Are tripping, grappling and other non-damage combat abilities worthless? DISCUSS!

[Iznaliu]

Well, thank the stars for having Lhynn tell us what fun is

Fun is what people find enjoyable; nothing more, nothing less.

 

[thesheeep]

Well, thank the stars for having Lhynn tell us what fun is

Hey, you're the guy who thinks AD&D is rules light.

Well, yeah. That's because it is.
Not that there aren't lighter ones, but you are probably the first person ever to claim anything else.

There is stuff for children (I don't even know any, but we all know there are), light ones (like AD&D or DnD4), medium ones (like Shadowrun) and rule porn (like DSA/RoA or Rolemaster).
DnD 3.5 I'm not sure where to put. Probably somewhere between light and medium.
Mutants & Masterminds is a weird case where the basic rules are light, but they are modular so you end up with something that can actually become pretty complex.
I have rule books for all of these (except the children ones and Rolemaster), so I really don't see any ground to argue differently here.

Yeah, I do have a DnD4 rule book.
Will you let me live if I claim it was a present?

 

[Sykar]

people who want trip, sunder, grapple, bull rush, charge, disarm, overrun, feint, aid another, or anything I can't remember right off-hand

Someone actually uses this crap?

There are only two kinds of attacks: those that hit more often but deal less damage, and those that hit less often but deal more damage. Anything else is just a pointless bloat only useful to fill out the USP bullet lists. Grapple and feint, oh my god.

You forgot heavy hitting attacks with CC. Why settle for one when you can have the best of two worlds?

 

[Grunker]

is this a lie or am I blind

 

[DraQ]

That's pure nostalgiafaggotry. Also dumb. Phrased like that, more often/less damage, less often/more damage would be just as pointless as it ends up in the same place anyway.

I consider any game where damage or dps are the most important things in combat to be an utter, unmitigable failure of game design.

Different types of attacks only make sense if there are mechanics to support them. Faster-weaker/slower-stronger makes sense if there is armour that soaks a part of the damage, and there is a sufficiently wide mix of lightly and heavily armoured enemies. An attack which splits a shield makes sense if you're facing enemies with shields a lot.

Disabling attacks (grapple, bull rush, trip etc.) make a lot of sense if the system takes into account that it's easier to hit a disabled enemy. Battle Brothers pulls this off extremely well for example.

They also make tons of sense when the enemy poses a real threat and it's easier to disable them than to kill them outright.
First you stop the enemy from killing (or disabling) you, if straightforward attacks are not the best way to accomplish it, you use something else.

Last I heard this is a cRPG, not a PnP RPG. "The DM makes something up on the spot" doesn't work in a cRPG. It's not implementable.

Improvisation in tabletop role-playing is a whole 'nuther discussion, and one I for one am not inclined to have right now.

This, we are NOT in Gazebo so the discussion is about cRPGs. Whatever is not codified doesn't exist mechanically.

 

[Delterius]

Well, yeah. That's because it is.

You went on a tirade against improvised theater in a discussion between shades of D&D. And I'm the one who's high because I brought up improvised actions.

This, we are NOT in Gazebo so the discussion is about cRPGs. Whatever is not codified doesn't exist mechanically.

Yes and no. Videogames are an abstract medium. You don't need to implement an action driven combat system full of animations to understand what is going on with Morrowind's combat rolls. That simple attack action can and means much more than it appears at first sight.

 

[Prime Junta]

Morrowind

Uh, you sure you want to quote that as an example of a successful cRPG combat system implementation?

 

[thesheeep]

Morrowind

Uh, you sure you want to quote that as an example of a successful cRPG combat system implementation?

Yeah, Morrowind's combat is relatively... unfortunate. The graphics simply do not show what is actually happening and makes it rather awkward at times.
Still, better than the action-based combat in Oblivion. In Morrowind, everything is at least properly stat-based.

 

[Delterius]

Morrowind

Uh, you sure you want to quote that as an example of a successful cRPG combat system implementation?

I don't need to prove that Morrowind is 'successful' or not. You're both moving the goalposts when, in reality, the principle applies to every game and, indeed every tactical RPG in existence. This includes all implementations of D&D.

What a simple attack roll means in the context of, say, Icewind Dale, depends on a number of factors. Wether it was a crit or not and the amount of Hitpoints taken from the target's total. A mere scratch to a Fighter is a deadly lunge to the Mage. Considering the board's preference for turn-based RPGs, then it stands to logic that 'what is not implemented' does, in fact, exist. Not as a quick action that nobody uses perhaps, but as an integral part of the experience.

 

[thesheeep]

Considering the board's preference for turn-based RPGs, then it stands to logic that 'what is not implemented' does, in fact, exist. Not as a quick action that nobody uses perhaps, but as an integral part of the experience.

You should become a politician. Or philosopher.
I see a true talent here to talk much, but say little

 

[Delterius]

Considering the board's preference for turn-based RPGs, then it stands to logic that 'what is not implemented' does, in fact, exist. Not as a quick action that nobody uses perhaps, but as an integral part of the experience.

You should become a politician. Or philosopher.
I see a true talent here to talk much, but say little

First I was mad for discussing improvised actions in PnP and now abstractions aren't a thing?

I guess RPGs are only good if you make a rule for every single thing.

 

[Kalasanty11]

It depends on how such skills work with other skills. Voidspire Tactics and Alvora Tactics for example - there are attacks that can break enemy's weapon, arms or disable them altogether, preventing from using any skills for some turns. Such enemies have a tendency to run away for the time they can't do shit. Scouts have "trip up" ability that severely limits enemy's movement, making it hell of a lot easier to finish them off when they are vulnerable. Great symbiosis.

 

[buru5]

I don't see the issue with things like tripping or being able to immobilize your opponent for a turn or two if it's not overpowered. For example, Divinity OS has these mechanics but they were easy to abuse. Even bosses could be trip or stun locked but so could your party members so maybe there's a balance there.

 

[Prime Junta]

For example, Divinity OS has these mechanics but they were easy to abuse. Even bosses could be trip or stun locked but so could your party members so maybe there's a balance there.

D:OS overdid it. It's all about initiative and chaining status effects; whoever starts the chain first, wins. There also wasn't much difference in those status effects -- Frozen, Petrified, Stunned, or Prone were pretty much interchangeable. This made combat very swingy and most of the time there wasn't ultimately all that much tactics to it, once past the opening round or two; only fights which teleported beasties in midstream shook things up a bit.

This got much worse as you levelled up. Once out of Cyseal it went downhill fast.

 

[Werdna's Revenge]

The last game I played to really make good use of these sorts of non-standard attacks was EO3. It's a jrpg I know, but the japs do put at least a bit of thought into the systems they use for their dungeon crawlers. Bind attacks were incredibly useful depending on the type of enemy you were fighting, leg binds (tripping) was a lot of fun for turning speedy deadly enemies into inert punching bags.

 

[deuxhero]

Practically speaking, trip, grapple and their relatives are all nothing more than debuffs that are available to melee characters. Only "special" thing about them is the unique costs and requirements.

With that in mind the question might as well be "Are debuffs worthless". The anwser to that is entirely system/balance dependent.

 

[aweigh]

Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game. - Gary Gygax

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. - Gary Gygax

 

[Grampy_Bone]

Role-playing isn't storytelling. If the dungeon master is directing it, it's not a game. - Gary Gygax

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules. - Gary Gygax

Those quotes are somewhat contradictory

http://theangrygm.com/why-rules-exist/

"Which just proves that Gygax didn't understand his own game."

 

[Mojobeard]

GURPS does it right (again). Example of play I've witnessed:
Bad Guy has a big fucking sword, he's fast, and has a big armor. The team can barely punch through the armor DR, and Bad Guy even dodges most attacks.
MMA Master taunts Bad Guy. Bad Guy swings at him, the unarmed MMA Master parries his attack and, as a follow-up on his turn, throws him to the ground.
Getting up from the ground takes multiple rounds (GURPS rounds are seconds), but it's still Bad Guy's best option, so he starts doing that.
MMA Master, with the high bonuses of an opponent kneeling combined with grapple hit location bonuses, grabs Bad Guy with a chokehold and pins him.
Bad Guy only knows about sword fighting, and nothing about wrestling, so he's helpless. He's mostly out of the game, but still tries to struggle free.
MMA Master notices Bad Guy's neck protection is chain coif, a flexible armor in the rules. He uses Neck Snap to do what it says.

There's also stuff like, blunt damage against undead (which are resistant to pretty much everything) can still push them back, possibly making them trip over. And all of this is in the rules, no need to invent anything.
And the rules are simple, it's always roll 3d to *action* and enemy rolls 3d to *counteraction*. No D&D fuckery with new rules for every action.

 

[Freddie]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of where rules come from. People forget that D&D was inventing the entire genre as it went along.

It's always been expected in tabletop games that the players could perform any action they chose and the DM would "referee" that action based on stats and random chance, as they saw appropriate. The reason there are tables for things like "bending bars" isn't because that was some pre-determined usage of strength, but rather the developers found players needing to make strength checks often for these sorts of challenges (dungeons have a lot of gates and bars). Players wanted rules for bending bars because it was so common, so the developers provided them. Most of the D&D rules are descended from these sorts of traditions.

D&D has a long history of taking ad-hoc systems and making them into official rules, based on player need and popularity. Sometimes players wanted to wrestle, and figuring out how to model wrestling on the fly was hard, hence there are wrestling rules. But the idea "if it's not in the rules you can't do it," is not and has not been a part of any tabletop system pretty much since forever (except maybe 4th Edition D&D, though it's adherents may disagree). The rules are supposed to exist to help you, not to hinder you. I find so-called low-rules or "storytelling" systems highly baffling, because its essentially like playing an unpatched game. The rules aren't there to restrict your actions, they exist to help create a standard and fair system of mechanics. Low-rules games are actually really hard to run, because you constantly have to make up stuff on the spot. Your random ad-hoc rulings are just never going to be as balanced and consistent as something planned out ahead of time and playtested. Players need consistency in order to plan their actions and meaningfully approach the game's challenges. Without consistent rules the game becomes "mother may I?" May I attack, DM? May I cast a spell? May I climb a cliff? May I jump over a pit? Etc.

This is pretty much how I did this during 2nd. ed AD&D. I rolled checks against relevant attributes (say DEX for diving from table to tumble and wrestle down an opponent) and / or relevant skills (like, well Tumbling). I don't recall any players who asked for something as sub-rule system for wrestling. Anyway players learned very fast how it worked and things weren't argued because everything rolled was based on what they had in their character sheet and what skill they decided to acquire.

In regards to the original question, special moves like trip, disarm, feint, etc, are only useful if:

1. They also deal the same damage as a normal attack
2. They make an enemy vulnerable to follow-up damage (a rogue feinting gives up 1d6 weapon damage in order to add 10d6 sneak attack damage)
3. The special move is decisive in some way (instantly defeats the enemy, such as pushing them off a cliff)

The problem with all of these is obvious. If a trip or disarm also does full damage, it feels overpowered (this is where we get cooldowns). Follow-ups are always enemy specific, unless you create a game-wide system for modular attack states, like an MMO (Use attack type X to make attack type Y deal more damage). There's also the issue where most players don't like just being the setup guy for someone else (this is less of an issue in single-player cRPGs). In the final case, unless your battles all take place on bridges over bottomless cliffs or lava, your players will never have as many opportunities to bull rush people into hazards as they will to just stab them.

4th Edition D&D had all of these problems. Too many attacks were just meant to set up other attacks, inflicting wimpy status effects, or just "moved the minis" around the board but did nothing decisive. In the end, most players realized there was no status effect better than "dead" and everyone focused on the 10-20% of the powers that just did damage, ignoring all the others.

There are cases where players have a reason to capture someone alive. So tripping and locks should not do damage, it's the follow up (which was IIRC covered in rules) where players can decide what to do. So one player has tumbled enemy down, now give decisive strike, knock out for good or use some rope to tie this enemy?

In cRPG's I have problem with unarmed being too often quite trivial. At worst I recall something where you couldn't knock someone unconscious unless you had some sort of special item! Or maybe it was some tactical game. Anyway, I guess lack of interest to this may come from possible balancing issues. Trip down someone in full plate and have whole party laughing at him, hammering him away while the poor fucker is trying to get up... and loses at least one attack, if he even gets up.

In other hand, specialisations like tripping and disarming might be available on higher level characters and behind specific skill tree. Gotta learn to walk before one can dance and all that. I don't know, maybe it's commercial question too, because cRPG players appear to be much more to like having everything unlocked for any character simultaneously than P'n'P players.

 

[DraQ]

This, we are NOT in Gazebo so the discussion is about cRPGs. Whatever is not codified doesn't exist mechanically.

Yes and no. Videogames are an abstract medium. You don't need to implement an action driven combat system full of animations to understand what is going on with Morrowind's combat rolls. That simple attack action can and means much more than it appears at first sight.

I don't know where have you got an idea that anything in my post referred to the presentation layer. That's first.
Whatever a cRPG doesn't handle mechanically has no bearing on how the action works out, that's blindingly obvious and I don't see why you'd try to dispute that.

Second, Morrowind is a bad example, because clunky as it may be, there are many things beyond simple damage calculations in it - from armor treating low and high damage attacks differently, to blocking, stagger and knockdowns from basic attacks alone, to disabling magic actually being far more effective than raw damage most of the time.

Anyway, a good system should allow and reward all sorts of different actions depending on circumstances, not only does it go a great way to stop fighters from being boring "attack, attack, attack..." characters, but it also rewards tactics both in the form of planning and thinking on your feet.
For example if you are facing a stoneskinned wizard who is about to nuke the party, and you have no way to dispel his protection, then trying to whittle down his protection by inflicting damage is not a good option, OTOH grappling him to the ground and sitting on him may be very effective.

 

[Jaesun]

throwing an autistic fit should be a perfectly valid attack option

That would be the primary attack for a Codex RPG...

 

[Lhynn]

This, we are NOT in Gazebo so the discussion is about cRPGs. Whatever is not codified doesn't exist mechanically.

Split from a different thread. should have gone straight into the gazebo i guess. Considering the actual argument started when i brought up a PnP system.

 

[Iznaliu]

Even bosses could be trip or stun locked

Making certain enemies immune to stuff simply because they're bosses is cheap.

 

[buru5]

Making certain enemies immune to stuff simply because they're bosses is cheap.

How does a bow trip a giant robot? Please explain this to me.