Turn-based Combat

File: low quality bait.jpg (16KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 600x600px

>>52520949

>>52520949
>tfw someone makes a point you can see the value in but mentions DW so you know the thread will be shit

>>52520949
>Just look at how the Dungeon World handles its combat. A seamless transition between fights and role playing.

Can you give a brief summary so I can choose if I want to read more based on something more than your unargumented opinions?

File: stop liking what I dont like.jpg (226KB, 357x400px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 357x400px

>>52520949
opinions

>>52521269
not OP but basically combat consists of a few different rolls you can make whenever they seem appropriate to the narration being made. Essentially everyone continues describing what their character does (as they would out of combat) and whenever your character does a particular thing (fights in melee, takes a shot, avoids an attack, etc) there's a roll to be made

File: Dungeon World - Beginner's Guide (v1.2) (screen).pdf (963KB, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

963KB, 1x1px

>>52521234
Whether Dungeon World as a whole is a good or bad system is not my concern, I am just pointing out that it has a better combat model then turn-based one.

>>52521269

Sure, it doesn't use initiative or turns. You just describe what happens like you normally do while role-playing.

>GM:"The orc swings his club down at you. What do you do?"
>PC:"I knock it aside with my warhammer and smash his skull!"
>GM:"Sounds like we're doing some Hack & Slash, roll for it."
>PC:"I got an 8, that's a partial success, yeah?"
>GM:"Yeah, you knock the first blow aside, but he's relentless.You're both smashing each other and it's a full-on bloody brawl. We both roll damage for this."

And it goes on like this alternating between players and DM. DM doesn't roll for anything, he just chooses the reaction the opponent will make and PCs makes the rolls.

Pic related has a very short explanation about how the combat works.

>>52521418
>an 8 being successful

>>52521418
So it's a rules-lite, roleplaying-heavy game. That's fine, some people like that. However, it is not objectively superior (or inferior) to other sub-genres of TTRPGs. I, for one, enjoy a fair amount of crunch when it comes to combat, and that simply does not work in a "call out your actions"-style system, due to the ways in which it limits the design-space (you don't have clear relative spaces to other characters, you can't reliably know when you and other combatants will act, etc.). Additionally, I see immediate issues with making sure players get equal opportunities to act, while balancing those actions with NPC actions, somehow without having actual turns. It's fine for fluffy, quick fights, but not fantastic if you're looking for more detailed combats.

>>52521548
partially successful, which is how PbtA games work

>>52521548
DW is a PbtA system, meaning that it's a 2d6 system, not a d20 system.
1-6 is a fail, 7-9 is a success at a cost and 10+ is a clear success

My friends and I play without initiative. Highest agility goes first, saves much time.

See, this guy >>52521554 has it right. Turn based works much better for games with a lot of crunch and if you want to have a more structured combat, where you can see distances relative to each other, who flanks who and so on.

Meanwhile fluffy, more freeform fights are better for a game with less of an emphasis on where characters are relative to each other, how long a turn is and etc. are far less important. Neither is really superior to each other.

>>52521641
If you wanted to, you could probably eliminate actual initiative rolls from virtually any system that used them, and just have initiative as a flat value of 10+Init modifier (in d20, equivalents in other systems). Whether that's actually a helpful change is debatable.

>>52520949

>He doesn't split his combat into Villain and Heroes turn.

Heroes always go first unless surprised or for tension. After all heroes acts it's the villains turn.

>>52521650

This. I like cinematic fights sometimes, and tactical crunchy fights other times. Horses for courses.
(Even so, activation/reaction systems are better than strict turn-based IMO)

Also OP is trolling, but I'll come right out and say that the no-initiative part is one of the things I really like about Dungeon World.

>>52521763
Out of curiosity, what do you mean by an activation/reaction system?

>>52522040

It's seen a lot in modern war games. It varies from one system to the next, but usually on your turn you can activate some of your guys and move them. Then when you come into contact with enemy forces, the enemy has an opportunity to react and interrupt your turn. Often there's a roll to see who notices the other guy first and gets to be the first to open fire, and then you trade shots until either somebody's hit or somebody jumps back and takes cover, then your turn resumes until you've moved all your activated guys, then it's the other guy's turn, etc.
I'm a big fan of this kind of thing for gun fights in particular, because it feels right for you to step around a corner and then suddenly have bullets flying both ways.

>>52522159
That makes a whole lot more sense than your traditional turn based game. Considering in a lot of them you're unable to shoot at a character until the end of his movement, despite supposedly everything taking place at the same time.

I sorta like how Phoenix Command does it where everything is completely simultaneous and you can shoot at someone at any point before they make it to cover, but you only spend that many actions aiming.

>>52521702
Why Intelligence? Initiative is clearly based on reaction time and not IQ.

>>52521333
That's still turn-based, just without an order. It's your turn whenever your character does a thing.

Because in a lot of systems with turn based combat you can easily have 10+ enemy combatants and everyone knows what's going on. In a non-turn based system it'll quickly devolve into a clusterfuck as soon as you pass about 6 enemy combatants.

>>52522464
Init is Initiative, Int in Intelligence.

You failed your Linguistics check, buddy.

>>52522464
Init=Initiative, not Intelligence.

>>52521702
Problem with that is that you'll often have tied initiative scores.

>>52521418
>We both roll
>DM doesn't roll for anything

Well, which is it?

>>52521418
Thank you for this. I'm very story-focused, but storytelling systems like cthulhu and WoD have the lamest mechanics when it comes to combat. I'll try reworking them in this direction if I ever get to GM again.

>>52520949

Get off, Virt!

Fuck off with your DW shilling

>>52522484

You're not saying anything meaningful. He's saying that there's no set order, it follows the flow of what's happening rather than an arbitrary turn order.

It's too freeform for my tastes and needs a good GM to reign everyone in. Otherwise you eventually get some players reasonable while others are asking to do several game-breaking actions at a time.

>>52522947

He is getting off! Virtposting for and against Dungeon World in hopes of getting people's jimmies rustled is the only thing that does it for OP anymore.