Missing your attack can be fun
Turning a source of frustration into a meaningful tactical choice
From my early days as an RPG player, there was something that always bugged me during combat rounds: waiting for my turn only to roll a miss.
As a result of this frustration, I've always looked for ways to mitigate the impact of misses and eliminate the stop-start rhythm of turn orders in my games. I’m certainly not alone in this feeling, considering the number of different ways other designers have tackled these challenges in their own creations (I recommend
article on random turn orders for some inspiration).In Nexalis, however, I went the opposite direction that I normally take: I combined them.
How? And why is this fun?
See, combat operates with an alternating turn order system. It's a pretty simple "I go, you go" structure. As a player, once you've made your attack, you then choose an enemy to go next. Similarly, after an enemy attacks, you* select the next player to go. This framework, also known as "popcorn initiative," forms the foundation of the combat dynamic.
*At this point, it is important to clarify that Nexalis is a GM-less game, so “you” in this context means “you, the solo player”, or “you, the group”, but not “you, the GM”. You are making the choices for your character and for the enemies as well.
Ok, nothing new so far. Now, things get really interesting when one of the sides misses their attack. You're offered a strategic choice:
If you miss, you can just accept it and pick an enemy to go next, as you would on a hit. Or, you can receive a counterblow, BUT you get to pick another player to go next instead (or even pick yourself to go again, if you’re playing solo, or if the group agrees it is the best choice to make). Suddenly, your misfortune becomes an opportunity, allowing your team to retain control over the flow of battle.
This is a particular meaningful decision because of how damage works:
Your attack roll minus their defense roll is the damage you'd normally deal. Say, I roll a total of 9 and the enemy rolls a 7, I deal 2 damage. Quick and simple.
If your attack is lower, however, you obviously don’t deal damage. You either miss the attack (and interpret it as they dodge, parry, absorb, or ignore your attack) OR receive the difference as damage yourself (that’s your counterblow) for the right not to hand over the turn to the enemy.
See the tactical choice here? Depending on how badly you’ve missed, you can decide that taking the damage is worth the benefit of retaining initiative. Imagine this scenario:
"I rolled a 5, they rolled an 8. Should I take 3 damage and pick the caster who has 18 Energy Points to spend, potentially taking down the enemy before they perform a stronger attack?"
The frustration of missing your attack becomes the power to influence the very flow of battle.
And it works both ways.
When an enemy misses, you can simply decide that you dodge, parry, absorb, or ignore their attack. You then choose a player to go next.
Alternatively, if you evaluate that they missed by a good margin, you may choose to deliver the difference in damage as a counterblow, but you forfeit the right to choose a player to go next. You've got to pick another enemy to attack now (or, again, the same one, if it is a solo enemy, or the one that would make most narrative sense to strike again).
Take one for the team
Depending on the circumstances, you can even pick another character to deal or receive the counterblow (if their player agrees, of course). This is both a narrative choice (who is in the most logical position to attack or be attacked right now?) as it is a tactical one.
Imagine the following situation: you shoot an arrow on an enemy engaged in melee combat with your ally, and you miss by 2!
You can propose to your ally:
"Hey, man, you got a lot of HP left. Can you take these 2 as a counterblow, and I choose the druid to go next and skydive on them?"
To which they could respond:
"Heck yeah, let's do this".
Or
"I'll take the hit, but pick me to go next".
Or... something else entirely!
It is an informed decision. You have to consider the circumstances of the battle and the results of your roll to make a significant choice.
Who is in a good position to go next? How badly would this hurt us? Should we keep the initiative at all costs?
The changing tides of initiative
Oh, and about 'initiative', here's what it actually means and how it works in Nexalis:
At the start of combat, each side (not each individual) rolls a d6. The side with the higher roll picks their first attacker, and from there, the "ping-pong" game starts.
If at any point a tie is rolled (an attack roll equals the defense roll), the circumstance changes somehow. The enemy might unexpectedly change their tactics, reveal their true form, or utter a taunt. The landscape could transform, or a fresh challenge may surface. Maybe it results in a brief stalemate, a tense pause filled with competitive jibes.
Whatever the case, no one deals damage this turn and initiative is rolled again. It's a single opposed roll without modifiers, so it doesn't break the pacing of combat. Rather, it is another opportunity to influence the dynamics of battle.
You again?
As a rule of thumb, you'll want to give everyone a chance to attack before any one of them takes another turn. If there are compelling narrative reasons for a character or enemy to act again before others have had their turn, then by all means, mix things up. It's all about keeping things exciting and sticking to the heart of your tale.
Now, you might have noticed a particularity of this turn order: when sides have an uneven number of members, those on the smaller side will inevitably act more than once during the cycling. Might seem a bit off-balance at first glance, but it actually shakes up the usual combat dynamic in a curious way.
Take the scenario where you've got a single enemy squaring off against five of your characters. Instead of feeling like a one-sided beatdown, the lone enemy gets a chance to strike back every turn, making things a whole lot more riveting. They're still constrained by their limited HP, and they also face the risk of taking a counterblow every time they step up to the plate, so it’s not that they are simply overpowered, but rather that you engage in a cool feature that gives Nexalis combat its own special flavor.
The beauty of combined frustrations
As a result of this approach, by intertwining two elements that initially irked me, I managed to transform a point of frustration into one of my favorite game mechanics in Nexalis.
And who knows? Maybe your next failed roll won't be a source of irritation, but rather, an opportunity for an engaging tactical choice. And missing an attack could be fun, after all.
If you'd like to learn more, check out the campaign page. The free 60-page demo includes all the basic rules, including the ones we discussed here.
There's another interesting side effect of the imbalanced-teams scenario, which I noticed before in Fate: Grand Order (which also has sides alternate regardless of team size and little else in common with Nexalis). If you're fighting a big strong enemy with a couple of minions, in most games, you want to knock out the minions first because it's easy and then you'll have fewer incoming attacks to worry about. In a game where teams alternate no matter what, though, that means the boss is going to be swinging two or three times as frequently. So alternating motivates the players to focus on the main enemy and let the minions keep peppering them with smaller attacks, which keeps combats like that more interesting IMO!
Very cool ideas, and yes this problem happens a lot when in a D&D 5e with friends. Going to show them your article and invite them to play Nexalis with me.