Trying to create a Risk/reward/Reaction based combat system for a game

>>52310714
What about foregoing the base stats and d20 style gameplay and utilizing a more narrative approach? I do this because I hate massive bookkeeping for every event, although to do so you have to be a painfully neutral dm. Here is a (poorly written) example.

"The rathalos roars in fury as its heaving bulk turns towards you. You cursed quietly to yourself, hoping that it would have remained oblivious until your pitfall was properly set. The soundtrack rippled along the grass before the blast tore into your ears,causing you to buckle in pain, the thin hide of your helm doing little to dampen the sound. With glowing spittle leaking from the corners of its mouth, the rathalos reared its crowned head back and formed a ball kg flame within its gullet"

Choose an action
A) dodge
B) Block
C) other

After the player(s) select an action have them roll based on the difficulty of the action and the stats you've been keeping offscreen. To continue with the example:

The player(s) vote to block the fireball, you know they are equipped with a sword and shield and are wearing hunter armor.

The players roll (I like 1D100) with three possible outcomes: success, partial success, critical fail. With each degree of outcome harder to roll based on the difficulty of the action. Bringing your shield to bear is relatively easy thus should succeed most of the time (50-100). As the actions complete and the effects resolved you can set up the next chain of events in the narrative without disrupting flow.

Since monster hunter plays out less like final fantasy and more fluid I'd incorporate your initiative system into chains of actions taken by players. So if the players elect to block and then counter with their sns they must pass their action roll and then beat the monsters initiative roll (which should change based on what he did, charging for example should lower his initiative significantly).

Let me know what you think or any questions

>>52310978
I've actually been thinking of mostly foregoing the classic d20 approach as well, looking at a more static system (Damage on attacks would be static and tied to the attack used/hitzone hit [attacks would be split into three values, one for weak zones, one for normal zones, and one for armored zones])

The system that you've suggested could probably be implemented into the suggested turn based thing pretty seamlessly desu, used for things like Blocking/Dodging/attacking, so reall,y thanks for this a ton.

With this said, what do you think of the system I have in the OP? do you think it would be too complex to use in an RPG?

>>52311712
>>52310978
Reading your reply again I realize you mentioned incorporating the system into "Chains of actions". Can you give an example of how this might work with multiple players?

>>52311712
Are you playing with irl people or online? As I mentioned before I hate excessive bookkeeping and online players have a tendency to mathfag everything into oblivion making a game based around it unfun. That being said I like your system although your "saving unused actions for reactive actions" makes me think slot of fights will play out like black Diablo's does in game, 25 minutes of rolling followed by two minutes of attacks. Which is not fun.

As for damage, a big part of monster hunter was now knowing how much damage you were doing. I think it would be a bad move to tell the players "you strike the head for 20 damage!" In the system I suggested you could instead describe the blow and the effect it has on the monster to convey how much damage you have dealt to it.

If you are interested in collaborating a system let me know, I'm a huge monster hunter fanboy

>>52310714
Why initiative?
Why roll for initiative?
Why reroll initiative each round?

>>52310714
If a character doesn't take an action, or only takes a partial action, do they get an initiative bonus the following round?

>>52311850
Since my system is more narrative based, each player has to utilize actions that directly benefit the other hunters as opposed to operating solo. Players would have to use their characters like they appear in the games cutscenes.

Players tell you their actions one at a time although all actions (mostly) resolve simultaneously.

Going back to the example rathalos fight. A party of 3 hunters is comprised of 1sns and 2 lbg. You give the players the actions they wish to take based on their individual status (something I forgot to mention originally is layers should have the agency to describe their action. So player 1 decides to block with his shield,telling you that he adopts a low stance for better balance. He also tells you that following his block he wants to throw a flashbomb infront of the wyvern. The lbg players decide to finish setting the pitfall trap, afterwards they will use the opportunity created by the flash bomb to rapid-fire water shot at the wyvern's head. Provided all three players are successful in all their rolls the scene would play out like this .

"The fire cascaded over (players) shield, its overwhelming heat stripping layers of hide and revealing the bare metal beneath. (Player) winced as tongues of flame singed his skin and his arm burned from the ambient heat of his shield. As the flames dissipated (player) reached into his item pouch, readying one of his prepared flash bombs.

(Players 2+3) ran for the half cocked pitfall trap, (player) had taken the beasts attention for now and they had precious few seconds before the blinding light of his flashbomb went off. They worked quickly, setting the the last fuse as the small bottle thrown by (player) burst.

Blinding light filled the area and the low "pop" of a successful pitfall trap was barely audible over the anguished cries kg the monster. Three shots burst from each hunters bowgun, the special crafted ammo soaring towards the red beast before exploding in cutting jets of water.

>>52311926
The game would be played online with a group of friends I have played with before, but could be played IRL pretty easily once the system is put together I think. For the rolling thing, that could be lessened using a sense of urgency maybe from a relative lack of healing supplies, as well as Players later in the "speaking order" being more capable of committing to aggressive turns

Damage wise, I mostly have the numbers on the attacks so players know what is more powerful in that way, though it's not totally necessary. Monster HP would still be kept totally hidden, so your suggestion could still be used.

>>52311972

"Initiative" is the catch-all phrase I'm using to describe the roll that tells how quickly a player reacts.
I feel that having players in a static "speaking order" would make the gameplay stale.

>>52312041

I don't think so, but it could be looked into maybe? I want to incentivize attacking as much as possible.

>>52312201
This is somewhat similar to a scenario I made up to explain my system actually (early on so its a bit rougher)

"Monster raises and opens its two arms, extending its claws and begins to sweep its arms inwards in a large area in front of it"
"Okay I'm going to try and roll out of the way (dodge check) and then go for a quick strike at its arm as it ends the sweep"
"I'm outside of the attack but I'm going to use my Hammer's upwards swing to hit the monsters side”
"I'm going to run up next to player C and get chucked into the air, then go for an aerial strike on the monster"

The results would then be given in a narrative form like in your example.

>>52312367
>"Initiative" is the catch-all phrase I'm using to describe the roll that tells how quickly a player reacts.
>I feel that having players in a static "speaking order" would make the gameplay stale.
Okay, that answers the third question.
But what about the first two?

Why have initiative at all? What does it contribute to the game? Why not simultaneous action selection?

>>52312367
I'd prefer the layers be forced to figure everything out, as though they were on an actual hunt. Based on your narrative descriptions they would eventually understand that a hammer blow to the skull hurts much more than smashing the monsters tail.

I also think you should structure each quest like an actual hunt, have the players observe the monster for a time and formulate a plan around it. Ooc they might know gravios sucks against water, but their player characters have no business knowing that and so should be expected to research (buy ecology books) or scout the beast beforehand.

Definitely this would make urgent quests like elder dragons, lao shan, fatalis, etc that much harder because they won't know anything about the monster beforehand.

Another suggestion, each fight should feel appropriately epic and I'd stray from the superhuman nature of the video game a fair bit. Sure a hunter can survive a bite from a rathalos but they can't just eat a potion and repair the chunks of flesh they lost. I like my games crushingly difficult and this setting lends itself to each monster seeming insurmountable

>>52312572
Initiative is used to tell who tells their Simultaneous action first, allowing characters who speak after them to work around/against their action (A monster who gives their action after a player might use a harder part of their body to block an attack for instance)

I feel that a fully simultaneous action selection might be much more chaotic in combat, with less cohesion between player/monster actions

On the topic of this, armors could have initiative bonuses (Maybe lighter armor=better initiative)

>>52312727

Things like Damage numbers are a bit less important to me for figuring out, but I agree that a more/purely narrative based system could work just as well as a system with some numbers.

The pre-hunt thing is actually something I've been thinking on as well, with things like tracking it by finding tracks/other signs of it coming through an area, as well as observing to see if you can find weaknesses

The whole straying from the superhuman thing that you mentioned I think could vary from game to game, but I definitely agree with you that things like Major Damage should feel more significant (Maybe requiring a time of recovery needed/player-tied debuffs as they heal)

One thing that I havent mentioned yet that would probably give more context ot the system is that certain attacks/actions would take up different action types, with these being the action types:

Full Action (uses whole turn including move)
> Stationary attacks like GS charge, entering siege mode + x shots
Slow action (Uses whole turn minus move)
> Slower hits like SA (Axe) hits and GS swings
> Drinking a Potion, Sharpening Weapon
Action (Uses half your turn minus move)
> Moderate timed attacks like SA (Axe) infinite combo, Jab with GL, swing with LS, Double charged bow, Reloading a gun
Fast Action (Uses ⅓ of turn minus move)
> Swipes with SnS/DS, Siege mode HBG, Lance jabs
> In the case where two Fast actions are made, an Action can be made if the Hunter gives up their move action
Move Action
> Either moves character or otherwise uses up the time you could have moved
> Rolling, walking (Weapon drawn), Jogging (Weapon sheathed), Running (Weapon sheathed, Stamina), Sheathing Weapon
> Can be used more than once, sacrificing an action each time for a total of 3 moves possible
> Can be used at any point in turn, cannot be used mid-combo

>>52310978
Maybe Dungeon World-esque then?
Describe the monsters action, then ask what the player does in response, they roll for that. Ask what they do, they roll for that. Rinse and repeat.

>>52316003
I want there to be some element of Risk/reward though, and players always knowing what the monster does first takes away from that.

My proposed system is similar to Dungeon-world in that all actions are said before the results are given, the difference is that the players don't always know, and therefore may need to be more careful in how they play (Or take a risk for the big damage)

>>52313397
>Initiative is used to tell who tells their Simultaneous action first
That's not how simultaneous action selection works.

>I feel that a fully simultaneous action selection might be much more chaotic in combat, with less cohesion between player/monster actions
Well, yeah. That's exactly the point. You commit to an action you think is safe and if you're wrong and haven't committed too much, you can still react.
You could also do ticks, because you only make a big decision after the end of your current attack.

Then again, you haven't usefully defined what you actually want out of the system. My suggestions are for if you want to capture the feeling of what playing the game is like. If you want to recreate the openings and cutscenes, you need an organic spotlight shift, not random initiative.