Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Digital Hellhound]

I've recently come back to an old idea of mine and would like your comments/input!

---

In the distant and increasingly amoral future, a new sport is sweeping the nation(s). Travel through time and space, accidentally invented by a broadcasting company, is now being used to draft gladiators into teams in the present day from all over the past. Legions of samurai face off against bands of vikings and wild west bandits, musketeers battle ancient charioteers, famous painters duke it out with bewildered cavemen.

A new season is just beginning, and YOU are the manager of a new gladiator team. Can you find the ultimate team and claim victory?

So, basically, warriors from all over space and time (though not more recent than the set official date, say, the 1600s) are drafted into teams, drugged and brainwashed not to panic, and fielded against eachother in bloody matches, accompanied by cheery commentary full of bad puns and crowd-pandering.

The suggesters would make (or possibly choose) the initial team, drafting from across time and space, but I'm thinking there wouldn't be much control over the team (not at all inside matches). Instead, the focus of the game will be on betting and gaining points through successful betting. With these points, people can become Sponsors of a player or several and try to get them to the top of the league (alive).

Or maybe I should go for a more manager-focused deal. What do you think? It'd stay safely suggestion-driven singleplayer, then.

Spoiler: Betting (click to show/hide)

What's an amoral future without a little gambling? You can make bets of all kinds, from a simple 'Team A will win the match' to a 'Player D will be wounded non-fatally in the final three rounds' deal. If you're lucky/good, you can win big, or play badly and lose it all in one go.

These points can then be hoarded (always nice to be the best), or used to become a...

Spoiler: Sponsor (click to show/hide)

You can become a Sponsor if you have the points and brains. As a Sponsor, you'll take a specific player under your wing and try to improve their chances of surviving and becoming a legend. But mostly, making you money with good playing and exciting matches. If you've got the cash, you can acquire several.

As a Sponsor, you can purchase weapons and equipment (of modern make and power!), temporary stat boosts, healing, trainers, gifts and whatnot. With enough cash, you can even resurrect them from the dead when they fall. You'll also be able to organize specific matches of practically any kind and sometimes buy/sell players from/to other teams.

But beware, for the world of sponsors is just as dangerous as the arena, and there is always competition. Perhaps you'll fall to underhanded means to make sure your guys get it done.

Spoiler: System/Gladiator Stats (click to show/hide)

The time-and-space-displaced gladiators have a variety of stats that affect how they fare in battle. These generally range from 1 to 6.

Strength affects melee damage and physical toughness, as well as wrestling moves and miscellaneous physique checks.

Agility affects dodging, moving speed, dexterity & aim with both melee and ranged.

Stamina determines the number of actions (move, attack, dodge) a combatant can take per turn and affects special attacks, if any.

Fellowship determines ability to work in a team. Low Fellowship leads to penalties when fighting in a group, while high gives bonuses for the same. Either way, Fellowship affects the behavior of fighters - High Fel gladiators are first to go to a wounded comrade's aid even if it costs them/the team, while low Fel are considered more with their own survival.

Discipline determines how well a fighter can make use of formations and follow orders and tactics. Very high Discipline can be harmful as the fighter is unable to cope with changing fighting conditions.

Ferocity allows fighters to intimidate opponents and attract 'heat', making foes more likely to attack them. High Ferocity can lead to a fighter ignoring orders and taking reckless action.

Awareness determines how well a fighter can fathom the changing battlefield, allowing them to pick out lone, vulnerable fighters and watch for flankers even in the fury of battle.

Acclimization represents how easily a fighter can get used to his new life and improve and gain experience, as well as use Sponsor (futuristic) equipment.

A pseudo-stat is the Stardom Rating of a fighter, which affects point profits as well as sponsor interest. Famous historical figures drafted into the league will automatically have high Stardom, but others will gain or lose it through combat prowess and entertaining the public.

Fighters would also possess weapons/equipment and possibly special attacks.

Spoiler: Fighter and Match Types (click to show/hide)

In a team, every fighter has a Role. These Roles are;

Harasser, a fast, high-agility fighter who harasses and breaks enemy formations, attempting to lure high-Fer combatants to their doom. Their main stats are Agility, Discipline and Stamina.

Shieldsman/Guardian/Name Pending, a fighter tasked with keeping foes away from vulnerable teammates and watches for flankers. Their main stats are Fellowship, Strength and Agility.

Slicer, a fast-moving, fast-hitting fighter who attempts to take down lone/vulnerable enemies as swiftly as possible. Their main stats are Agility, Awareness and Stamina.

Tank/Name Pending, a big and tough fighter who gets the enemy's attention, taking hits to leave their teammates free. Their main stats are Strength, Ferocity and Fellowship.

Driver, an high-awareness fighter who ties up foes, especially Harassers and Slicers and sometimes Shieldsmen, in combat. Their main stats are Agility, Awarenes and Ferocity.

Hammer, a balanced fighter able to dish it out and protect in equal measure. Their main stats are Strength, Agility and Fellowship.

Dagger, a sneaky, non-standard fighter who uses speed and surprise to take down or disorient vulnerable enemies and change the course of the game. Their main stats are Agility and Awareness.

Bastion, a dedicated defender who always sticks close to their teammate(s) and aids them in combat. Their main stats are Discipline and Fellowship.

The team can get into several types of matches as the season goes on, from

Standard: 10-turn full-team deathmatch.
Bloodbath: 25-turn full-team deathmatch.
One-on-One: 5-turn 1v1 match.
Three-on-Three: 5-turn 3v3 match.
Sponsor Match: Can be anything - unfair teams, modern weapons, giant monsters...
Championship: The final game(s) of the season are played continuously to the death of one team.

If you want to help - names, criticism, suggestions, all are welcome. I'm currently wondering how to determine match scores - damage inflicted will contribute, as will kills, but not sure if more complex things ('successful defense') should be included. I'm also welcoming fighter roles and match types.

[Nerjin]

Name suggestions for your fighter types:

Harasser = Charger as their whole thing is to break enemy formation and that’s what the charge was used for historically.

Guardian = Defender. That’s exactly what they do.

Slicer=Assassin. It sounds better and doesn’t make them sound like quite a one-trick pony [Only using knives or something? What?” That was my first thought.

Tank is fine.

Driver = Jailer. Their main thing appears to be that they “tie-up” enemies so that they aren’t used as much. Seems like a better name than Driver who sounds like a buffing unit.

Hammer = This was a tough one but I finally settled for “Grunt”. I think it fits a bit better than hammer which sounds like a High Damage thing.

Dagger should be combined with Slicer because they seem to have the same sort of use. No need for a redundant class.

Bastion should be combined with Guardian for the same reason as stated above.
Capture the Flag= A less bloody but less risky game-type that only ends when one team captures the flag.

Destruction= Several “Posts” are set up with random stats. The team which destroys the most wins. Kills and Damage still give points just not as much as a “Destruction”

Forts= One team starts in a fortified position. The game ends when one team is killed or if the “attackers” enter the Fort.
Match Scores should be rated as following and give a boost to the “Team Score”:

Epicness: Based on risky moves that pay off.

Fairness: A band of Modern day AK weilders fighting off Cavemen is boring. This lowers the score ONLY if it’s outside of a threshold. Otherwise it has no effect.

Star Power: Two famous guys fighting? Fun! Two unknowns? Also fun, but to a lesser degree.

“Team Score” is influenced by the above but also by the following:

Risk: Your team pulled off a risky move that got the crowd cheering? Good job bonus points. They tried one but failed? Bad form. Lose points.

Star Power: People love seeing the stars of the team put into a match. But they also like seeing people the loathe killed in one. You can actually cooperate with another sponser to remove one of your “Unsavory” players to the delight of the crowd with boosts both teams ratings [if that needs clarification I can]

Damage inflicted: Obvious

Kills: Obvious

That’s all I got for ideas on the actual game… Except for this advice:

Go through and cut out redundant stuff: Classes, stats, or whatever you feel may be covered already. That’ll cut down on unneeded complexity which makes a game more enjoyable [To me at least]

As for the actual name of the game [if that’s what you’re wanting] I have only one suggestion so far:

“Coliseum 1600 A.D.”

[Digital Hellhound]

@Roles: Harasser is likely to stay in ranged (but sometimes do hit-and-run and charges as well), so I doubt I'll change that.

Guardian I think I was a bit unclear with. They are fighters who move around the battlefield a lot, staying free from combat and generally retaining a sense of the battle, so they can jump in when someone seems to be getting their ass kicked. They're not defenders per se - more relievers.

Slicers and Daggers - Daggers are surprise weapons that can pop out without a warning to deliver the blow that wins the game. Slicers are open, visible attackers who circle around looking for reckless/vulnerable prey. There is some overlap, yes - I'll think on this. Assassin isn't really Slicer's cup of tea, though, as they don't give two shits about stealth.

Driver is a bit off-sounding, but Jailer doesn't sound that good either. Hmm.

Hammer I'm not changing - it's a reference to an earlier game of mine, like Dagger, ehehe. They are 'blunt instruments' who get the job done but don't have any real finesse in it.

Bear in mind that these are just the role the fighter players on the field - they could be absolutely terrible at it, but that's what they've been ordered to do, damnit.

Thanks for the suggestions, anyway!

[Nerjin]

@Roles: Harasser is likely to stay in ranged (but sometimes do hit-and-run and charges as well), so I doubt I'll change that.

Guardian I think I was a bit unclear with. They are fighters who move around the battlefield a lot, staying free from combat and generally retaining a sense of the battle, so they can jump in when someone seems to be getting their ass kicked. They're not defenders per se - more relievers.

Slicers and Daggers - Daggers are surprise weapons that can pop out without a warning to deliver the blow that wins the game. Slicers are open, visible attackers who circle around looking for reckless/vulnerable prey. There is some overlap, yes - I'll think on this. Assassin isn't really Slicer's cup of tea, though, as they don't give two shits about stealth.

Driver is a bit off-sounding, but Jailer doesn't sound that good either. Hmm.

Hammer I'm not changing - it's a reference to an earlier game of mine, like Dagger, ehehe. They are 'blunt instruments' who get the job done but don't have any real finesse in it.

Bear in mind that these are just the role the fighter players on the field - they could be absolutely terrible at it, but that's what they've been ordered to do, damnit.

Thanks for the suggestions, anyway!

Alright. It's fine. You know it better than I do though.

[Xantalos]

I think I would enjoy that.
I assume it's limited to Earthlings? Otherwise some opportunistic bastard (ahem) would make up some OP alien guy.

[Digital Hellhound]

I'm sure a Sponsor will bring in alien monstrosities for everyone to enjoy, but normally not. I'm considering some urban fantasy (does... that term go if it's in the past?) elements, but *shrug*.

[Nerjin]

With regards to the "Driver" name problem... Perhaps "Warden" is appropriate?

[freeformschooler]

So let's talk suggestion combat.

I need a fun combat system for use in suggestion games. Up until now, I've been using a D20-based system, but that leaves me with an issue. The players, as a collective whole, are at the mercy of entirely random rolls. Not even individual players who can help each other out, just the suggestion results themselves are dependent on these rolls. It's not really fun to have a character die when you roll five straight 1s, but it's even less fun when that character is the viewpoint character of a story and at that point those 1s might as well have been GM railroading.

I have a few ideas around this, but none are without drawbacks. One idea: puzzle combat. I'm not great at puzzle design, but the gist is essentially that each turn, every enemy has a little puzzle that pops over their head (but not one with a binary solution.) The readers could argue about how to solve the tiny puzzles, and their effectiveness in collectively doing so would determine how well the combat round goes for the player. The primary upside to this is it really does become a suggestion game under a facade of puzzle RPG rules. The many downsides include players possibly being able to figure out all the puzzles perfectly every time, potential repetition or worse lack of it (a new puzzle for every Goomba? HA!), so on etc continued.

Another idea is a combat system based purely around risk management. Has anyone played Penny Arcade's game, Precipice of Darkness 3? Essentially, in that game, all combat is based around careful manipulation of a timing bar. Giving yourself more moves, skipping enemy turns, pushing them further and further away by timing your skills to align everything just right. In a suggestion game adaption of it, there would be multiple things to react to every combat round, and determining how and when you're going to deal with them would determine the outcomes. I don't even need to describe the problems with this as they're probably similar to the above idea.

Third idea: truly interactive battles. This one would be the highest workload but the greatest control over the outcome. Essentially, I would create - in Adobe Flash - some way to interpret each combat round and have the players play it directly. They'd be given a code based on what score they got/what skills and items they used/how much HP they lost and would then post it in the thread. The average (or median?) of each reader's codes would be taken and used as the result for the actual combat round. The downsides to this are pretty hefty - that's far too much work for multi-round combat, so each scene would have to be played to completion in-Flash before a code is given.

Anyone have any other ideas? I need creativity, here.

[Bdthemag]

Sudden random/stupid idea. A game in which the players play the main-character during non-combat scenes. but they have to control the enemies the hero faces in combat scenes. All of the enemies have overpowered and dangerous moves, so it's the players' job to use the least harmful moves in a way that will make sure the hero survives.

God damn, now I know how Peter Molyneux feels.

[Digital Hellhound]

Heh, there was a MSPA forum adventure where a number of player suggestions were chosen at random, some for the PC, some for the enemy. It was hilarious (you can never know if your 'punch yourself in the face' is gonna go to the enemy or yourself.

Not the same, but I'd love to see someone use it.

[freeformschooler]

Heh, there was a MSPA forum adventure where a number of player suggestions were chosen at random, some for the PC, some for the enemy. It was hilarious (you can never know if your 'punch yourself in the face' is gonna go to the enemy or yourself.

Not the same, but I'd love to see someone use it.

I tried this once, only instead of the players directly suggesting actions, they suggested songs from youtube which were interpreted as actions. The less popular ones were used for the enemies. Basically:

God damn, now I know how Peter Molyneux feels.

[monk12]

To my thinking, the biggest drawback with dice-based mechanics in a forum game is that you don't have the opportunity to roll a great many dice without slowing the whole game waaaay down. In Dungeons and Dragons, if you have a few bad dice rolls in a row the consequence is that the combat takes a bit longer, and you may have to use more consumables. Over the long haul, bad dice even themselves out. Forum game combats don't usually have a long haul, though- if there's five rounds of combat, it's a long fight.

On top of that, there's the fact that forum games tend to have fewer mechanics in general, and that's important because there's fewer non-random action available to the player. In particular, movement and positioning just don't play well with forum games. If I lose a game of Blood Bowl, sure, there's probably a play I can point to where the dice just didn't fall my way and the other guy tore me up, but on the whole I probably could have mitigated or even prevented that with better positioning before rolling any dice. That aspect is wholly under my control. Forum games, not so much.

So, generally speaking, when I'm looking to improve suggestion game combat, I'm looking to reduce the randomness of player actions, and I'm looking to reduce the consequences for poor dice (or at least make it easier to recover from.)


As far as reducing badness of randomness: Make it harder to die. The idea is that losing all your hitpoints is a setback for the character, but not a game-ending one. The upside is that it gets easier to bounce back from bad dice without losing the advantages of having the possibility for good dice, and is generally easier to tack on to existing mechanics than my other ideas. The downside is that you need to find a credible setback to inflict instead of death, and that largely depends on the game. Does it make sense for combat to be able to end in favor of the bad guys without being a game over? Are there Phoenix Downs which could have otherwise been used to acquire loot? It's much harder to do in a setting where "no quarter" is the assumed combat state.

As far as reducing randomness in general: Non-dice based combat mechanics, obviously. You already mentioned puzzle-based mechanics, which would be neat even though I personally suck at it (creation or solving, either one.) The other that springs to mind that could work quite well as a forum game would be a Collectible Card Game style thing. The upside is that it keeps some randomness (did you get the card you need/want, or the ability to play that card?) while also giving players the ability to quickly adapt to poor luck (don't have enough SP to cast Summon Blorblemancer, so we should play one of these other cards instead.) For a straight RPG-style combat, you could have a base pool of "regular" actions that are always available, and then the random special ability cards based on how you've outfitted yourself and your party. It also narrows player choice down a little, and the effects of their actions are entirely predictable (though maybe not the enemy's actions.) Downside, you have to design a goddam CCG. So yeah, nothing you can just whip up. Possibly easier than "mini flash game for every single combat" though

I also had a crazy idea about making every upvote count as extra dice/modifiers to actions (reducing randomness, encouraging unity of action) but I rather suspect that would be hard to balance/easy to abuse, so I didn't put much more thought into it.

I hope this train of thought was not instigated by future events in Warrens.

[freeformschooler]

As far as reducing randomness in general: Non-dice based combat mechanics, obviously. You already mentioned puzzle-based mechanics, which would be neat even though I personally suck at it (creation or solving, either one.) The other that springs to mind that could work quite well as a forum game would be a Collectible Card Game style thing. ccg ccg ccg ccg ccg

At first I was going to say this is the best idea all day but then realized I'd already done this before too and screwed it up so, so badly.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's not to say there weren't some good ideas in that short-lived game. In fact, let me see if I can't remember exactly how combat worked in that game. Hmmmmm~

Basic mechanic: there is zero randomness available in combat. Six primary stats: AGG(ression), FOR(titude), BRI(lliance), AWA(reness), HP, SP. They were named differently in Traveler, but that's the gist of it. Aggression-fortitude for physical damage (or AWA-FOR for ranged stuff like bows), BRI-FOR for magic damage and then the whole gamut of secondary effects. SP used to activate cards/effects, HP used to not die. The intent with this system was to give the players a method of specializing in certain stats while not being something that was complex enough to need "learning."
Cards: In Traveler, Cards took the form of Copy Cards. Miranda (the MC) could not naturally gain new abilities like most people, so she instead relied on the power of green-and-white cards which analyzed and copied anything - items in the world, enemy attacks and so on. Each card had a whole slew of conditional effects and lore. Outside of utilizing them in battle, Miranda could also directly manipulate them at a great SP cost (combining them, sacrificing them to gain boons/EXP for the next stat gain).

The point of this system was to provide the players something to plan out, research and carefully coordinate. Players love that kind of thing.
The Stat Grid: Instead of having traditional stat representations, each stat was laid out across a grid that Miranda had some control over. The HP blocks absorbed damage, the AGG blocks combined to equal Miranda's total AGG, stuff like that. Actually, this was a really stupid idea, now that I think about it.

Basically, though, it's Baiten Kaitos: the suggestion game. Instead of drawing cards at random, the players would have more fine control over their deck. I'm not sure how exactly this compares to your suggestion which sounds like more like Chain of Memories. I'll definitely be including some form of this in my next game, but I'm not sure how much work it would be.

[IronyOwl]

I'll have to give this some more thought later, but what immediately comes to mind is this:


Risk/Reward
I've never played PA3, but I like the notion of tying randomness to wagers on that randomness.

Essentially, the problem with standard randomness is that there's no alternative and no variable wager. If you miss on an attack, you've missed on an attack. It wasn't really a calculated risk or an intentional gamble, it was just the only thing you could do and sometimes that thing fails. Monk addressed a lot of this with his positioning example, but the short version is that suggestion games tend to lack the complexity to make most failed rolls meaningful. Running vs fighting to the death is the closest they usually get.

So that leads us to wagers. Suppose normal attacks always hit, but you can Power Attack for increased damage at the cost of a chance of missing? Suddenly things get interesting. The problem here is that there's probably going to be a mathematically ideal solution for every situation, meaning you either need to meticulously calculate everything out to make it even, or ensure that there's always room for debate. Which brings us to...


Differing Goals
What if combat affects things outside combat?

See, one of the things that makes a small thing interesting is how it slots into a big thing. Supremely mundane and banal things, like which square to place your guy on or whether a 100 hp unit takes 12 or 13 damage, can become interesting if they start affecting whether or not your healer gets clubbed or whether you'll be able to kill something fast enough to loot a chest. Conversely, combat tends to become menial when it really doesn't matter- if the enemies can't really hurt you or paying attention to them can't really make them hurt you less, you end up with grinding.

So in this specific case, suppose you let actions in combat affect more than just the amount of damage dealt that round. As a modest example, you could have attacks or other maneuvers that recover HP or SP, but at some sort of cost or risk. More ambitiously, you could have attacks that grant bonus experience or have a chance to produce bonus wealth or raw materials, moves that defend or heal an ally, or moves that weaken or wound them for your own benefit.

The end result, ideally, would be that there'd always be room for debate as to what to do in combat, because there'd always be options and they'd always matter. Under more ideal circumstances, you'd have concerns like whether to finish a fight at full HP or with a new item, or whether to keep yourself at moderate HP while an ally sits at low health or risk dropping low yourself to make sure they don't get finished off. Under more mundane circumstances, you'd have issues like whether HP or SP is more important, whether 3 exp is better than a Wartortoise Shell Fragment, who you want to start with a Finisher Shield next combat, and so on.


Moveset Modification
There's also a lot of room for fiddling with a system like this, though you run the risk of making (permanent or temporary) exp bots or similar if it gets (or can be made) too constrained. Different characters could have different mechanics for their different moves, even if they accomplished the same basic goal (HP recovery, SP recovery, EXP generation, ally-healing, etc). You could also do some sort of card system, or base their current moveset on their mood, goals, or other stuff, but again constraining the moveset too much might result in one option always being better than the others.


So, short version: Give everyone a wide set of moves accomplishing both long and short-term goals, tie risks or other disadvantages to some of them. Then everyone gets to argue about whether gaining more experience is worth the risk of missing or whether protecting a certain ally is better than gaining a new hat.



Finally, the third option you listed is insane.

[Fniff]

Here's a solution to the whole "You're dead now, suggestion game over" thing.

You play as a zombie who can constantly resurrect. However, the problem is if you die, you lose everything since your stuff has been looted, and if you die enough times there is the potential that you will start losing limbs and need to recover them.