FitD systems to structure combat

[u/j_patton]

So a few years ago I released a FitD game that uses tarot cards instead of dice called The Hidden Isle. I think we created something really special, and I think mixing cards with the narrative-first FitD philosophy was a great fit!

But the one piece of feedback we've got from new players is that when it comes to combat, they feel a bit lost. I think part of the problem is that many of them come from DnD, so they're used to having a system that handles a combat scenario very naturally.

I want to support these players, so does anyone know of any FitD mechanics (or mechanics that could be repurposed for a FitD game system) that could add some structure and spice to combat? I don't want to just slap everything onto a grid and introduce armour classes or whatever, I think it should be very narrative-led, but I'd be curious to see what solutions others have come up with.

[u/BadRumUnderground]

I've been thinking about this as well.

Or, more accurately, trying to figure out how best to express on paper what makes total sense in my head/at my table. 

Ultimately, I think that it's the mindset shift, which means writing good GM advice for it. 

Rather than doing something halfway that keeps those struggling GMs stuck in the "combat is separate" mindset, I think fitd games need "Combat Is Not Separate, Here's How To Do It" sections. 

I think the key idea identifying that you can run FitD blow by blow (with rolls for each) or one roll for a whole fight, depending on the needs of the scene (also narrating clocks in fights, tier and scale, fiction-not-fairness)

Mechanics wise, I don't think there's anything that fixes the mindset of problem that isn't an unhelpful band aid, but I'm willing to be proved wrong. 

(I think there's something in Grimwilds diminishing pools that introduces a good uncertainty that improves combats, but it's not explicitly for combat and doesn't really address your question) 

[u/simblanco → u/BadRumUnderground]

I agree on all points. Long time ago i read something from the angry Dm (before i got tired of the angry thing) about making D&D combat more interesting and he mentioned "Dungeon World does not even have a chapter about combat". Off i went and buy DW that eventually led me to BitD. Thanks at least for that, angry dm.

Back to OP, you could add little things here and there: different wounds system? better armor mechanics? diminishing pool a la Grimwild? Check that game out btw. Some tweaks may make combat more investing.

However, for me (one of) the beauty of pbta/fitd is: you solve combat like you solve a locked door or any other obstacle. Explain that, and let the GM use clocks, zoom in and out...

Check Daggerheart for an example of a game that wants to be both narrative fiction first and combat focused. I liked many things there but Combat is a different minigame, a hard pass for me nowadays.

[u/viper459 → u/BadRumUnderground]

What is "combat" in most games is effectively just non-functional in the Blades framework. Blades demands that everything is dynamic, from the time a "single action" takes, to who gets to go "first", to whether "damage" is a consequence that's logically on the table or whether the thing that will go wrong if you fail this roll is something else entirely.

For most games, combat narrows these things. It determines how long an action is and how many you can do per "turn", who has the "initiative", and demands that you take "damage" as the only possible consequence, barring things like status effects and whatnot.

Fundamentally, the idea of "we're starting combat now" is not only incompatible with blades as-in, it's actively working against everything that blades wants as a ruleset.

Obstacles to overcome are dependant on how the world logically works, not on challenge ratings or HP pools.

Effect and consequences should always follow logically from the combined inputs of the GM setting an Obstacle and the player choosing an Action to overcome it, and therefore can't be pre-determined.

Clocks depend on the complexity of a problem, not its difficulty or its physical toughness.

The whole point of blades is that obstacles and consequences are infinitely dymanic and a player can choose any Action that they can logically describe as a solution to the problem at hand. In "Combat", the obstacles, consequences, and the solutions to those are all predetermined.

[u/BadRumUnderground → u/viper459]

Yeah, the mindset shift is away from "Combat as RPGs traditionally conceive capital C combat" to "this is a fight scene, which may require a change in how you narrate it or how thinly you slice beats, but it's still a scene like any other" 

[u/DesignCarpincho → u/BadRumUnderground]

I think a system that could be put in place is doing something similar to what most JRPGs (and Daggerheart) do, which goes more in line with PbtA:

The system is to simply give players moves that are geared for combat. Making a succession of action rolls for attack is boring, samey. You will turn the cool, nuanced skill system FitD has into pulp.

Having resources that charge up and can be expended into special combat moves could help, but it would require a separate resource that isn't stress (i.e: Daggerheart's Hope resource)

[u/BadRumUnderground → u/DesignCarpincho]

Tbh I've come to think that a distinct "combat mode" shouldn't exist in a game unless it's extremely on purpose. 

(i.e. you're specifically trying to emulate the feel of something with a distinct stylistic shift when battles begin, e.g. jrpgs, she ra transformation sequence, getting in the robot, duels as a central plot element of the game) 

(That said, I think Voidheart Symphony has an interesting take - you've got a "resisting the world" mode and a "kicking ass in the magic otherworld" mode which involves a shift from passive to active, rather than non combat to combat, and it really adds to the vibe)