Post by AirkSeablade in Nobody Blink!: Movement in a Fighting TTRPG comments

Nobody Blink!: Movement in a Fighting TTRPG » Comments

Viewing post in Nobody Blink!: Movement in a Fighting TTRPG comments

I'm not sure if this addresses my concerns. Partly because it makes it feel like slow characters will potentially just -never- catch up to zoner characters, and partly because it still feels like you're going to get a weird situation where each character is in their "ideal range" on their own turn, because the zoner can back away and do their attacks, and then the shorter range character can just close in and do their attacks -- assuming neither character is significantly faster than the other after their stances/traits/special tricks are taken into account.

Fundamentally I find that 'turn taking' movement produces a weird, artificial feeling in a lot of games. This is why stuff like attacks of opportunity exist -- to keep a person with a bow from running away from melee and then shooting, which is really only a problem in a turn-taking environment. Whereas in a 2d fighting game, I feel like there's need to be a sense of "Oh, he got into short range against that opponent because he made a really good choice/his opponent made an error" which is absent for this style of movement.

Cloudshore3 days ago (1 edit)

Interesting notion. So you arent a proponent for turn-based movement because it feels artificial and can result in too high of an emphasis on moving on your turn in place of other strategic decisions? Is that correct?

While I won't contest the artificiality of turn-based movement, I also will note that my goal for the vibe system was not simulation. Instead I design around approximation. What mechanic can thematically represent the action needed while accomplishing the task quickly and easily. This methodology is used with the intent of creating a mechanical feel that is appropriate without building on the cognitive load asked of the player for the sake of immersive accuracy.

I am curious to hear you clarification on your concerns as I am having difficulty seeing the distinction you're making between movement in 2D fighters. For me half of the strategic decisions I see made in a 2D fighter match is moving into the appropriate position to make your desired attack or drawing your opponent into range to punish them with a desired attack. As for characters of varying speeds I don't see how this differs from the standard slow grappler vs speedy zoner concern. Part of the challenge for the grappler vs a zoner is to figure out how to get up close, while the zoner wants to keep their distance so they dont get pummeled.

I'd like to understand the difference you're seeing. Please do expand on your comments.

AirkSeablade3 days ago

I'm going to give your game a read through before I answer this, just to make sure I'm not making any bad assumptions. Stay tuned.

AirkSeablade3 days ago

Okay. Did the research I needed to do, I think.

I'm not sure I'd say you're placing "too high an emphasis on moving on your turn" so much as that the idea that there are "turns" feels highly disruptive to getting to the feel of a 2d fighter because of the interplay I mentioned -- if you are within your Move of your opponent on your turn, you are GUARANTEED to be able to reach them. And that's not how 2d fighters play out, generally -- unless both fighters really want to be at the same range, it's all about people trying to outguess and outplay each other to get to their preferred range. And just being able to "Move 3, then attack" doesn't mimic that at all, no matter where the sources of movement come from.

I think that this is a somewhat unique challenge to trying to emulate 2d Fighters because of what they look like. And the difference I'm seeing between the system you've laid out and the system of a 2d fighter is simple:

One character is a grappler and wants to be at grapple range. They have Move 1. The other character is a Zoner and wants to be at Long range. They have Move 2 but only when moving away. Right now, as written, it is functionally impossible for the grappler to EVER catch up? What ways are you giving them to try to outguess their opponent -- how do you simulate the "I think you're going to throw an attack RIGHT NOW that hits in a straight line, so I'm going to jump forward, even though that's an objectively terrible decision if you DON'T throw that attack" decision making? These contests are not, generally, decided by which character can move faster. How do you simulate "I'm going to wait for you to throw a projectile so I can move through it with my move that's immune to projectiles, and thereby get a little closer" in a turn-based setup? or "I think you're going to try to throw me, so I'm going to jump, even though that would leave me horribly open otherwise"? These are the kinds of decisions that I think are central to a 2d fighter, and they just... don't really work in a turn-based setup, because that "I think you're going to do X at this moment" kind of guesswork can't exist. Either you KNOW they just did X, or they will know on their turn that you just did your counter and there's no reason for them to then do X. Even a "reaction" doesn't really solve this, because if I have an out-of-turn reaction like "Block a projectile and advance one range band" I can use that with 100% reliability each time my opponent uses a projectile...so they just won't. Unless it's unreliable, but even then all you've done is reduce the guesswork to a "Do I think a 60% chance of hitting you is worth a 40% chance of getting countered?" game.

The way I've seen this tackled elsewhere (Check out Heaven/Hell for what seems like a pretty solid implementation) is double-blind simultaneous reveal play. I feel like there's probably not much place for a traditional initiative system -- the way I see these games play out there are three states: Either both characters are 'in neutral' and trying to gain an advantage, or one character or the other has the advantage, and the get to press it until the other character escapes/does a reversal/finds an opening to counter or something like that. And I think emulating that is an interesting challenge, and one that is going to be very hard to meet in a "I go, you go" kind of game format.

Cloudshore3 days ago

(Wanted to give this a more in-depth response that my initial reply.)

Thank you for giving my game a read and I see where you're coming from now. I see the level of depth you're looking for in a simulation of 2D fighting combat, it's a little too focused in scope for my design goals here. As mentioned before, I aim to approximate, not simulate. I want my games to be strategic but quick; simple, but deep. What you describe is far more in-depth round to round than I'm looking for. Further, such a system I feel would be too focused on one-v-one combat. While that sort of combat will be present in FoF, the game is more designed around a fighting game/wuxia setting. Adventuring across the globe, and regularly group/team combat will be just as prominent parts of the system. Something as in-depth as yo simulate split second footsies decisions would slow group combat significantly.

To address the movement in the system as is, you bring up the Grappler v Zoner example with them both at 1 MR. You are correct. In that situation, the Grappler would be very hard pressed Twin that fight unless he could come up with something clever to even the playing field; however, this example excludes the asynchronicity and openness of character creation/advancement. Not all fighters will be on even playing fields. Players are not bound to a single archetype as they construct a custom fighting styles. In this example. That Grappler might have also taken levels in the Zoner or Juggernaut archetypes, either of which have longer ranges, which the fighter could switch to during combat. Or if they didn't, and they loss, that same player could spend their experience points to pick up a level in a ranged archetype, or learn a technique to improve their movement or a ranged attack.

Please do not misunderstand. Even though I feel like my current design goals clash with other fighting systems you enjoy, I am still very grateful for your feedback. I was already in the process of tweaking the combat system to better approximate that chess at 100 miles an hour you're looking for. I will definitely check out Heaven/Hell and see what inspiration I can take from it, but fundamentally Festival of Fighters was not being designed to be a game like that. I understand that with your preference against turned based systems that the final system may not be to your taste. I hope that the book can still make for a fun read for you in the end in that case.

Regardless, thank you very much for the comment and the enlightening conversation.

AirkSeablade2 days ago

Thanks for taking the time to have this discussion. I know it can be really unpleasant to have someone show up to talk about your project only for them to go "Well actually..." -- I hope it comes across that I'm saying all this as a fan of 2d fighters and also as a fan of your concepts.

That said, I don't feel like I'm looking for "simulation" here, but I think I'm looking for something that uses more than the trappings of 2d fighters. To be clear, I'm not asking for any of the specific examples in my previous post, but rather, I was using them to show the types of decisions they represent -- the sort of "I think I can guess what you're going to do, so I'm going to try to counter it" style of thinking that forms the core of these games. It doesn't have to be "at 100 miles an hour" -- in fact, I'm not really sure how you'd go about pushing that in a TTRPG format -- but from my perspective, a little bit of "Yomi" is what would make the difference between "this feels like a 2d fighter" vs "this feels like two guys punching each other in most RPGs." That said, it's starting to sound like you're actually aiming more for the vibe of "anime based on a 2d fighter" rather than trying to actually evoke the feel of the 2d fighters themselves, which is fine, but different.

Having said that, I have concerns about reling on players adjusting and tuning characters across multiple fights to solve something as simple as "A fight between two base characters is literally unwinnable by one of them." Especially if the solution is "You can't play a full grappler, because you'll just lose fights to zoners. You have to take some levels in zoner to compete." I think we can probably agree that having a common archetype like that be functionally unplayable without mixing in something else is probably an undesirable situation.

But ultimately I guess what I'm really trying to get at here is: What are the benefits of the way you are doing it now? What is it giving you? What sort of experience is it creating? I feel like it's easy to use "turn based with initiative" as a sort of default, instead of questioning the pros and cons of the approach. Is it giving you a feel you want? Is it fast and easy to learn relative to other approaches? Does it consume comparatively little time in play? What are you gaining from this design choice?

Ultimately, I understand the desire to make a game that's as much about the 'adventure' as it is about the fighting in these sorts of games, and I think the systems that support that adventure will be equally important, but I think if you advertise your game as being based on 2d fighters, you're going to set up a certain degree of expectations that you'll want to either try to meet or work through.

itch.io

Viewing post in Nobody Blink!: Movement in a Fighting TTRPG comments