encounter mechanics

It seems like you are searching for a way to resolve encounters, rather than generate them....

On that note, I have lately been very concerned with making sure that the mechanism of resolving an encounter matches and heightens the context of the encounter.

For example, if I am trying to shoot a target with a sniper in my game, the mechanic should reflect the feeling of zeroing in on the target and firing at the right moment.

I could draw a card from a deck to see if it says "hit" or "miss" on it. Some notes on the card could even refine the system so that it becomes less of a total crapshoot and depends a bit more on stats, target, terrain, etc. It could work out to be satisfactory... but does it communicate the feel that it should?

How about this:

-There is a shuffled deck of target cards labelled 1 through 10, facedown.
-I declare my "bullseye", a number from 1 to 10.
Now, a certain number of Target cards are flipped over, one by one. The number of cards flipped could be determined by stats (my sniper's "skill"), or perhaps I could bid a certain number of "patience points", or some such resource, to increase the number of cards flipped.
-As each target card is flipped, I decide if I want to take the shot. (I only get one shot.)
Hitting the bullseye means maximum damage. Damage decreases incrementally for every number away from the bullseye I am when I choose to shoot. Too far away from the bullseye and it's a miss altogether. (Target numbers "wrap around" - 10 is considered next to 1, etc.)

Naturally, I want to hit the bullseye... but will it come up? If a close shot comes up, should I take it? If I let a decent opportunity pass, will I get another one, or might I have missed the boat? The better sniper I am (or the more "patience" I bid), the greater my window for decent shots...

Now, I don't know if this system works, it's just a quick example... but I think it communicates my point. The player is faced with a decision similar to that of the sniper he's representing... shoot now, or wait for a perhaps-unforthcoming better shot in a rapidly-closing window of opportunity. Tension. Much more theme-appropriate than simply drawing a card or rolling a die, I think.

~Josh

Man, now that I reread my post, that's not too shabby.... with a little refinement that could be an excellent mechanic. Excuse me while I go invent a snipers game!

~Josh

PS - Shrike, if you are attempting to resolve a wide variety of encounters, then they will probably have to be annotated either on charts and tables, or on gamecards, or in a lengthy rulebook... Gamecards would seem to be the most "user-friendly" - that is, players draw a card that represents an encounter, then the card explains the mini-game that represents the encounter - nicely self-contained. If you want to PM me with an example or two of your encounter types, I'd be happy to write up some sample resolution options to try and kickstart you. Consistency in tone and complexity from minigame to minigame is important, but that doesn't rule out variety or experience.

Hey Shrike,

Josh's example is excellent, as is his philosophical approach.

There is an alternative that may not be quite as flavorful, but may have advantages if your game includes large numbers of encounter types and/or character classes. That is to provide a single mechanic for resolving encounters, but modeling it such that it forces players to choose between strategies that approximate what they could actually do in the situation.

For example, I'm designing a small golf game where the mechanic is always the same:

1) Figure out where to you want the ball to end up.
2) Calculate the difficulty of the shot.
3) Select from a limited pool of dice.
4) Roll for success.
5) If the roll fails, roll a "failure die" to see where the ball lands.

The die rolling mechanic has little golf flavor, but the decisions in 1 and 3 simulate real choices in golf, such as:

-- Do you aim short, hit low and try to roll to your destination?
-- Do you risk landing near a hazard to position yourself better for the next shot?
-- Should you add one or two "risk dice", hoping for a better shot at the cost of possibly hitting a wild ball?

This system has the advantage of a shorter learning curve because there is only one mechanic to grasp. That's important for a golf game that needs to appeal to non tabletop gamers. It's much less important for a game targeted at the hardcore market.

It's also possible that a hybrid approach could work well. If your game is a dungeon crawler, for example, you could give each character class a particular combat mechanic, then model encounters in such a way as to force decisions suitable to the encounter.

For instance, you might have character cards with some simple stats like attack and defense. Players might use numbered cards with an elemental suit to power their abilities. Fighters ignore elements and just add card numbers to their attack/defense abilities, factoring in weapon and armor bonuses for final Attack and Defense scores each round. Magic users might have to play combinations of proper elements to cast various spells with differing Attack and Defense effects. When the player draws an encounter card, it shows a monster with certain Attack, Defense, and Hit Point totals. Players have to supply enough total Defense to withstand the monster's Attack each turn and do enough Attack to exceed the monster's Defense (extra damage blows through to monster Hit Points). Monsters could have special abilities like immunity to certain elemental spells.

This immediately forces players to balance their card play against the monster's strengths and weaknesses to assure success. At the same time, it gives each character class a unique feel, which in turn gives various 2-character teams their own strategic nuances.

However you resolve encounters, it's essential that the players have a meaningful role in their resolution. Automatic stat comparison and even simple die rolls don't give players much of a sense of control.

K.