Alley-verse combat Guide:

[Nohadon]

So after talking in the rules of warfare thread, @Mraize, @Archer and me have come up with how the combat system should work

when A fight breaks out, each person starts with a certain amount of HP (lets say, 100 for now)

it's turn-based combat, with the moderator deciding who gets to go first.

the person who goes first gets to attack/move first, they can do up to three actions (other effects can increase this limit, like feruchemical speeds).

Possible actions include:
Making an attack
Moving more than 20 meters in any direction
Saying things over 50 words long

Bonus actions include:
Saying things less than 50 words
moving less than 20 metres
Burning/tapping metals
Breathing in stormlight

the person who goes second gets a reaction and three actions

the reaction must happen before any other actions can be made.

Once the first action has been called, the moderator describes it, and the second player must react, then counter, which the moderator then describes, the moderator chooses how he decides the outcome, suggested decision-making processes include:

1. Dice rolls (similar to D&D)

2. Most likely outcome

the moderator then subtracts the HP from the players and makes "debuffs" (like bleeding, concussed, unconscious, etc)

then the cycle repeats until one of the players either yields, (in case of a duel) dies or is knocked out.

the moderator will then pronounce the outcome of the fight, and then the fight ends.

of course, there are many variations, it's not just a single recipe, so the moderator may change up the rules a bit, especially in mass or team combat.

so moderators, use your descretion!

[Archer]

6 hours ago, Nohadon said:

...

1. Dice rolls (similar to D&D)

2. Most likely outcome

...

All this is basically D&D but without the character sheets. As an avid D&D player, I like it!

Edited April 10, 2018 by Archer

[Lord Meeker]

1 minute ago, Archer said:

All this is basically D&D but without the character sheets. As an avid D&D player, I like it!

I as well. But I would suggest having a set number for Dice rolls, say 13 to be able to score a hit. Then roll more dice for the amount of damage dealt. But to make things honest and fair, the moderator should be the one rolling all dice and not the combatants.

[MacThorstenson]

8 minutes ago, Mraize said:

I as well. But I would suggest having a set number for Dice rolls, say 13 to be able to score a hit. Then roll more dice for the amount of damage dealt. But to make things honest and fair, the moderator should be the one rolling all dice and not the combatants.

I just have one question/suggestion. Lets make a decision to call these people mediators instead of moderators. The site has moderators, none of us are moderators. I am a mediator.

Edited April 10, 2018 by MacThorstenson

[Archer]

2 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

Lets make a decision to call these people mediators instead of moderators. 

I'd personally prefer a name that's even more different than moderators - I keep mistyping mediators as moderators. It's confusing.

[Nohadon]

13 minutes ago, Mraize said:

the moderator should be the one rolling all dice and not the combatants

Oh sorry. I though I mentioned that.

 

2 minutes ago, Archer said:

I'd personally prefer a name that's even more different than moderators - I keep mistyping mediators as moderators. It's confusing.

I as well, want to just call them referees? Or judges?

[Archer]

4 minutes ago, Nohadon said:

I as well, want to just call them referees? Or judges?

Can we call them Obligators?

[Nohadon]

Just now, Archer said:

Can we call them Obligators?

Hell. Rusting. Yes.

[Lord Meeker]

I agree with Obligators

[MacThorstenson]

Obligators feel too similar to inquisitors, and the DA.

[The Forgetful Archivist]

This seems too structured.

Edited April 10, 2018 by The Forgetful Archivist

[Nohadon]

6 minutes ago, The Forgetful Archivist said:

This seems too structured.

If you (and your opponent, of course) don’t want to use this system, that’s fine! As long as BOTH sides are ok to use a different system, go ahead! This just prevents things like godmodding and makes things a little more structured, I did this as a result of my duel with @LopenTheTwoArmedHerdazian, which just felt messy, people were getting ninja’d, we had full control over all of our attacks, which will lead to a long cycle of attack, counter, attack, counter

[MacThorstenson]

I agree with TFA. 

Personally, I think that the actions aren't feasible. No body wants to have a grid and measure out how far everyone moves. In addition, many actions can be preformed simultaneously. 

Mental/magic can be preformed at the same time as a physical attack, with practice. If you practice, I don't find it impossible to use two hands for different things, while burning new metals.

If this has to becomes structured like this, then I think that there should be special abilities based on guild. To provide some role to guilds besides RP.

[Archer]

I'm starting to see where limiting number of action etc. might make it too structured. We should put together a list of progressively more structured rules for combat, and then at the start of the duel, people list off the ones they'll use. For example. 

1. No cheese.

2. No cheese with poison.

3. No cheese with poison and spikes.

4. No running with scissors. 

"Let's use up to rule 2."

"Okay, but let's also include a rule against using butter."

[MacThorstenson]

If we are going to do that, why not just let people customize each duel to their preference?

Also, could some guild please back my volunteering to be an unbiased one? This wont work unless the appointment of unbiased ones are supported by guilds.

 

[Archer]

5 minutes ago, MacThorstenson said:

Also, could some guild please back my volunteering to be an unbiased one? This wont work unless the appointment of unbiased ones are supported by guilds.

I'm willing to accept you as a mediator. Unbiased One? I'm not sure how I feel about that...

[Lord Meeker]

Honestly, what system are we going to use? 

I think we should come up with a semi-structured system.

[Kidpen]

5 minutes ago, Archer said:

I'm willing to accept you as a mediator. Unbiased One? I'm not sure how I feel about that...

Yes. I feel that Mac has been part of the DA so long that he wouldn't be able to help being a bit biased. He could absolutely mediate (obligate?) for duels that don't include the DA.

I don't like the concept of moving being an action. Keeping track of that would just be too difficult. I also want to mention that I like the idea of having a ton of different rules listed in categories, and people can decide what they want to use.

Edited April 10, 2018 by Kidpen

[MacThorstenson]

Then we have a conundrum. The point of the mediators was to have people who could judge third party conflicts. I am or was involved with the majority of the active guilds. I used to be a member of tCoC, then I left, but only because they chose to ally themselves with the LA, so I don't think I'm neutral regarding that guild, or a third party. I am a member of the DA and a head of the Division of Counter intelligence. In addition I am a leader of the Ghostbloods. We kept my involvement a secret. I could only mediate between duels between the liebrary and the LA. Wait sratch that. The liebrary and the DA are currently allied. also, anything that involves the LA succeeding would go against the DA's interests. 

I guess I could be the mediator that does nothing... But then why sign up?

Edited April 10, 2018 by MacThorstenson

[Kidpen]

1 minute ago, MacThorstenson said:

Then we have a conundrum. The point of the mediators was to have people who could judge third party conflicts. I am or was involved with the majority of the active guilds. I used to be a member of tCoC, then I left, but only because they chose to ally themselves with the LA, so I don't think I'm neutral regarding that guild, or a third party. I am a member of the DA and a head of the Division of Counter intelligence. In addition I am a leader of the Ghostbloods. We kept my involvement a secret. I could only mediate between duels between the liebrary and the LA.

I suppose if you were to truly cut ties with every guild I could except you as unbiased. I trust you enough for that.

[Lord Meeker]

7 minutes ago, Kidpen said:

I suppose if you were to truly cut ties with every guild I could except you as unbiased. I trust you enough for that.

I would as well. I still like the representatives, however, if that is still going to be a thing.

[Tineye Navigator]

May I suggest creating a somewhat structured system for duels, but Duels could be a turn-based combat, like @Nohadon mentioned. 

Spoilers for length

Spoiler

9 hours ago, Nohadon said:

So after talking in the rules of warfare thread, @Mraize, @Archer and me have come up with how the combat system should work

when A fight breaks out, each person starts with a certain amount of HP (lets say, 100 for now)

it's turn-based combat, with the moderator deciding who gets to go first.

the person who goes first gets to attack/move first, they can do up to three actions (other effects can increase this limit, like feruchemical speeds).

Possible actions include:
Making an attack
Moving more than 20 meters in any direction
Saying things over 50 words long

Bonus actions include:
Saying things less than 50 words
moving less than 20 metres
Burning/tapping metals
Breathing in stormlight

the person who goes second gets a reaction and three actions

the reaction must happen before any other actions can be made.

Once the first action has been called, the moderator describes it, and the second player must react, then counter, which the moderator then describes, the moderator chooses how he decides the outcome, suggested decision-making processes include:

1. Dice rolls (similar to D&D)

2. Most likely outcome

the moderator then subtracts the HP from the players and makes "debuffs" (like bleeding, concussed, unconscious, etc)

then the cycle repeats until one of the players either yields, (in case of a duel) dies or is knocked out.

the moderator will then pronounce the outcome of the fight, and then the fight ends.

of course, there are many variations, it's not just a single recipe, so the moderator may change up the rules a bit, especially in mass or team combat.

so moderators, use your descretion!

 

Maybe this system.

 

But for assassinations, Those shouldn't be structured. If you were assassinated in real life, you wouldn't get a chance to respond if the kill was immediately effective. You can attempt to respond/defend yourself, But I think that the mediators/obligators/whatever other name was suggested, would have the final say as to whether the assassination was successful or not. (unless of course you admit to dying.)

[Mistspren]

If any combat or assassination breaks out, I propose the initiating member tag a mediator to oversee the exchange and verify it.

[MacThorstenson]

Or just adapt a confidentiality policy. Let the MG (mediator guild) know when you get the contract, or when you start to plan, that you are going to kill this fellow. They can assign someone to keep their eyes on the situation.

[Kidpen]

I am still very fond of the idea of writing a ton of possible rules that would be very constraining if all were used, but with the intention of people picking and choosing which they want to use. Perhaps a basic set up for people who don't want to go through all of that.