arydia was they did something that I've felt games should have done and I've been giving out about for years. Proportional locational damage. It's just so satisfying. I played battletech in the 90s and if they could do it back then why has it taken till 2021 to see it in a board game.
Very interesting discussion. Ira is quite cool! Jamey, if you’re investigating combat systems that go beyond success/failure rolls, I recommend checking out the Powered by the Apocalypse engine from the Apocalypse World TTRPG (Vincent and Meguey Baker). It is imo the most elegantly designed resolution system and I think it could be adapted to TTBGs. In AW the GM never rolls. They choose from a set of “moves” in response to player action/inaction. There are limited number of player/GM moves, but they are expansive (you can do pretty much anything with a handful of moves). To perform an action the player states what they are doing, determines which move is being used, then rolls 2d6 and adds a modifier from +3 to -3 (typically +2 to -2). On 10+ they score a full success, on 7-9, a partial success, and 2-6 a failure. Then they choose from a set of outcomes depending on the move type. For “seize by force,” a basic battle move, the move looks like this: To seize something by force, exchange harm [both sides suffer damage], but first roll +hard [hard is the stat for attacking]. On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2. On a miss, choose 1: • You inflict terrible harm (+1harm). • You suffer little harm (-1harm). • You take definite and undeniable control of it. • You impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy. For “act under fire,” which is basically any skill check that doesn’t use the “hot” or “sharp” stats, the move looks like this: When you do something under fire, roll +cool. On a 10+, you do it. On a 7-9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the GM can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice. On a miss, be prepared for the worst. [this is when the GM makes a hard move] This system can be tailored to custom moves or a GM-less game (even PvP). For example, “act under fire” could be written as: On a 10+ you do it with grace and style On a 7-9, you do it, but choose one from the list below. On a miss, you do it but at a cost: roll twice on the list below, OR you don’t do it. • You hurt yourself or an ally in the process • It takes longer than you expect • You lose something important The elegance of the system is that consequences are results of the player’s actions, not the GM’s decision or an opposing die roll, and the cinematic, roleplaying elements of resolution are highlighted with a bare minimum of rules.
@@jameystegmaier Sure! The choice pushes the rp/immersion because the player imagines what happens. In the rpg, players have a lot more control over the story because their choices/descriptions of consequences tend to drive the next event.
Also Jamey- this is such an important topic. I've had a few games I really like that I've been designing die on the vine, or at least been shelved for a time, because of combat failures. It's so challenging to make it interesting, fair, fun, and limit the bad feelings of losing or being targeted. 2 player games can fix that somewhat naturally as you both pointed out. It gets much more complicated with multi-player games.
One game to throw into the Player vs AI section would be Tainted Grail which is entirely card-based. It's based on building a sequence of cards with matching symbols, the enemy has a simple AI that is quick to resolve and there's often interesting decisions such as playing a card which covers up the previous card's delayed effect - does the new card do enough to justify losing that other effect? Another one is Forgotten Waters. The game will tell you to turn to a page in the book, which may depict combat. All the players have a limited time to place their characters on different option (fight the enemy mob, fight the enemy boss, fire the cannons) which you then resolve. Some of these are roll-to-resolve, some are deterministic and the app takes care of resolving the enemies. Your progress in the fight is tracked on a few dials which might represent the enemy ship's hull strength. I think one interesting difference is between games like Gloomhaven (where you spend a lot of time moving your characters as well as the enemies around a combat space and the majority of the game's systems are to do with managing that combat) vs something like Sleeping Gods or Tainted Grail where combat is effectively a minigame (you explore, reveal an encounter, spend a few minutes resolving it, explore some more, perhaps reveal another encounter and resolve that). Edit: I should listen to the whole video before commenting! Griftlands is very much like Tainted Grail in how you can have this different kind of encounter. I think Griftlands is often a bit more nuanced in how you can make that choice but it's very simiilar.
it is strange how miniatures and roleplaying games have used damage gradients/locations and noncombat resolution options for so long, yet they're still much less prevalent in board games. especially since so many mention them as influences
I've been trying to design a fighting game for a long time, and considered damage locations, etc something I'd like to try. It's however so difficult to make the combat feel good on a board game level when introducing these simulationist mechanics. Still haven't solved this issue properly.
@@michaelcavalry8379 what were your goals, inspirations, and preliminary implementations? the games which immediately come to mind are scores dbz, sk/quickstrike, ufs, and yomi. imo sk/quickstrike did it best
Yellow & Yangtze or Tigris & Euphrates are interesting examples of combat where many players are involved, because multiple cities can connect at one time
@@jameystegmaier Yes, too a high degree. Definitely input luck. I suppose one player's input 'good luck' can become the other player's 'bad luck'. Perhaps it's one player's input luck becoming the other player's output luck. In chess, this doesn't happen of course. You lose if you make more mistakes. That feels ok - the frustration in chess comes from being annoyed with yourself for making that mistake. In WotR I sometimes felt like the hidden information on the other side leads to frustrating situations where good play is (occasionally) made meaningless by the other player having just that powerful card that negates all your efforts. With WotR, this would probably be mitigated through repeated play, memorizing the cards and getting better at estimating that hidden information. So perhaps my subjective frustration is also a function of not loving games heavy on memorization.
@@Epistemophilos That makes perfect sense. I like the agency, but I see how it can feel negated by something you have no control over, and I also don't want to memorize cards.
When you mentioned multiple players involved in combat, a game that came to mind is Blood Rage. You are actually trying to pillage a region and others can join the battle to stop you. Any adjacent player can join the region being pillaged if there is space. The strength of units in the region plus revealed cards (like Kemet but with extra special effects) is satisfying as well, particularly given you all drafted the combat cards in advance so you roughly know what’s available but not sure who has what. The bonuses for wins are also scaled to the glory stat you have and if you initiated the pillage you could win a sizable bonus. Lastly there’s the Loki strategy where losing is good for you, which is a great twist and viable strategy.
Blood Rage has a good combat system, but I think Rising sun has an even better one. You can do some wild shit in that game when you are fighting more fights at once.
I'm just your average board game player, but this discussion was incredibly insightful on game design for combat and conflict. Thanks Ira and Jamey for this!
Thanks! I'm glad you enjoyed it.
I really enjoyed this conversation and found it super helpful! Thank you!
Love the war of the ring shout out. I think the combat system is even better than what Ira pointed out. Regarding the combat cards: every card has a top and bottom effect. The top is for more general gameplay stuff while the bottom is for combat. Often both effects are helpful. So in WOTR, during combat you not only have a way to mitigate the luck from dice rolls, you also have to make the choice and balance spending the card in combat or saving it for its other effect. Tough decisions are what make combat fun in my opinion. Having to decide between making randomness less random, or letting the fates decide. Brilliant game.
Thanks for the video! I'm having a hard time designing the right combat system for my game and this was quite an insightful discussion.
I'll watch this later when I have time but what I loved about arydia was they did something that I've felt games should have done and I've been giving out about for years. Proportional locational damage. It's just so satisfying. I played battletech in the 90s and if they could do it back then why has it taken till 2021 to see it in a board game.
Very interesting discussion. Ira is quite cool! Jamey, if you’re investigating combat systems that go beyond success/failure rolls, I recommend checking out the Powered by the Apocalypse engine from the Apocalypse World TTRPG (Vincent and Meguey Baker). It is imo the most elegantly designed resolution system and I think it could be adapted to TTBGs.
In AW the GM never rolls. They choose from a set of “moves” in response to player action/inaction. There are limited number of player/GM moves, but they are expansive (you can do pretty much anything with a handful of moves). To perform an action the player states what they are doing, determines which move is being used, then rolls 2d6 and adds a modifier from +3 to -3 (typically +2 to -2). On 10+ they score a full success, on 7-9, a partial success, and 2-6 a failure. Then they choose from a set of outcomes depending on the move type.
For “seize by force,” a basic battle move, the move looks like this:
To seize something by force, exchange harm [both sides suffer damage], but first roll +hard [hard is the stat for attacking].
On a 10+, choose 3. On a 7-9, choose 2. On a miss, choose 1:
• You inflict terrible harm (+1harm).
• You suffer little harm (-1harm).
• You take definite and undeniable control of it.
• You impress, dismay, or frighten your enemy.
For “act under fire,” which is basically any skill check that doesn’t use the “hot” or “sharp” stats, the move looks like this:
When you do something under fire, roll +cool.
On a 10+, you do it.
On a 7-9, you flinch, hesitate, or stall: the GM can offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.
On a miss, be prepared for the worst. [this is when the GM makes a hard move]
This system can be tailored to custom moves or a GM-less game (even PvP). For example, “act under fire” could be written as:
On a 10+ you do it with grace and style
On a 7-9, you do it, but choose one from the list below.
On a miss, you do it but at a cost: roll twice on the list below, OR you don’t do it.
• You hurt yourself or an ally in the process
• It takes longer than you expect
• You lose something important
The elegance of the system is that consequences are results of the player’s actions, not the GM’s decision or an opposing die roll, and the cinematic, roleplaying elements of resolution are highlighted with a bare minimum of rules.
Thanks so much for describing that in detail, Josh! I like that players have a choice when they miss.
@@jameystegmaier Sure! The choice pushes the rp/immersion because the player imagines what happens. In the rpg, players have a lot more control over the story because their choices/descriptions of consequences tend to drive the next event.
Really interesting discussion! The format for a topic like this worked out really well!!
Also Jamey- this is such an important topic. I've had a few games I really like that I've been designing die on the vine, or at least been shelved for a time, because of combat failures. It's so challenging to make it interesting, fair, fun, and limit the bad feelings of losing or being targeted. 2 player games can fix that somewhat naturally as you both pointed out. It gets much more complicated with multi-player games.
For Northwood! is a great solo trick taker about trying to win over allies through card play. Scratches that conversational combat itch.
Nice! I'll check it out.
One game to throw into the Player vs AI section would be Tainted Grail which is entirely card-based. It's based on building a sequence of cards with matching symbols, the enemy has a simple AI that is quick to resolve and there's often interesting decisions such as playing a card which covers up the previous card's delayed effect - does the new card do enough to justify losing that other effect?
Another one is Forgotten Waters. The game will tell you to turn to a page in the book, which may depict combat. All the players have a limited time to place their characters on different option (fight the enemy mob, fight the enemy boss, fire the cannons) which you then resolve. Some of these are roll-to-resolve, some are deterministic and the app takes care of resolving the enemies. Your progress in the fight is tracked on a few dials which might represent the enemy ship's hull strength.
I think one interesting difference is between games like Gloomhaven (where you spend a lot of time moving your characters as well as the enemies around a combat space and the majority of the game's systems are to do with managing that combat) vs something like Sleeping Gods or Tainted Grail where combat is effectively a minigame (you explore, reveal an encounter, spend a few minutes resolving it, explore some more, perhaps reveal another encounter and resolve that).
Edit: I should listen to the whole video before commenting! Griftlands is very much like Tainted Grail in how you can have this different kind of encounter. I think Griftlands is often a bit more nuanced in how you can make that choice but it's very simiilar.
it is strange how miniatures and roleplaying games have used damage gradients/locations and noncombat resolution options for so long, yet they're still much less prevalent in board games. especially since so many mention them as influences
I've been trying to design a fighting game for a long time, and considered damage locations, etc something I'd like to try. It's however so difficult to make the combat feel good on a board game level when introducing these simulationist mechanics. Still haven't solved this issue properly.
@@michaelcavalry8379 what were your goals, inspirations, and preliminary implementations?
the games which immediately come to mind are scores dbz, sk/quickstrike, ufs, and yomi. imo sk/quickstrike did it best
Yellow & Yangtze or Tigris & Euphrates are interesting examples of combat where many players are involved, because multiple cities can connect at one time
Yeah! It was the first game I thought of when they mentioned games where multiple players can contribute.
The reason I don't like War of the Ring is because it has too much randomness through the hidden cards that each player gets.
Do they have agency over which card(s) they choose to play?
@@jameystegmaier Yes, too a high degree. Definitely input luck. I suppose one player's input 'good luck' can become the other player's 'bad luck'. Perhaps it's one player's input luck becoming the other player's output luck. In chess, this doesn't happen of course. You lose if you make more mistakes. That feels ok - the frustration in chess comes from being annoyed with yourself for making that mistake. In WotR I sometimes felt like the hidden information on the other side leads to frustrating situations where good play is (occasionally) made meaningless by the other player having just that powerful card that negates all your efforts. With WotR, this would probably be mitigated through repeated play, memorizing the cards and getting better at estimating that hidden information. So perhaps my subjective frustration is also a function of not loving games heavy on memorization.
@@Epistemophilos That makes perfect sense. I like the agency, but I see how it can feel negated by something you have no control over, and I also don't want to memorize cards.
@@jameystegmaier I'm glad I was able to communicate coherently, being starstruck by your reply!