Playtest; What happened, and what's next?

A few days ago (5 actually) I posted about some ideas I had about yanking out the "Null Result" that plagues traditional combat systems and seeing whether it could make the combat more dynamic.

Since then (today afternoon) I wrote a very short, ultra barebones playtest document (you can find a pdf of it here if interested) and barely an hour after finishing it, ran a brief combat with some friends as victims.

This is a post discussing some thoughts and realizations from that playtest, and a chance to declare that this project now has a name, and maybe even a future.

Attack/Parry/Endure : APE Combat System

If you opened the playtest doc I linked above, you'll see it reads ACE Playtest. After the whole thing ended and we went our ways, I realized it would be way funnier to replace Counter with Parry and end up with APE instead of ACE. So that's what it's called now.

Personal impressions and notes as a GM

It was my first time playing with rules this barebones that I myself had made, so I was rather nervous, but I don't know if the players noticed. Overall, I feel that the playtest was a success - I got some good ideas about the direction in which to and not to take the game, and though I feel as though the first iteration of the system failed at the goal it set out to accomplish, I hope to work slowly to change that through more iterations.

GM note 1: Speed

It still feels about as fast as d20vsAC. Maybe because my players both went in with shields, but Endure felt very prevalent. A whole lot of times when I felt like damage should have gone through, it just... didn't. Sunk into Endure DR or into armor DR. I have some ideas about what could be done to help with this.

GM note 2: Rules

There was some confusion about rules, namely how shields were just weird blunt weapons and what that meant for their bonuses. I also didn't clarify how often initiative was supposed to be rolled, nor about what to do at under 0 HP, nor about the properties of bows in melee combat. Not really a note on the combat system itself, but it did provide interesting insight into which rules sat the back of my mind and didn't pop up as something that needed to be written down for a minimal viable playtest.

Overall: Janky little first playtest. That's alright. This feeling of dissatisfaction is nasty and I want to work to alleviate it. That's good.

Player notes and feedback

Players seemed to overall agree that it's a good base to work off of and a good first try for something written in an afternoon, but will need repeated testing before it gets good.

Player note 1: Shields

Two players picked shields, two players gave feedback largely on shields. Unsurprising. Got some feedback about needing to shape out a clearer role for them - instead of them being just weird blunt weapons - and to consider making them passive bonuses gained in exchange for trading in a hand to hold weapons in.

Player note 2: Variance

This is also a GM note, as I definitely agree, but as the players pointed out: the range a d20 has is just way too damn much for something like this, man.

Consider an attacker with +4 clashing with a defender going for Endure +5. What should be a fairly even clash (Endure has a +1 over the attacker, so on average a bit of damage will be blocked) can very easily end up with one guy's roll at 20-something and the other's at 7 or 8. I like the d20, it's a beautiful little die, but I don't know if it fits here.

Some ideas and playtest 02

The next playtest is most likely going to end up with somewhat tamer numbers and based off 2d6 instead of d20 for each player. Yes, I know, compatibility and all that, but honestly that was a pretty distant dream considering everything had to be revamped to be used in clashes - the math of d20-d20 is pretty different from d20 minus a static number.

There's some chance it might end up as a success-counting dice pool. The math for this is pending, I'll do it later. Either way, the lower numbers should let me do damage not as a separate roll but as a static number modified by how well you succeed on the attack or parry. Might even be able to tune the numbers fairly close to the usual d4/d6/d8/d10 ladder.

There is a thought sitting at the back of my mind. I dislike this thought. But it keeps whispering that maybe Parry vs Endure isn't a meaningful choice to make when being attacked. That maybe the choice should be ditched. I will consider listening to this thought if even adjusting variance and speed doesn't get rid of this doubt.

Next on Three Yard Stick

I'll try to get a post up about the playtest 02 doc and changes made to it by... Friday, maybe. Sooner if I can, but knowing me it will somehow end up being later than Friday. Sorry.