In Progress - RPG Tactical Zones Theater of the Mind Combat Aid

 

    I usually run "theater of the mind" styled combats.  I'm not a fan of grids for tabletop RPGs, I love dedicated wargames like Battletech or Warhammer 40k but don't usually run RPG games that focused on combat.  It's kinda hard to run good combats off of the rough sketches I make however, so I started wondering if there was a better way to represent a battlefield that was not super-detailed.

    What I came up with is pictured to the side, dividing up the battlefield by the roles involved.  This is not a totally original idea, The One Ring RPG by Cubicle 7 uses something similar (a little from the D&D 4th ed combat roles too).  I'm adapting it in a more free-form way however.  You can just use the boxes without worrying about the roles to have a good idea of where everybody is, put your miniature or token in the corresponding space.  Or you could get more detailed, adding bonuses or penalties to each role to help make combat more tactical without the foot-counting precision of a grid.

    I'd love to come up with a full set of house rules for several systems, like the D&D 5th ed I usually run, but also Fate and any other game that could use a semi-structured combat.  Something for those like me who enjoy tactical choices but doesn't want to get too in-depth.  I'm still working on ideas though, and with 2020 my group has had a hard time meeting to play of course.  So I'm not sure when I'll be able to craft something detailed - but I decided to go ahead and throw this out there and see if anyone found it helpful.

    EDIT 1/10/2023: Due to current confusion about the upcoming OGL v1.1 and how that might relate to the previous OGL 1.0a that I was using, I have removed all links to my previous documents.  I will try to alter and re-upload them in the near future.

    I have a few more ideas like this, visual aids for some common challenges, that I am going to be posting in the near future as well.  I always welcome comments (it's nice to know somebody's reading this, inconsistent as I am about it).

The Reverse-Roll (inspired by Lindybeige)

    Okay, so I saw this video a long time ago, and it's always been there in the back of my head.  It's not too long, so watch it (since the rest of this post is going to talk about it)...

    I cannot shake this idea.  I am not a big fan of rolling dice.  I know some players love to roll fist-fulls of dEverythings, but I've never really felt that the act of rolling was all that dramatic or interesting in itself.  And it never made all that much sense to me, given that the traditional d20 is a flat distribution, I never have any idea what I'm going to roll - so I can never rely on my character's performance or predict what I might be able to do except in general terms.  And as GM, I cannot f###ing stand 5 turns of nobody able to hit each other!!!  Which has happened a lot, more than often enough to be noticeable (heck, 13th Age included a mechanic to increase your odds to hit over time, no doubt because they'd noticed this too).  I'm a believer that a novice has wild swings of capability, but an expert has a more consistent output (something I'll talk about in another article).
    So what I love about this idea is that it takes the "randomness" away from saying the player had these huge swings of capability (of course, thinking about it, an single die would still be flat, so there would still be some "swinginess") and that the world is unknown until it's interacted with (a Schrodinger's Cat situation).  I think it would be great to try making all the PCs skills and abilities static numbers, and the roll is only to determine the challenge in the world.  I would like this as a player, because it would give me the feeling that I knew what I was capable of.  And it also has the feeling of discovery, of not knowing what the world is like until you try to change it.
    Two things he mentions in the video that I thought about.  He talks about making a video, that he knows how to make videos - which I think is a perfectly accurate description.  So what is the roll for?  Audience reaction.  The roll says how people in general react to your video (ie, successful means that your video was well-received, failure means that not many people responded positively to it).  Also, he talks about climbing a wall, and maybe re-rolling if the same character had to climb it under pressure - well, then just add a die to the result you already found.  So say you roll a d20 for the wall's "difficulty" and get a 15, which the player can climb.  On the way back the player is being chased by the guards, so add a d6 to the base difficulty (or maybe d10) and see if the player can still climb it.

    Okay, so it's an interesting idea in the abstract, how would it actually work though?
    Well, heck, let me see if I can knock out something.  Since I've been working with the 5th Edition SRD, that's what I'm going to throw out some numbers for.  In that system rolls are made up of 4 parts: d20 roll + attribute modifier + proficiency bonus + any other modifiers.  The d20 roll can be done 3 ways, a single die, 2 dice take best (which the system equates to +5) and 2 dice take worst (or -5).  Attribute modifiers generally run from -1 to +4 for most players, the table absolutely goes from -5 to +10.  Proficiency bonuses go from +2 to +6.  And it's hard to call other modifiers, they seem to be pretty low (I believe most magic items are up to a +3).  Okay, those are the basic numbers used by the system.
    The first thing I think of is using the attribute scores instead of the modifiers.  The 5e's system is screwy, there is a score, like 14, and a modifier, +2 in that case.  You only use the score for perquisites (which really means only feats, which are optional), the modifier is what really gets used regularly.  It seems like it would be better to just use the modifier and tie perquisites to it as well (though, in that case there's not much reason to roll dice for the the score, a point-buy or priority system would be better, so it would be a big change from previous editions).  Anyways, while the basic system does not use the attribute score very often, for a reverse-roll variant it would come in handy.  If the character's ability was Attribute Score + Proficiency (if applicable), you'd be looking at around a 16 for something a beginning character was skilled/ proficient at, going up to 20 as a max at first level (and 10 for somebody unskilled and unexceptional).  So what if "beginning difficulty" was d20 + 5, below the player's score a success ?  According to AnyDice.com that would be an 25% chance of 10 or less, 55% chance of 16 or less, and 75% chance of 20 or less.  That's actually not too bad.  You could even keep Advantage and Disadvantage, just now you want a low number so you reverse them: Advantage rolls 2d20 and takes the lowest, Disadvantage 2d20 and takes highest.  You wouldn't need to change any numbers at all.  Of course, what about combat?  Well, maybe instead of the "+5" to the roll, in combat you add the monster's Armor Class to the d20?  ACs go from 11 to 18, just drop the 10, so from +1 to +8 with +Dex for lighter armors and +2 for a shield.  That should work just fine.  Contested checks could be the same way, instead of d20+5 do d20+NPC Attribute Modifier (or Att Mod x 2 maybe)(or, Att Mod + Proficiency if NPC would have it?).  If you add a "level" to challenges, you could add +1 to the base roll for every level the challenge was above 1st, though with the narrow math that's tricky.  You might want to say it's d20 +3 +Proficiency Mod for Level (which is +2 at 1st level, so that makes the d20+5, and that would then go up as the characters do, or if you want to put in a "super-hard" lock or challenge that would use the next highest Proficiency Modifier).  Not sure about how to scale up challenges, the game is designed with some weird math.

    Since I don't have a group to playtest this with, I can't really come up with a very good idea of how to play this, but I love the concept.  The world is a blank slate, it's revealed when the players interact with it - but the players know exactly what they are capable of (and if the characters fail/ come up short, they know exactly how much they need to make up).  I'm not sure that matters to anybody other than me, but that seems like an awesome mechanic.


Random Thought: this came to me later, from another blogger I read long ago (and of course can't remember who).  I call it the "Combat Grind" variant, for tables who want more vicious fights.  Use the reverse-roll, PC Attribute Score + Proficiency vs d20 + NPC AC(-10), which sets who has the Edge.  Since Hit Points are an abstraction of physical wounds, vitality, skill and luck, then one could argue that it should be impossible to fight and not lose HP.  After all, at the minimum you have to spend physical effort, swinging your sword, and using up luck to not get wounded.  So, for each round of combat, the Edge stays the same (unless someone can come up with some kind of fancy maneuver, like a disarm or trip), instead both sides roll their damage, whomever has the edge adds it to their damage roll.  So, two fighters with d8 longswords.  PC fighter has 14 Str + 2 for being proficient at level 1, NPC fighter is wearing Chain Mail (AC 16) - so a d20+6 is rolled, getting a 21 total.  Okay, that makes me face-palm, in combat I'm totally forgetting about the PCs armor.  Okay, let's add the PCs Att score, AC (-10), and Proficiency Bonus (if applicable), against that we'll roll d20 + NPC AC (-10) + NPC Proficiency Bonus (if applicable).  So let's say 14 Str +2 Prof + 6 chain mail AC or 22 vs d20 + 6 (we'll give them the same armor) + 2 (and assume both proficient) [the NPCs attribute will be the d20, did you find the really string bandit or the weak one?].  So, that way, let's roll again: and get a 17 this time.  Okay, the PCs total is 22, so 17 is 5 points lower, low is a success, so the PC has a 5-point Edge.  Now, the fight actually starts, each turn the PC rolls his d8 damage + 5 for the Edge, but he takes the NPCs d8 damage as well (oh, and both add Str mod, if you want to make it meaner - might get a little too lethal though).  So each turn the PC is losing HP, he's getting tired, wounded, un-lucky - but since he has the edge he's wearing down the other guy a lot faster.  Since characters heal with every rest, the PC can heal himself back up, but he's going to need rest a lot more since every round of every fight he's guaranteed to get hurt.  Hence my calling it the "Combat Grind."  It might be something to try to those GMs and PCs who think 5th Ed.s combat is too easy (since healing is much more plentiful than previous editions); or for those tables that just want combat to feel scary.  It also might be a total mess, I don't know :)  The idea came to me so I figured while I was throwing out random, un-tested mechanics I might as well add one more ;)

Combat Capabilities 3 - Defining the capabilities

    The last time I worked on my "combat capabilities" idea it went a little off the rails.  Thinking on it some more, I really need to nail down better definitions of what each capability is supposed to do - and then figure out why that might be a better idea than "I hit it with my axe."  So, what are the capabilities?

⦁    Striking
⦁    Protecting
⦁    Grappling
⦁    Skirmishing
⦁    Buff/ Aid/ Assist
⦁    Spoiler/ Debuff
⦁    Ranged/ Archer/ Artillery
⦁    Leader/ Teamwork
⦁    Strategist/ Tactician
⦁    Controller

    I really need some better names too, so let's see if we can tighten up this list...

Strike
    Well, let's go ahead and start from "I hit it with my axe" :)  This is an easy and straightforward capability, doing damage to your opponent.  It's kind of the default that all others are measured by.

Defend
    Not getting hit is 'default action #2.'  Staying alive is always a good thing.  This is not just for oneself though, we need to remember that you can defend allies as well ('every Spartan protects his ally from the neck to the knee' - or whatever the exact line is from 300).  This is the weakest of the capabilities in a way, because it doesn't really do anything, it tries to prevent something.   Which is not glamorous, but may be essential depending on the circumstances.

Grapple
    So while the action of grappling is defined as 'putting your hands on a foe' I have thought of the effect as being to decrease every capability your foe has.  Your foe is trying to attack with his sword and shield, you move to grapple him, now he is going to have a hard time swinging that sword or blocking with that shield since you're right in his face; grabbing his shield, blocking his sword swings, and generally being a nuisance.
    Grapple seems to really be a "set up" capability - you are interfering with the foe's ability to act in order to set them up for another action, like a Strike (grab and hit/ bear-hug/ choke), Interfere (joint lock an arm, Interfering with the foe's ability to use that limb), Position (grab and throw) or Control (grab and punch them with their own fist ["stop hitting yourself']).  It doesn't seem like something you would do for it's own sake.

Position
    One definition I've seen of "tactics" is "having the right assets in the right place at the right time."  Position is about being at that right place, and also in the right state.  Being thrown to the ground is Position, so is kneeling for more stability and a better shot.  Creeping around the edge of the battlefield to backstab - or climbing up the giant's pant-leg to stab them somewhere vital - both Position.  This capability is for when you're not in the right place to do what you want to do.

Assist
    Helping someone else is like Defend, it's not really glamorous but it may be necessary.  This capability really comes into its own if there are things that are impossible to do alone.  If the monster has an AC/defense that is too high for any character to hit on their own, then you need to gang-up on it with some 'Assist's - which could be invaluable for "Solo or Boss" monsters that are meant to take on the whole party single-handedly.  All the Boss' stats may be too high for any one PC to effect or negate, so they need to team up to survive.  Does this need to be a separate capability or can you say that you can add half/ all of your capability to an ally who's doing the same action?  That's a good question.

Interfere
    Interfere is the flip-side of Assist.  While Assist increases an Ally, Interfere decreases a foe.  The difference is in targeting.  Assist helps one ally, but Interfere helps all allies.  You Assist one friend with a Strike, giving them a better chance to hit.  But if you Interfere with the foe's AC/ defense then you help every ally's Strike.
    So why Assist when you can Interfere?  Well, there would have to be a reason.  It seems logical that Interfere would be harder to do, cost more resources or have a lower chance of success.  It's also an argument for making Assist a 'default' action and Interfere a capability that would need to be bought somehow.

Bombard
    Melee and Ranged combat are similar at heart, but have enough different circumstantial modifiers that I think they need to be categorized separately - so Bombard is basically Strike but at range ("I shoot it with my bow").  This brings things like cover and 'shooting into a crowd' into play, which don't really apply to a strike.

Lead
    In my mind Lead is kind of a hybrid of Assist and Interfere.  The idea was that a player can start by using a Lead/ Leader action on one foe, that action would place a pool of points on that foe - then, any ally who acted after the leader can draw from that pool to increase any action.  So the Leader 'tags' Thug #1 with 4 points.  The next PC draws 2 points to increase her Strike, leaving 2 points on the foe.  Then the following PC draws the last 2 points to increase a Defend, which removes all the bonus points on that foe.  The benefit obviously is flexibility, Assist and Interfere are both targeted to something specific, you Assist a Strike or Interfere with Defend, while Lead lets each ally do whatever they need the most.

Read
    This capability is one that I want to include the most but have the hardest time figuring out how to do right.  Read is all about seeing what's coming.  Knowing how you foe is going to act, which should give you a big tactical upper-hand since you can then plan for how to best defend against or counter the foe's actions.  The devil for this is in the details, how much can you see and when can you see it - and then what exactly can you do about it?  But I have to admit I have always had a soft spot for the "smart guy" - the fighter who uses brains over brawn to win - so I really want to make this a cool option that does not seem to exist much in most games.

Control
    Moving in-between two foes then ducking so they shoot each other, using a spell of telekinesis to pull a shield out of a foe's hand, or a throwing a tanglefoot bag to lock a foe in place - all these are Control.  Either controlling a foe's actions, their target for an action, or denying them a choice of action.  This is one of the hardest capabilities because it can be the most powerful and the hardest to justify in the game world.  But it can create some really cool 'cinematic' moments and advanced tactics.


    One thing about this system is that it's focused on what happens to the target/ enemies/ other players.  Some "tactical" systems are built around the acting player - like "Power Attack" that gives the acting player a bonus to damage for a penalty to hit.  That kind of player-focus is what I want to get away from with this system, which is why the abilities are described and categorized the way they are.  I want each player to be focused on how her actions are effecting the group and the fight as a whole.
    These definitions give me a better way to look at actions, in a general sense.  Let's take that Tanglefoot Bag.  It is a ranged weapon, so it's a Bombard action to use.  If you target a foe's body the goop spreads all over them, sticking and hindering their actions (Grapple), if you target the foe's legs it locks them in place (Control, cannot Position).  This example also shows how different capabilities can interact - the Tanglefoot bag gives any character who can make a Bombard action/ capability the option to do a Grapple or Control - thus expanding their tactical space.  The old D&D 4th edition idea of "Marking" for the fighter could be something like: you can make a Strike, and apply that die roll as a Lead to that foe (or an Interfere (Strike) to any ally other than you).  Backstab = make a Position roll, and next turn add it to a Strike against an opponent you can flank that is vulnerable to critical hits.

    A big part of tactical combat is in setting up what is and is not possible, or likely.  If every opponent can be hit, why not always Strike?  If every attack can be defended, why not always Defend?  But if you mix it up - the Dragon's scales are too thick to penetrate with any of your weapons, now what?  Well, can we Assist/ Interfere to get the 'target number' within the possible range?  Can I Position to climb on it's back and stab it behind the ear? (I think it was the Dragon Age anime movie that had that move)  The Giant is swinging a tree-trunk bigger than you, you cannot Defend against it if it hits.  Well, can I Position to get out of the way, or Position + Bombard to "kite" it, back-pedaling and shooting?  Can the mage Control the Giant with telekinesis to make it's swings miss? (or Interfere/ Strike on the giant)  Can the Archer make a ranged attack to disarm it? (Control)  Can the party leader call out when it's going to attack, helping me dart in and out of range to stab it? (Lead or maybe even Read, or both)
    This is nothing new of course - good fights always take into account the tactical options of the combatants and the terrain; but I think that having a more explicit, clear system - like the capabilities descriptions and the combat capabilities map - would help both players and GMs to devise new strategies and interesting encounters.  Again, the idea is to expose the underpinnings that are really already in most games, just buried under the weight of individual ability descriptions (and sometimes buried under a mountain of numbers, stats and calculations).

    Here's a crazy scenario, off the top of my head:
    The party faces a dragon, and the leader Reads that the dragon's Defend is too high for any single player to overcome.  The players confer.  What, asks one fighter, if I stab it as hard as I can with my sword - and then the other fighter hits my sword with his two-handed great-hammer to drive it into the dragon?  The GM thinks, okay, I'll let you roll to Assist the second fighter's Strike - but you're now going to be disarmed.  They hit the dragon for some damage.  Well, says the thief, I can climb on it's back (Position) but it'll take me some time to find a soft spot to strike.  Hey, says the mage, what if I use my telekinesis to move the fighter's sword already in the dragon, to cause it pain.  Okay, says the GM, the mage can spend the spell slot and Interfere with the dragon trying to throw off the thief.  Or wait, says the mage, if the dragon's got a bit of metal in him, can I target that with my lightning bolt spell to bypass it's Defend?  Hey, says the thief, wait until I'm off it's back before you electrocute it will you!  The GM thinks about that...

    Anyways, just a random thing that popped into my head while I was writing this.  I will have to keep working on this idea...

Combat Capabilities Thoughts - Part 2 - The Duel

[Ed Note- My idea for the Combat Capabilities Map I posted before keeps expanding, the following came to me while I was just randomly thinking about the idea.  This is literally my stream-of-consciousness writing...]

    Shardavaren el'Meschal de Torrays expected this to be an easy assignment.  As a newly-elevated Queen's Own Shar, along with her mentor Eldavara el'Royans de Torrays, was sent to the neighboring Half-Ogre village of Slugfall (their quaint name for it) to escort home a Queen's Merchant.  The Half-Ogers were a warlike people, barbarians really, but they had been at peace with the Realm for as long as anyone could remember.  Lately Goblins had been spotted in the Shadow Forest near the village, so the Half-Ogers had been hunting their hated cousins in the woods - which left the roads open to bandits.  No one expected there to be any trouble, and certinly trouble would stay away from two of the Queen's Own.
    Of course, the road didn't turn out to be the problem - the village did.  Unbeknownst to the Merchant his son was Mageborn, and of course the boy's latent magic decided that the middle of a village of creatures who feared and hated magic would be the ideal place to manifest themselves.  The only sopt of fortune, if you could call it such, was that Sharn and Eldavara had arrived the evening after items had started moving on their own.  It took some very fast talking to try to soothe the Half-Ogers, and the final decision was not exactly ideal - at least as far as Sharn was concerned.
    The Half-Ogers killed any of their own with magic, which was what they wanted to do to the poor, frightened boy.  They knew that the Realm used magic though, so Eldavara set out to convince them that the boy would be taken back and safely contained.  That didn't quite work, there was some sort of behind-the-scenes maneuvering here that Sharn couldn't make out, and the Half-Ogers continued to press for killing the boy, and even started talking about adding his father for good measure.  Finally, Eldavara appealed to their belief in their gods, and managed to arrange a duel.  She argued that the gods (the Half-Oger's deities known for enjoying feats of prowess and contests of strength) must have brought the boy and the Queen's Own here at the same time to show the Half-Ogers that their allies could defeat any dark magic that might threaten both people.  It was clever, and it worked.
    Then, Eldavara sized up the Half-Oger's champion and declared that Sharn could handle the duel herself.
    Thus, Sharn now found herself stripping off her mail armor in the dawn's light, breath steaming in the chill of autumn, hoping that she didn't either embarrass herself or get an innocent boy killed - and wasn't a hundred percent sure which scared her more.  The fight itself was not going to be a problem, it was an honor-duel, to three touches and not blood.  Stepping into the circle (which the half-Ogers kept permanently for such occasions) and facing off against the tall, twisted brute of a man-thing she said a silent prayer to The Lady and started formulating a plan...

    The Combat Capabilities Map originally started as an idea for a party of characters - how to help show visually how each character fit into an overall strategy, and not just what specific actions they were taking.  But I wanted the capabilities to cover broad, almost "universal," types of combat actions; so it seemed logical that you could also apply the CCM to a single character.  Another thing was that I wanted this to be 'system neutral' at first, something that any game could use - but then I started thinking that most games are so focused on individual turn-based actions that it didn't seem like this was something you could just drop on top of an existing combat framework.  So, I started thinking about how to create a simple set of rules to go with the CCM.  I want something "rules-light" because most of the player's time should be spent considering what actions to take and not crunching numbers.
    Here, then, is the next evolution in the CCM concept.  It is still rough, horribly, embarrassingly rough - but I'm going to need to "think on paper" to develop this into something actually playable.  Along those lines, I'm going to describe our heroine, Sharn, and "play out" her duel described above.

Making A Character
    Sharn is going to be a new character, at a decent but lower power level.  She's a "smart" fighter, one who uses insight and speed more than brute strength.  So let's start making up some attributes and numbers and see what happens :)

Attributes
Physical:
  Power +1  Finesse +2
Emotional:
  Passion +2  Stability -1
Mental:
  Focus +2  Coherence 0

    Let's say that "average" is 0.  Power is like strength, it's the ability to generate and direct raw physical force.  Why not just call it 'strength'?  Because I want to make things sound different for now (which will likely change as the idea evolves, fancy terms for fancy terms' sake is not a good design principle).  At +1 Power Sharn is fit, athletic and in good shape.  Finesse is dexterity and reflexes, with +2 she's very nimble.
    I like the idea of separating emotional attributes from mental ones, heart and mind seem to be different forces on many people, and push them in different ways.  With a Passion of +2 she's very volatile, with Stability -1 she sometimes goes too passionate, and her strong feelings can lead her to make poor choices.
    Focus is mental power, the ability to concentrate and anaylze and deduce.  Coherence is a general awareness, and the ability to recognize and react to things around the character.  The high Focus means she has a laser-like awareness, but the average Coherence means she sometimes concentrates so much she gets blind-sided.

Capabilities
Fighting - 3 Combat Actions
  d8:  Tactician
  d6:  Protecting, Skirmishing
  d4:  Debuff, Striking
  +1/CA (stacking) for any action
 
    I'm thinking that we want default characters to be versatile, with at least a few capabilities.  I'd say that all characters get 3 Combat Capabilities, one at d6 and 2 at d4.  "Fighter" classes (or combat-focused characters) would get 5, 1 at d8, 2 at d6 and 2 at d4.  This way everybody has something they are best at, but also some other options to prevent (hopefully) the "I hit it with my axe" syndrome.
    Sharn is very much more a support character.  Her Striking, to directly damage in melee, is only a d4.  Skirmishing is about maneuver, getting in place to set up an attack or another action (like the Thief's iconic "sneak attack"), and at d6 it's respectable, so it can also be used offensively (I'm working on exactly how).  Her defense, Protecting,is also a solid d6.  Her best ability at d8 is Tactician, which helps her see how the battle is going to unfold.  And her last minor ability is Debuff at d4, letting her reduce an enemy's effectiveness.  Her blend of capabilities was meant to make a fighter who was not the stereotypical toe-to-toe slugger but someone who was smart and mobile.
    Each turn you spend Combat Actions (CA) on what capabilities you want to use.  1 CA = 1 die of that capability's type, or you can spend 1 CA to get a single +1 to any capability (or stack it with an existing die or itself).  The +1 default lets any character try anything, even though it might not be a lot (but hey, sometimes a fight comes down to just a point or two of difference).

Special Abilities
Passive:
  Master Parry - reduce 1 Striking die by 2 pts each turn
Active:
  Riposte - any Protection dice not countered become free attacks at -1 die type
Combo:
  Wave-Rider - spending only Skirmishing and Protection dice for one round gives a bonus Striking die the same type as the Skirmishing die on the next round.

    I was thinking there would be 3 kinds of abilities: Passive ones would be "always on," doing something each turn for free.  "Active" abilities change how the dice normally work, giving the fighter's capabilities different effects from the default anyone can use (and while Active abilities are supposed to always be better, a character could always choose to just do the default if needed).  "Combo" abilities would trigger something special if the dice were spent/used in a particular way.
    Sharn's "Master Parry" passive show's how she's defense-minded, always keeping her guard up.  The "Riposte" active ability means that if she has more Protection dice then the enemy's Striking attacks, she can turn the extras into attacks, but as smaller dice.  So her base d6 Protecting dice become only d4 Striking Ripostes.  "Wave-Rider" (from her 'Water-Form' school of fencing) let's her fall back, avoiding attacks and moving only, to gain an extra strike the next round (this bonus would be at d6 Striking, the same as her Skirmishing).

    With those three things we now have a character.  Let's play around with it and see what happens.  First though, we need an opponent if we're going to have a duel...


Sizing up the opposition
    Okay, so there's a big question in combat, and it is really important in a more tactical system like the one I'm trying to make here: how much is obvious and how much do you have to discover "in play"?
    A big part of tactics is not just in the choices that one can make - but also in the information one has to base those choices on.  If you knew everything you would have a huge tactical advantage, while knowing nothing makes every decision just a random throw of the dice (figuratively if not literally).  In-between somewhere is the balance line of what seems reasonable.  But how exactly to draw that line?
    I'm thinking that there should be 2 things that are "free" information: the Physical stats and the highest Capability.  Physically it doesn't seem to be unreasonable that you can look someone over and get a realistic feel for how powerful or nimble they are.  This would be for the "base stats" only, and special modifiers like magic or cybernetics might be hidden.  But I think each character should have at least a basic sense of other character's physical capabilities.  I also want to say that the highest combat capability would also be something that could be observed and deduced.  If a character's focus is Striking, well form follows function so they should have something about the way they stand, move, the weapons and armor and such they have, that would strongly suggest that.  If a character had more than one capability at the same die type, then the character would choose just one to reveal.
    These 2 things would also match the 2 points Sharn has in Focus, which matches with possibly making this Attribute-based, which I like the idea of - so let's see those 2 things about our enemy...

Half-Ogre Brute
Attributes                    
Physical:
  Power +3  Finesse +1
Capabilities 
  d8:  Striking

    Being Half-Orge it's not much of a surprise that he has a high Power, he still looks pretty nimble with +1 Finesse - he's no slow, hulking brute.  And his muscles and temperament make Striking a logical capability to be one of his highest.


Initiative
    So who goes first?  This is one of those foundational combat questions and sometimes a hard one to answer.  Well, it's always a hard one to answer.  There are so many ways to decide the turn order, and each adds a subtle to bold flavor to fighting.  I don't like the individual initiative roll that D&D/ Pathfinder uses.  I also don't really want to have different speeds for different weapons/ actions - that adds a lot of overhead tracking extra numbers.  Instead, I want to use the Combat Capabilities Map itself to track initiative.
    There are 2 types of initiative/ turn order, and they depend on how the fight starts.  If a fight starts at close-quarters (both parties within just a few feet of each other, close enough they could make it to the other side in 1 round) then combat goes from the inside-out.  First all Striking, Protecting and Grappling is resolved.  Next all Skirmishing, Buff and Debuff.  Last are Ranged, Leader, Tactician and Controller.  Then the next turn starts and repeats the same order.
    However, if a fight starts at a distance, or when both sides have time to see and prepare, then combat goes from the outside-in.  First are Ranged, Leader, Tactician, Controller.  Then Skirmishing, Buff and Debuff.  Last Striking, Protecting and Grappling.  Then the next turn goes in the same order.
    I do have some other weird ideas for how to do initiative - but let's stick with this system for our brainstorm session here.  And since this is a ritual fight between Sharn and the Brute, they both have plenty of time to size each other up so we're going to go from the outside-in.

Fight!
    Okay, let's begin round 1 of combat.
    First, everybody decides where they want to put their dice/ spend CAs.  Sharn decides to put 1 die in Tactician, 1 in Protecting and 1 in Striking.  She's hoping the Tactician re-rolls can let her lower the Brute's Striking or Protecting as needed.  Once she and the GM indicate they're ready, they put down their dice on the appropriate boxes.  The Brute is going to put 2 dice in Striking and 1 in Protecting.  Sharn also discovers that he has d6s for Protecting.  Placed dice have not been rolled, so they have no value yet.
    Going outside-in initiative means Sharn rolls her Tactician d8 first.  She gets a 3, and tactician uses her Focus, for a +2 and final score of 5.  Every 2 points gives her 1 re-roll, and she has to select one character to target - which is easy since she's only fighting the one Brute.
    Next, all the Striking and Protecting dice get rolled.  Sharn gets a 3 Protecting and 2 Striking - both are modified by her Finesse (Protecting always is and her Striking is because she's using a rapier, a light sword) for totals of 5 Striking and 4 Protecting.
    The Brute rolls 8 and 1 for Striking and 1 Protecting.  His Striking is modified by Power (for his large club) and Protecting by Finesse; so his final totals are  11 and 4 Striking, 2 Protecting.  Sharn decided to use one of her re-rolls on his highest Striking, which comes up a 6.  she uses the last re-roll on it again, but it comes up another 6.  So he has 9 and 4 Striking - then her Master Parry ability reduces those to 7 and 2.  Her 4 Protecting isn't enough to stop the 7, however everybody gets a base "Dodge" equal to their Finesse (so even if you don't use any Protecting dice you still have a chance not to get hit).  Shar's Finess of 2 matches the lower attack, so she'll Dodge it (have to roll over to hit).  Normally her Protection of 4 would reduce the 7 Striking to just 3 damage, but we're not counting hits (both are fighting for honor so it's assumed they're pulling their blows).  So Sharn is going to end up taking 1 hit, and the duel will end when someone takes 3.
    Sharn, however, gets in a hit herself since her Striking of 5 beats the Brute's Protecting of 2.  So they're tied at 1 hit each.

Round 2
    Tied with hits, Sharn decides to go on the defensive and use her Combo ability.  She's going to go 1 Skirmishing and 2 Protecting.  Both sides place dice and the Brute is using his Combo as well, his All-Out Attack let's him place 2 dice together in a single attack (normally each die is a separate action) but he has to do all Striking for that turn, so he's going 3 Striking dice, confident that he can get in at least 1 hit.
    Sharn's Skirmishing dice go first, she rolls a 5. Skirmishing dice work kind of like hybrid Protecting and Grappling dice, the number rolled is subtracted from any Striking dice, as evenly divided as possible across all the attacks.  Skirmishing uses Coherence, which is a 0 for Sharn.  Her Protection dice come up 1 and 4, with her finesse they're 3 and 6.
    The Brute's first attack is 2 dice together, but still just once for her Power bonus, for rolls of 3 and 5, plus 3 Power makes 11 total.  His second attack rolls a 7 for 10 total.
    Sharn's Master Parry lowers his attacks to 9 and 8.  Her Skirmishing of 5 divides into 3 and 2, lowering his attacks to 6 and 6.  her Protecting of 6 will stop one attack, but her Protection of 3 isn't enough to stop the other, so she takes a second hit - the Brute still has only 1 hit.

Round 3
    Sharn is now 1 hit away from losing, but after her last turn she gets a bonus Striking die at d6. She needs to get in 2 hits, and not take any, to win.  So does she go aggressive, perhaps 2 Striking and 1 Protecting hoping to get in the hits and with some luck avoiding his attacks?  Or play it more cautiously, 2 Protection to block his attacks and 1 Tactician to force some re-rolls to try and sneak in the bonus Striking?  Or play it down the middle and go Tactician, Protection, and 2 Striking - really hoping for some lucky rolls or re-rolls?
     In the end caution seems like her best bet, so she places 1 Tactician, 2 Protection and 1 Striking.  The Brute decides to try and overwhelm her defenses with 3 Striking, sure he can land at least 1 blow and finish the duel.
    Sharn's Tactician die comes up 3, for 5 total.  Her Protection dice total 6 and 8.  Her Striking totals 5.  The Brute's Striking totals are 7, 6 and 9.  She has him re-roll his highest Striking, but he rolls an 8 (11 total) and when she has him re-roll again it's another 8 (11).  So Sharn stops 2 of his attacks, and gets in one of her own, but one of his attacks gets through and she loses 3 touches to 2.

[Okay, so I was literally making up these "rules" while I was writing this.  It is a bad sketch, but there are a few things that came to me.  While I like the simplicity of only 1 die per action, and small numbers, that does make them very swingy.  I was actually rolling dice for all the examples, just to see how it would go.  Also, having individual actions / attacks made it too easy to 'dog-pile' actions to get around your opponent's defenses - need to re-work that.  In all I have to say that this is a mess (though I do like the random story and character that came from nowhere), but I still think there's something worthwhile in here.  I'm going to keep playing around with the idea, this was just a little window into the random way my head works :) ]

Combat Capabilities Map

    A few things I read recently got me thinking about combat.  In most RPGs each character has combat abilities, which they use together with the other players to create a combat strategy. Also, in a lot of RPGs this tends to devolve to "I hit it with my axe."  But while I never played Dungeons and Dragons 4th edition, I was reading about how it created "combat roles" of the striker, leader, defender and controller (think I'm quoting them right).  This is a good idea in my opinion since it gives the player some direction as to what they should be doing in a fight, and it encourages players to work together since they have different specialties.  What looks bad about it thought, is that it seems to assume each character is only good for one thing.  Really dynamic combat - the kind players have to stay awake for - requires that each character has options, and of course that monsters also have options, all of which can/ should change during the fight.
    Which is what got me thinking: we use a map to show where all the characters are on the field (and move them 5' squares at a time) - what if there was a map of "combat capabilities" that we placed every character on instead?  If we mapped the intent of the character instead of (or along with) their position?

    Well, first we'd need a list of those "combat capabilities."  Roles are too general, I'm thinking of something more specific, that defines a single action and not a general strategy.  There needs to be several, and they need to be flexible enough to map all the different kinds of abilities and options in a fight.  I came up with 10 groups.  I thought about trying to tie this to a specific game system but instead it seems like it might need it's own rules.  This is all a very rough idea right now, but here are the categories:

• Grappling - is directly touching the enemy, "man-to-man" so to speak.  By default this reduces the effectiveness of everything the enemy is trying to do (since you're getting in the way of their attacking or defending or even thinking by being (possibly literally) on top of them).  There could also (and should) be special abilities that can trigger when a character does this type of combat action.
• Striking - is trying to hit the enemy with a melee weapon (or fist, other natural weapon, etc).  It's the up-close-and-personal side of fighting, focused on doing damage.
• Protecting - is defense, trying to avoid being hit. This could be either for oneself or an ally, and each action is aimed at a specific enemy (the one you're protecting from).

All three of the above actions are taken from the front ranks, those closest to the line between the two opposing forces.  The next three are a little further back (generally speaking):

• Skirmishing - covers throwing weapons, attacking with a reach weapon (thus, over the shoulders of the Strikers and Protectors), or maneuvering yourself outside the battle to get into a better position (ie, to set up a backstab).  This is kind of like Striking in that usually you're doing or going to do damage to the enemy, but space/ distance/ positioning is playing an important part of that action.
• Buff/ Aid/ Assist - simply means trying to help an ally with whatever they are doing.
• Spoiler/ Debuff - focuses on hindering an enemy's action (from yelling curses as a distraction to throwing a Tanglefoot Bag at them).

The final 4 abilities are usually in the back rank, farthest from the center of the fight, so they can use their superior vantage point on the fight.

• Ranged/ Archer/ Artillery - the guys who shoot from the farthest distance, with the attendant issues of shooting into melee/ around everybody else.
• Leader/ Teamwork - help focus the efforts of their allies on a specific enemy (calling out maneuvers, or weakness).
• Strategist/ Tactician - watch the battle unfold, seeing what is going to happen in advance - thus reducing the uncertainty of the fight.
• Controller - directs the enemy's actions, or rather re-directs, making the enemy target or do something they did not intend (like hit their buddy).

From these basic capabilities (which everyone could do, to some degree of success, and some better than others) I made a map - which on the table would be 2 sheets of paper joined together (the good guys are the light colored side, bad guys the darker side).

So we place our combatants on their respective sides...

Each character has a different number of dice (depending on how good they are at fighting), they also use different colored dice...

Now, each character would have different sized dice for each capability (since different characters will be good at different things) - but all I had on hand was the graphic for the d10, so imagine those are actually 4s, 6s, 8s, 10s and 12s (potentially)...

We could even put the miniatures or tokens on the map to show space as well as intent (though, granted, it does crowd the map)...

Above we have our Goblins trying to Grapple with the Axeman while the Hobgoblin makes 2 attacks against the Armored Guy, and puts 1 Protecting die against the Armored Guy's attacks.  The Hobgoblin figures the Goblins will be able to bring down the Axeman's attacks enough to make him no threat.
Armored Guy is putting 1 die in Striking and 1 die in Protecting both vs the Hobgoblin, the Axeman is making 2 Striking attacks, both at one Goblin (hoping to take it out).  The Mage is warming up a Magic Missile or other ranged attack.

At the end of Round 1 (above), one Goblin is killed, which causes a "Morale Hit" - since for good tactical combat we need to track morale and group cohesion.  Someday I'll think of some rules for that :)

Round 2 sees some shifts. The Mage decides to cast a "Shield" or other protective spell on the Armored Guy, the Hobgoblin is fighting with just a longsword, he's going to use his free hand (and great strength) to try to pull the Armored Guy's shield out of the way (Spoiler/Debuff targeting Protection) to deliver a killing blow before the Axeman finishes the last Goblin.  Since the Goblin is just cannon fodder, it's going to keep doing the same thing as last turn.

    And thus combat would continue.  I don't have any solid rules yet, this was a recent idea.  But I have to admit, looking at it I kind of like it.  I like the way it explicitly lays out what can be done in the fight, where everybody stands in relation to each other.  Sure, this kind of thing does exist anyways in how the abilities work - but it can be easy to lose sight of the tactical forest for the action economy trees (at least, it was in the games I GM'd/ Played).

    Well, what do you think?  Is this an idea that I should work on?  Would you like to have something like this for your table?  Or am I just being crazy?  Please comment below, if anybody wants I'll try to develop this further.