Decision Tree with Gradients of Risk

exploring design ideas

At least once a month I think about this damn chart from Savage Worlds (The Combat Survival Guide).

I previously already wrote about this chart once before. Previously I was wondering if it was too prescriptive. Do players actually have choices to make with a chart that is this detailed, or is it the illusion of choice because their are optimal options?

So instead of doing what I did in the previous article, I want to try breaking down what the questions in the chart are truly asking..:

• Problem - What am I having an issue with as a player? The obstacle in my path?

• And… - What is my or my teams current position and available equipment?

• Then Try To…. - What is the game mechanic that will allow me to do something with this equipment to overcome that problem?

The way these questions are currently stated doesn’t feel there is choice. What I want in a game are degrees of risk/reward. Can a Decision Trees, similar to the one above, be designed to have Gradients of Risk?

What? - Designing Decision Trees with Gradients of Risk in TTRPGs

When things are too prescriptive it removes the excitement and engagement from decision-making. By incorporating gradients of risk and reward into decision trees, we are trying to give players more than just a clear path to follow; we offer them a series of branching options, each with potential consequences.

These gradients encourage deeper strategy, allowing players to weigh the potential rewards against the dangers. This system adds layers of agency on top of the inherent randomness of dice rolls, making the choices more dynamic and personal.

We want decision-making that isn’t just about optimizing, but also about navigating uncertainty and risk.

Stances

I think the most basic way of breaking down Optional Risk choice are stances. You see this in games like One Ring.

Let’s give a brief overview of a combat. First thing that happens in One Ring is both sides Volley attack. So if you have ranged weapons, they use them. Then everyone is in combat. When in combat you choose a Stance:

• Forward

  • Increase chance/effectiveness of attack,

  • decreased chance/effectiveness of defense,

  • Intimidate Foes as a task

• Open

  • No advantage or disadvantage for attack or defense

  • Rally Comrades as a task

• Defensive

  • Increase chance/effectiveness of defense

  • decrease chance/effectiveness of attacks

  • Protect Companion as a task

• Rearward

  • You can use ranged weapons

  • Cannot be attacked by melee weapons

  • Prepare Shot as a task

So what's the flow of combat with this? If you have Forward/Open/Defensive stance then you are going to be going first and attacking other enemies. However, if there are more enemies than allies in this fray, someone can get through to attack those who are Rearward. So the number of combatants matters. This is a really cool system of stances, and it really abstracts combat a lot, so much so that it doesn't use a grid at all.

It’s also really cool to see that each stance has a special action (task in this game) available to the player depending on their stance type. Some of these might be very impactful to the current combat.

Another game that I talked about on my website that uses stances was Brimstone. This is an independent game designer from our discord channel. In this game you choose how you want to attack (which has a similar effect as stances). Its important to note that you have a single Skill Die, and your choice of "stance" involves what you do with that skill die.

• Accurate - add the skill die to attack roll

• Forceful - add skill die to the damage roll

• Create Opening - give the skill die to an ally to use for their attack

• Defensive - add the skill die to your defense

• All-in - gain 2x skill die, adding it to attack or damage, but you don't defend at all (attacks just hit you).

I would say that both of these have inherent decisions, and gradients of risk.....but can we go deeper? The nice thing about both systems is that they aren’t overly complex. It feels natural and easy to quickly choose based on the names alone.

However, in order to have a more tactical game do we want more depth than this? Do we need more depth? Probably not, but let’s try anyways!

Synthesizing

So we have 4 stances that are thematically coming out.

• Defensive Stance - focus on survival for yourself

• Tactical Stance - help allies or hinder enemies

• Offensive Stance - push for bigger damage and aggressive play

• Focused Stance - going for big reward but big risk. This is the Reckless attack in melee, or the ranged attack not prepared for a melee enemy.

To help me think through this I’m going to set the action economy to a hybrid of Cosmere RPG and Shadow of the Weird Wizard.

• 2 Actions a turn + 1 Reaction

Let’s now list out some actions that I typically love from other games and my own. These are combined actions and reactions. We will assign these to each of the stances, and then begin to trim it down.

• Defensive Stance

  • Brace

  • Dodge - Reaction?

• Tactical Stance

  • Cover an Ally

  • Taunt

  • Suppress

  • Inspire - Reaction?

  • Maneuver

  • Hinder an Enemy - Reaction?

• Offensive Stance

  • Grapple

  • Pierce/Aim

  • Wild Attack

  • Called Shot

  • Counter - Reaction

• Focused Stance

  • Hurry

  • Multi-attack

  • Reaction - auto Take the Initiative

This still seems like a lot. We’ll have to determine how much of this we need/want. Also, let’s list out the basic actions regardless of stance?

• Any Stance

  • Attack

  • Move

  • Take the Initiative - Reaction

  • Withdraw

  • Cast a Spell

  • Graze?

  • Shove / Push

There is also a question about the nature of actions. I like the idea of making certain actions Team actions, and some Solo. Let’s table this in our thought experiment at the moment.

Establishing Vibe

While designing my own game I’ve realized how much I care more about vibe than the pure mathy-ness of it. So let’s write out some scenarios and describe what we’d like to happen in them.

My Ally is in trouble!

Scenario - you see that your Ally is about to be attacked. Let’s write out options for on your turn or off-turn

I am standing in the fray, and out of the corner of my eye I see an enemy getting ready to attack my friend.

• Enemy is close and buddy is close

• Enemy is far and Buddy is far

• Both the enemy and my buddy are far from me

Thematically what would I like to do in these situations?

• I step in front of my buddy and prepare to defend them

• I engage with the enemy so that they can’t get to my ally

• I throw something at the enemy, trying to distract them.

• I yank my friend behind me or out of the way as the attack is coming.

Now, these don't have to be mechanical. There are plenty of games that are more narrative in nature, and allow you to just seize the moment and do something immediately. But I do like mechanics. I like tactical games that I have to somehow leverage the base rules. These rules don't have to be overly complex, but I don't necessarily just want to be doing shared storytelling without any rules.

• Step in front of ally could be an Action or Reaction. It would be boosting their ability to defend themselves, or taking the hit directly on myself

• Engaging the enemy could be a taunt, or a blocking of line of sight. An action or reaction again

• Throwing something at an enemy who is shooting at my friend feels more like a Reaction. It could be that I'm attacking them to kill them, or its a debuff against their ability to attack, or its some form of suppression not allowing them to attack?

I can't seem to hit this thing!

You and your party are up against something really tough. You need to damage it but you can't seem to. Let's list out some random thematic options.

• Its so armored and only has a few weak points

• Its so fast. Seems to be a blur that I can't keep up with

• I can hit it....but not hard enough. This thing just keeps taking it.

Thematically now what might I try and do? Again, there might be lots of answers here, but these are the stream of conscious ones that come to my head.

• I take my time, aim, and when my friend distracts them I try to precisely hit the weak point

• I time a trip to knock the target over and them try to pin or grapple them to stop them from moving

• I have to use everything I've got. I grip my weapon with two hands. Jump from a high point and fly at the beast with all my strength and body weight.

Again, how would this look mechanically?

• I take an AIM action and my ally makes a Distraction of some sort? Or I just received a bonus from an ally using an assist? I take a Called Shot action while being offensive? Maybe my ally needs to be in Tactical while I'm Offensive and its just something we can now do? So abilities are based more on the stances you and allies are in together?..

GEAR SWITCH!

This is my blog/article/stream of consciousness—I can do whatever I want! To be honest, I started this article weeks ago, but I feel like my current game doesn’t have an issue with this topic anymore. While I can’t discuss the current mechanics, I feel really good about the risk/reward dynamics and the decisions players need to make on their turns.

That said, I just wrote “team stances” in my last bullet point, and I absolutely love the idea.

Here’s the concept: take the individual stances from The One Ring but shift the focus. Keep the passive benefits (e.g., being in an offensive stance means you attack better but defend worse), but now add tasks and abilities based on both your stance and your ally’s stance. This opens up fascinating possibilities while keeping things simple.

For example:

• If you’re in Offensive and a nearby ally is in Tactical, you can use Called Shot.

• If you’re in Tactical and a nearby ally is in Focused, you can use Attack Now, which grants them an additional attack.

This idea excites me. I think it would be easy to design a fun and intuitive Venn diagram showing how stances overlap and which abilities become available.

Final Thoughts

Look...not all of these have to be complete thoughts. Enjoy the process of a rambling designer :P