Alt Combat Rules for Play-by-Post

[SpaceBadger]

ALT Combat Rules for Play-by-Post

I have been fiddling with some alternate combat rules to make things flow better, and it finally occurred to me that I don't have many real problems with CT combat for playing Traveller face to face, seated around a tabletop, but rather with trying to make something that will work smoothly and with minimum back-and-forth for Play-by-Post to avoid slowing down the action any further than already necessitated by the PbP format.

What I'd like to come up with is something that:
1) allows the Player reasonable control over what his/her character is doing or attempting to do in combat;
2) allows the GM/Ref to resolve such actions without having to go back and forth with the Player getting more details or decisions; then
3) allows either the Player or GM/Ref to turn abstract results into a pleasing narrative of what happened.

While I am trying to figure out some ideas that I will put up here for comment, I first wanted to post my intent here, to get anybody else's suggestions or experiences and find out if someone has a tried and true system for Play-by-Post that will save me from re-inventing the wheel.

A few ideas I am considering are: guidelines for a set number of actions that Players can choose from that tell what their PC will be intending to do in the next 15 second combat round, while allowing enough custom instruction to let the Player exercise tactical ideas and innovations to his/her heart's content; possibly incorporating a suggestion in another thread from Mike Wightman about shifting to a shorter combat round (1 sec? 3 sec? 5 sec?) when combat is occurring at VShort range or less.

 

[SpaceBadger]

Alt Combat Rules for Play-by-Post

A few ideas that I have for giving Players choices on what their PC will be doing for the next round include:

Style of Evasion

Full Evasion: The normal CT style evasion, meaning the PC is trying to hide from enemy fire as best he/she can, either behind a solid object, or around a building corner, or trying to hide as best the terrain will allow. This does not allow any attack by the PC, but is for bandaging, or reloading, or just trying to get out of the combat. (Maybe tossing grenades or other indirect fire???)

Firefight Mode: The kind of evasion in which a PC is again taking advantage of whatever cover the terrain provides, but still popping out to take snapshots or suppressive fire at the enemy, and thus also exposing him/herself to enemy fire. This seems to be the default combat mode in CT, although I have seen opinions vary; I think that in this mode a Player would not have a lot of control over exactly what target the PC was taking shots at, as this kind of popup fire would only allow very quick glimpses at possible targets of opportunity.

Non-Evasion: The PC is either suicidal or doesn't care or sufficiently armored so as not to fear enemy fire, and either stands in the open or even climbs to a vantage point to have the best view of the enemy, and is not hindered by any need to pop out of hiding for snapshots. Allows most choice of enemy targets, or just taking opportunity fire at any enemy who is exposed.

Ambush/Sniping: If the PC has surprise, not sure if this should be treated any differently than Non-Evasion. Maybe the difference is that after the first shot(s) the PC tries to remain in Firefight Mode rather than being fully exposed to enemy retaliation?

What other choices might the Player want to state for the PC besides evasion modes?

Maybe Targeting?

Firing Only at Target A: If no opportunity to fire at Target A is presented this round, the PC holds his/her fire until they have a shot.

Preference for Target A: PC is trying to attack Target A, but if an opportunity presents for fire at another enemy, will make that attack.

Firefight Mode: As stated in the Evasion stuff above, this is the typical taking advantage of whatever cover the terrain allows, while popping out at random moments to take opportunity shots at whatever enemy may be visible.

Blind Suppressive Fire: As above, but keeping to cover as best possible while emptying a weapon in the direction of the enemy to try to make them keep their heads down.

Other suggestions??? Remember, the goal here is to guide the Player to fully state his/her PC's intended actions in a way that will let the GM/Ref resolve that round without having to get back to the Player with any follow-up questions on "OK, you see this, what do you do?" The Player can write in all the tactical detail he/she wants, but at a minimum should cover enough to let the GM/Ref rule without any back and forth.

A few other issues:

Die Rolling: The way we have been doing this in SBRD (and everybody seems happy with so far) is that if the Player wants to roll, he/she provides a 2d6 roll along with statement of intent (or three 2d6 rolls if in combat) and the GM applies whatever mods are needed and replies with results. If the Player doesn't supply die rolls, the GM makes the rolls.

Description of Results: This would seem to be a matter of individual preference, so maybe the GM/Ref just needs to get a preference from each Player ahead of time, as to whether the Player prefers that the GM reply with detailed description of what the PC did according to the Player's stated intent, or the GM just replies with abstract results and lets the Player write up the details of how his/her PC achieved those results. Mostly a color/preference issue.

Remember, we are talking here about Alt Combat Rules for Play-by-Post, not regular face to face gaming.

 

[SpaceBadger]

I should have noted, I am willing to consider ideas/rules from other versions of Traveller (or even other games), which is why I didn't add the "CT Only" tag.

However, to be useful to me, the ideas/rules need to at least be compatible with the basic CT skill levels: skill-0 is bare familiarization; skill-1 is competent; skill-2 is advanced; skills 3-4 are expert; skills 5-6 are extreme expertise beyond what is normally encountered.

 

[SpaceBadger]

No ideas from anyone? Really? o:

OK, let me ask it another way, how do you play out combat in Play-by-Post games?

(Maybe I should have put this thread in the Lone Star?)

 

[flykiller]

OK, let me ask it another way, how do you play out combat in Play-by-Post games?

1) understand the situation thoroughly. why the npc's exist, why they are present, what their motivations are.

2) have player state action.

3) roll dice myself.

4) determine/accept/modify result and add to story line. wing it.

5) repeat.

in most cases it is better to advance the action than to ask for clarification and explanation. no-one wants a "firefight" to last a week while player and referee carefully parse text back and forth. remember traveller is shotguns in space, not adventures in accurate accounting.

consult the seven adventure components! (linked below) always allow the players to influence your story, and even drive it if they are good enough.

 

[CosmicGamer]

Been a while since I played in a CT PbP game so I don't recall the details of how it was handled.

I've played in MgT PbP games with limited combat and this is indeed an issue. As such, for the MgT PbP games I run, so far I have stayed away from combat. In my current game I plan to have some and here are the things I will be doing:

1) Simultaneous action.
Individual initiative determining the order each character acts needs to go out the window. It would take way too long for each player to hold off and keep checking and only post when it is their turn in initiative. Team based initiative might work but I personally don't like this idea.

The concept of surprise or initiating the combat and getting in the first shot would still exist based on role playing.

2) Simultaneous resolution.
Don't resolve each persons actions individually before moving on. Can't have everyone else on hold until the GM gets around to responding to each individuals actions. Each player posts what they are doing and then the GM posts for all the NPCs on both sides and provide a summary.

1) & 2) A) Private posting.
I may even have players post in private/secret, or at least don't publicly show dice rolls. This way one can't deduce the results and decide to do something based on it.

Example of the problem: Player 2 targets Enemy A who is the enemy with the big gun instead of Enemy B who is under partial cover with a small gun. Player 2 hits and does amazing damage. Although everything is non initiative and simultaneous, Player 1 who posts later knows that Enemy A is probably done for and decides to shoot at Enemy B.

1) & 2) B) Initiative as needed.
Determine initiative but it is only for GM use.

For example, if one player says they are ducking for cover this round and two enemies try to shoot them. GM takes into consideration initiative when they resolve the round.

3) Real time limits per round.
Have a real world time limit on a round. If a player does not post within that time, the GM does whatever necessary to keep things moving. Due to family, work, or other reasons, too often people don't post timely with no pre warning. Shouldn't hold up everything while waiting on one person.

4) Act first. Ask second. or One post per round.
To discourage a whole lot of back and forth discussion before doing anything during combat, if the player posts and doesn't say what the character is doing, then the character has hesitated and done nothing.

For example, a player might get caught up in the details of the mechanics. How far away are they? How far is it to cover? Can my character do this or that? Many of it may be legitimate questions. That's fine, but
- tell me what the character is doing now
- ask your questions too and when I give answers during the combat round summary you can use the info next round

5) Keep it small.
I tend not to run mercenary and war like campaigns. The games revolve around other things so I can create situations where combat occurs when the entire group is not together.

The other possibility is to have situations where combatants are more paired off. The two friendlies on the left are behind some crates with a sniper on top of the building. The two friendlies on the right don't have an angle to see the sniper and are in a firefight with two opponents on the ground. These two opponents don't have a line of sight with the other two behind the crate due to a vehicle between them.

Concept I'm not going to try yet but have thought of.

A) Opposed actions.
Have more rules to accommodate simultaneous activity that is in opposition to each other.

For example, two characters are shooting at each other and trying not to get shot. Roll up each one with all the appropriate DMs and whoever is higher wins and hits the other.

B) Players don't roll. They role play.
The GM does all the rolls and adds in the appropriate DMs behind the "GM screen" then posts all the results in the combat round summary.

=======

How about this: We find a few other folk to act as canon fodder and start up some PbP games specifically to test out some ideas? Start out simple, like two small groups with similar weapons on opposite sides of a open field. Then keep adding complexity as we work out things.

 

[flykiller]

How about this: We find a few other folk to act as canon fodder and start up some PbP games specifically to test out some ideas? Start out simple, like two small groups with similar weapons on opposite sides of a open field. Then keep adding complexity as we work out things.

cannon-fodder is my middle name. say when.

 

[SpaceBadger]

The part of your post that I snipped looks interesting, but I have a headache right now and pain meds and my son is waiting for me to try a new computer game, so I'll come back to that part later.

A) Opposed actions.
Have more rules to accommodate simultaneous activity that is in opposition to each other.

For example, two characters are shooting at each other and trying not to get shot. Roll up each one with all the appropriate DMs and whoever is higher wins and hits the other.

This sounds kinda like what I have seen some people posting about an old Star Wars game that they liked - I think it was Supp Four and maybe Aramis - and I agree it could be a useful approach.

B) Players don't roll. They role play.
The GM does all the rolls and adds in the appropriate DMs behind the "GM screen" then posts all the results in the combat round summary.

I agree. This was my intent with the dice rolling rules we've been using in SBRD (actually Sabredog's idea) and mostly the players have been opting to let me make all the rolls.

I'm looking at trying to find a balance point for the players having input on what their PC is doing, versus long back and forth dragged out process for every round. This is also kinda what I was looking at in saying that I as GM would hand back abstract results, and leave it to the player to write a fitting description to flesh out those results with details.

How about this: We find a few other folk to act as canon fodder and start up some PbP games specifically to test out some ideas? Start out simple, like two small groups with similar weapons on opposite sides of a open field. Then keep adding complexity as we work out things.

Great idea! I'm in! We could even run it in my subforum for SBRD, where I have mod powers to use if needed,

 

[SpaceBadger]

1) understand the situation thoroughly. why the npc's exist, why they are present, what their motivations are.

2) have player state action.

3) roll dice myself.

4) determine/accept/modify result and add to story line. wing it.

5) repeat.

in most cases it is better to advance the action than to ask for clarification and explanation. no-one wants a "firefight" to last a week while player and referee carefully parse text back and forth. remember traveller is shotguns in space, not adventures in accurate accounting.

Agreed on all points. Just trying to work out system to smooth the process, I guess, as far as communication back and forth from GM->Player->GM->etc.

consult the seven adventure components! (linked below) always allow the players to influence your story, and even drive it if they are good enough.

Sounds good, will read your link later and respond.