RPG system ponderings....

[winneganfake]

On Momentum

Playing around on some PS2 games definitely brought this thought to mind again. Namely how in a lot of combat-based games, there's often bonuses that rack up as you successfully score combos, which let you score further combos, which in turn allow you to finish off with even more powerful moves.

Part of my brain's insisting on building an add-on system that'd have the same effect. Namely, a successful attack nets you a bonus for the next attack (whether it's an extra die for a pool system or a point-bonus, or whatever) These bonuses stack up, like this:

Attack One: Success (+1 die on the next attack)

Attack Two: Success (+2 die on the next attack)

and so on. Note that these bonuses all would just be applied towards a to-hit type of roll, rather than damage or anything. Which of course, means that as the bonus dies stack up, pulling off harder and harder moves becomes easier and easier.

Then there's combo breakers. They wouldn't occur when the comboing character fails a roll- that would just drop the bonus count back down by a die. Instead a combo could be completely broken by a successful opposing roll by an opponent. Which even with a diepool system would make a combo with a good amount of momentum fairly hard to break. not sure if I like that or not.


Anyways that's my system pondering for the day. And yes, I realize that someone's probably already fully worked this system out before this. I just like to do the thinking myself sometimes.Comments and crits are as always welcome.

Comments

[nomadboi.livejournal.com]

Or, alternately, taking over a certain amount of damage in one round could cause you to lose initiative or work at a disadvantage for a round or two, since you're still staggeering from the last hit. Seems to me that gets more at the cause/effect; it's not that a good hit gives you better abilities, but it does create openings since the person you hit is still reacting to that hit while you follow-up with another. This is the logic behind jabs, for example- in boxing or martial arts, a light jab isn't really going to do much damage, but if it makes the other guy move his guard, or close his eyes briefly, or rock his weight back onto his heels a bit, or just mentally stumble for a second, then you can follow up with the nice hard (but slower) right cross/roundhouse/whatever, or take that time to step back and draw a weapon.

[wire-mother.livejournal.com]

rather like the rule in GURPS, where damage taken counts a penalty on any skill use in the next turn (though, sadly, this penalty doesn't affect active defenses, sort of obviating its value in this particular instance). a similar rule is the idea of "feints" (more properly, "preparations") in many rulesets.

[m1sfit-t0y.livejournal.com]

Hmm...

Well I think it all depends on what aspect/feature that additional bonus is supposed to reflect in combat. Is it taking into account that your opponent is staggered? Or you are worsening a previous wound?

I mean, if it's supposed to be showing that the opponent is staggered, wouldn't there also be a modifier to counter that bonus if--say--the opponenet is giant-sized or a stronger build or an exceptional combatant. All opponents wouldn't necessarily reel back the same.

I think those kind of modifiers could be reserved for more specialized attacks/weapons.

Just my two cents.

[jackthomas.livejournal.com]

Have you read Weapons of the Gods RPG? That has an interesting mechanism for building up almost combo-like actions with its doce pool mechanic. You can move dice out into your river during a scene then when necessary substitute that rive for elements of your dice pool, thus boosting the success of the action.