"Realistic Modelling of Small Group Comabt" Topic
51 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please use the Complaint button (!) to report problems on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Renaissance Discussion Message Board Back to the Medieval Discussion Message Board Back to the Ancients Discussion Message Board Back to the Game Design Message Board Back to the Fantasy RPG Message Board
Areas of InterestGeneral Fantasy Ancients Medieval Renaissance
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase ArticleIt's probably too late already this season to snatch these bargains up...
Featured Profile Article
|
Pages: 1 2
Whirlwind | 14 Jun 2014 2:14 a.m. PST |
Otto Schmidt made the point in this thread that RPG combat is modelled in a 'woefully unrealistic' way. If you wanted to design a more realistic combat system, what would be the major points you would try and bring out? I don't mean necessarily more detailed here, I just mean outcome (who wins/who loses, what damage is done, how long it takes). Regards |
daubere | 14 Jun 2014 2:31 a.m. PST |
It depends on the RPG. Check out Chivalry and Sorcery, its spin off Land of the Rising Sun, and Aftermath. All old FGU games. There's enough 'realism' in their combat systems to last you a long time. |
Dave Crowell | 14 Jun 2014 4:48 a.m. PST |
The original RuneQuest combat system was written by SCA fighters to reflect their experiences on the field. There is also "Friday Night Firefight" the combat system for the original Cyberpunk RPG, based on a thorough analysis of FBI combat reports, statistics and analyses. Realistic enough for me. |
Heazy Slypocrite | 14 Jun 2014 4:54 a.m. PST |
The Riddle of Steel by Jake Norwood (one of those bods who do sword fighting) is usually regarded as the best. It's very good for individual combat but can get bogged down at anything beyond a duel. HarnMaster generally gets second place in such discussions. It's a tad old-fashioned for some, being originally based on Chivalry & Sorcery. Both GURPS & the new version of RuneQuest also tend to find favour with those who practice and study Medieval & Renaissance fighting. |
Dye4minis | 14 Jun 2014 5:02 a.m. PST |
Since the leader probably does not know anything much about the men he commands for this battle (assuming the practice of combining like troops together into ad-hoc units for the battle from the accompanying retinues), it might be interesting for game play to have to roll to see what the guy can do in combat? One way to do this is to roll up, say 100, different combat capability stats before the game and number them from 01-00 (100). When the figure enters his first combat, roll 2D10 (100) and consult the stats for the number rolled, and "Bob's Your Uncle"! Be sure to records which result was scored for each figure so he will consistently fight with the same stats for this game. OR, roll for each figure for every time it engages in combat. (This would add time to the game but offers maximum possible results for variety.) The uncertainty would capture the "unknown" feel for what type of human material he has under his command but it does it in a "fun" way! With 100 varied combinations, there is enough variety to provide for some interesting results. Best part is that the chart (or 3x5 index cards) only have to be made once and can be used for an unlimited amount of games-each tending to have a different "flair" for each game. Tom |
Katzbalger | 14 Jun 2014 8:12 a.m. PST |
I like RuneQuest's approach. Playe3d C&S and didn't really like it. For something a bit off the regular track, there's always Greg's (of Macho Women with Guns fame) EABA system. To modify Dye4's idea a little, the player's personal retinue gets rolled up beforehand, since he theoretically has some knowledge of their capabilities. Rob |
Ethanjt21 | 15 Jun 2014 10:42 a.m. PST |
Where's the thread on the topic being discussed? Personally, I've never felt the combat was unrealistic when playing ADnD 2nd Ed. It's how you portray it, not so much only looking at the die rolls. EDIT Found the thread. I disagree. The small bit of fencing I've done does seem to go the way he pointed out, but if it played like that in an RPG it wouldn't be fun. Upsets have to be possible in addition to the overwhelming easiness of some fights. When I explain HP to my players I tell them it doesn't mean you can be stabbed 13 times and live. I tell them to think of HP as your endurance/concentration/skill. Every round both opponents are losing HP, which doesn't mean they're being hit repeatedly. It means they're getting slower, missing more, losing focus, getting tired. Your last HP is the one attack you didn't dodge, block, parry, and you got skewered. Even if one person is overwhelmingly superior to another, there is always that faint chance they miss the parry and the dagger slides between their ribs. To summarize, I think the realism comes down to how you as a GM portrays what is happening and not the results of arbitrary dice rolls. |
Whirlwind | 15 Jun 2014 10:49 a.m. PST |
Sorry, I missed out the link in the OP: TMP link Apologies. |
Ethanjt21 | 15 Jun 2014 10:59 a.m. PST |
More to the point, if we're discussing the tactics of these fights, more realism isn't always a good thing. tactics and technology has and always will be an arms race between weapons and armor. The stone counters the skull. The sword counters the hide. The axe counters the shield. The spear counters the horse. In melee combat your effectiveness comes down to so many factors. Weapon, Training, Natural Skill, Stance, and Luck. Unless you want to play a game where you have a ton of charts to model all of this, in addition to normal combat values, I don't think it would be fun at all. General application of tactics and common sense is IMHO the best way to do it, but leave room for miracles and upsets. That's what an RPG is. Would you want to be playing Ragnar when your DM tells you that you have 0 hope of winning because your opponent has better armor, weapons, and training? Or would you rather know there's a chance, however unlikely, you could win. |
Whirlwind | 15 Jun 2014 11:26 a.m. PST |
@ Ethan, It might not be fun to be more realistic, but until I understand what the realistic outcomes are, then it is hard to judge really. And I agree completely that it may be totally inappropriate for some games. And just to be absolutely clear, I'm not necessarily talking about using complicated mechanics to get to the result, I'm only interested in the result. So has anyone made a meaningful study of the relative importance of weapons, armour, skill, motivation and luck (and anything else relevant) in determining the outcomes of low-level melee combat? Regards |
Last Hussar | 15 Jun 2014 12:35 p.m. PST |
I agree with Ethan on D&D – D&D is High Fantasy and players are HEROES! Those extra HP are the dodges, the mere scratches etc. Players should be aware suicide will leave them dead. Likewise Falling Damage. If it is 1d6 per 10 feet, and Conan falls 100ft, then he isn't making a crater, but grabbing outcrops and bushes in an attempt to stop the fall. He can't just throw him self off knowing that he will bounce. |
Lion in the Stars | 15 Jun 2014 6:29 p.m. PST |
One of the things I really like from Tenra Bansho Zero is that every single combat action is actually an opposed roll. None of this "I roll to attack, you roll to defend" stuff, if I get more successes than you do on the roll, I wound you, and if you get more successes on the roll than I do, you wound me. Yeah, it abstracts the individual cut&thrust of combat a bit, but I think it's more 'realistic' in terms of the results of combat. I honestly think that you'd need slightly different rules for duels than for wild melees, as there's always the "random shot from nowhere" in a melee, as well as the effects of ganging up on someone. So has anyone made a meaningful study of the relative importance of weapons, armour, skill, motivation and luck (and anything else relevant) in determining the outcomes of low-level melee combat? Cyberpunk's Friday Night Firefight did that for firearm combat, but I don't know of any such study for melee combat. I know in Kendo, while striking your opponent is the obvious way to score points, the judges also award points for your 'spirit' (aka motivation in my world). There's an old story about how a master of the tea ceremony was challenged to a duel by some young punk, and in desperation goes to a dojo to learn some sword skills so as not to dishonor himself by showing no ability with a sword. The dojo master hears his story, and asks the man to perform the tea ceremony for him. As the story goes, the tea master immediately calms himself and performs the ceremony perfectly. Then he starts to panic again as the dojo master says, "there's no need to teach you any tricks of the sword. Just face that punk the way you just performed the tea ceremony for me." The next day, the tea master and the punk were to duel, and the utter calmness of the tea master so intimidated the young punk that the punk panicked and ran away. |
Gamesman6 | 16 Jun 2014 1:14 p.m. PST |
When one says Realistic modelling of small group combat, one has to decide what aspects one wants to model realistically.. Do you want a range of options for actions offensive/defensive and manoeuvre? Are you going for high resolution, (lots of realistic detail) or High Fidelity, (realistic results, regardless of detail) Once you decide what it is one want to actually incorporate as important and how to go about achieve it, Hi Fi or High Res, one can look for the rules that come close or go about making up rules to achieve it.. |
Ethanjt21 | 19 Jun 2014 5:09 a.m. PST |
In regards to: So has anyone made a meaningful study of the relative importance of weapons, armour, skill, motivation and luck (and anything else relevant) in determining the outcomes of low-level melee combat? In AD&D 2nd Edition (My game of choice) they have a small table that lists various weps vs armor and what the effects are. It's very general, but it shows each type of damage. (slashing types, piercing types, blunt types) and what % damage they do against different armors (padded, chain, metal plate, etc.) It adds realism flavor. |
Patrice | 19 Jun 2014 8:35 a.m. PST |
It certainly depends which kind of game you want to create. You can make it very detailed if you want players to consider all blows and fencing movements etc. IMO some old-fashioned RPGs were very slow and a bit boring because of this. My personal taste is that it should be as fast as possible. In a real fight, if you have, say, 6 friends with you and you begin melee vs 6 enemy guys, the fighting can be very short, you hit the guy in front of you a couple of times and you kill him (or not) and when you look around you you see it's all over and all your pals have already won or have been killed. So I prefer to quickly roll a dice for each fighter and see if he's dead or not, and that's all. Otherwise you end up rolling dice during 40 minutes for a fight that would have lasted 2 mn in real life (but some players like it that way, so, as I said, it depends what you want to do). |
Gamesman6 | 19 Jun 2014 10:02 a.m. PST |
I don't think that dice rolling has to be the only way to go, use of fast cards, ala the The Quick and the dead could also work but allow for different moves and an allowance for different weapons. |
Lion in the Stars | 19 Jun 2014 11:43 a.m. PST |
Otherwise you end up rolling dice during 40 minutes for a fight that would have lasted 2 mn in real life (but some players like it that way, so, as I said, it depends what you want to do). If the fight even lasted 2 minutes! If you're beating on a dragon or something, then sure, I expect the fight to take a while. But honestly, most real fights should be over in seconds. |
Whirlwind | 20 Jun 2014 7:29 a.m. PST |
@Gamesman6, I mean (and I hope the first post makes it clear) that I'm interested in high fidelity, NOT high resolution. Regards |
Gamesman6 | 20 Jun 2014 9:35 a.m. PST |
Indeed. So the question then is what aspects of combat are important. Personally I'd go for manoeuvres and actions, with affects for the weapons that are being used and armour worn. |
Lion in the Stars | 20 Jun 2014 12:16 p.m. PST |
For high fidelity, I like the TBZ system I mentioned. Opposed rolls for each CC encounter, loser takes a wound (or wound roll) takes care of all the attack/counterattack details, while still telling you who 'won' that round. The Infinity mechanics are a little different:
Close Combat (CC) [
] For miniatures to engage in Close Combat, it is necessary that their bases be in contact. Any figures in base to base contact are always considered to be in Close Combat, and they will automatically change to CC Weapons (Pistols, knives, swords, or natural weapons) without using any Skill to do so. T.A.Gs do not need CC weapons since their fists cause Damage equal to PH-2 naturally! When declaring a CC attack with figure against an enemy, a dice roll is required to discover whether the attack is successful.When the miniatures to fight are in base contact, then a Face to Face Roll is required. The results can be: 1. Both fail, so neither achieves a hit on their target. 2. One fails and the other succeeds. The figure that fails receives damage, and must make an ARM Roll. 3. Both figures succeed. The miniature obtaining the highest score is the winner of the Face to Face Roll and hits his enemy. The figure that obtains the lowest number must make an ARM Roll with a +3 MOD to ARM (Defence Bonus) to reflect evasive manoeuvring. If there is a draw, the figure with the highest (Modified) Attribute will succeed. If there is another draw and the active player wishes to continue the fight, a new Order must be spent and another Face to Face Roll is required. 4. Both succeed and one gets a Critical. The latter wins the Face to Face Roll, even if his enemy rolled a higher number, and he causes a direct Wound, with no ARM roll allowed. 5. Both succeed with Critical rolls. The highest dice roll wins the Face to Face Roll and causes a direct Wound, with no ARM Roll allowed. If there is a draw, the higher Attribute (Modified) will be the winner. If there is yet another draw, both are mutually cancelled, the active player must spend an Order and engage in another Face to Face roll to continue the combat. |
Whirlwind | 20 Jun 2014 12:33 p.m. PST |
But what are the real-world factors that need to be brought into a 'high-fidelity' model? I guess what I'm getting it as that Otto's post in the linked thread implies that 'we' know some true stuff about melee combat. What do we actually know? Regards |
Gamesman6 | 20 Jun 2014 12:49 p.m. PST |
Not sure anything "needs" to be brought in, that is down to you. Personally I would want some choice in actions, MOving, – closing, making distance, off lining. Attacking/defending – thrusting, striking, parrying, countering , grappling. Speed/range, the reach of the weapon, and its speed. Allowing that in most cases, faster weapons will often only be effective at a closer range. These could workk along the lines of a modified RPS method, with actions on cards, with the info printed on them to reduce paging through rule books or ref sheets and aid in learning A simplified damage system, so allowing hits to be done and recorded, but in the nature of the fast pace of a melee encounter, all that really matters is can you keep going or are you stopped. If you haven't been stopped by the end of the fight, you'll have time to check your wounds and see how bad they are, and then drop down dead ;)
or find out you have lost a finger or just got scratches. It has always bugged me that the collateral doings of combat are what slowed it down but the actual cool stuff, the choices of what to do in combat, get reduced in to modifiers on a die roll, which is about as exciting and paint drying and really takes decision making out of the players hands. |
Patrice | 20 Jun 2014 2:33 p.m. PST |
I am lost there – or my English isn't good enough. I can't understand how "fidelity" can be superior to "resolution".
Unless you really want the players to spend most of their time "resolving" the combat situations (with dice or cards or whatever) in the name of "fidelity" (fidelity – or in medieval langage, "fealty" – to what? to dice rolling?) Or it's just me. Anyway, it's your game, I intend no harm :) |
Whirlwind | 20 Jun 2014 3:07 p.m. PST |
Patrice, Gamesman6 explained it in a post above: High resolution = highly detailed, but that detail does not particularly have to be realistic. High fidelity = accurate, in that the outcomes of the process mirror reality reasonably well, but it may show much less detail. In detailed (high resolution) combat systems, it is quite likely that the results will be less accurate than the alternative, because the system will be forced to generate specific numbers of how effective a sword, mace and axe are against different types of armour, say; but because those numbers aren't known, then more estimation and guesswork enters the system. Regards |
Patrice | 20 Jun 2014 4:27 p.m. PST |
Thanks Whirlwind. Um. Gamesman6 says: high resolution, (lots of realistic detail) or High Fidelity, (realistic results, regardless of detail) I still don't see how "realistic result" should be very different from "realistic detail". We are simulating (or at least, having fun believing that we simulate) a fight. We have fun because we think it is realistic (details and result included)
or we are disappointed because it is not. |
Ethanjt21 | 20 Jun 2014 9:06 p.m. PST |
I may have been off topic on my previous posts, but in regards to your question there have been extensive studies into the effects of particular weapons vs armors. As well as the effectiveness of particular stances/styles. If one were aiming for the most realistic conclusion for a small fight id say it boils down to: - weapon/shield skill (Your ability to effectively use whatever it is you kill people with whether that is to attack, block, or parry.) - agility/stance/fleet of foot (Your footwork in melee combat, or even your stance in archery, is quite important to how well you will do. Fencing is a prime example. Good footwork can be the difference between life and death. This would include dodging) - concentration (maintaining your concentration is critical at all times. Finding the pattern in your opponents attacks before he finds yours may well be the difference between life and death, or more simply just being able to focus your mental energy into staying composed) - luck (every dog has his day, so on so forth. Luck should always be accounted for in fights. I once shot the wick off a candle at 50 yards with my bow. It was total luck, but it happened.) Those 4 variables coupled with weapon class vs armor class would probably turn out a pretty realistic fight while staying light on dice rolls and mechanics. Maybe whoever is doing the attack uses: Die roll + Weapon Skill + Agility + Concentration. vs the opponent protecting from it, higher number wins, maybe consult a chart with the difference to see what happens. That would add fun random flavor. So I lost in my attack, but do I simply drop my weapon and stumble, or do I catch a riposte in the ribs? Sounds realistic and quick to me anyway. Sorry if that didn't help! |
Gamesman6 | 21 Jun 2014 2:19 a.m. PST |
Patrice "I still don't see how "realistic result" should be very different from "realistic detail". We are simulating (or at least, having fun believing that we simulate) a fight. We have fun because we think it is realistic (details and result included)
or we are disappointed because it is not." High resolution can have us comparing the speed impact, cutting and concussive damage of my 36" blade long sword vs that of your 34" blade single hander. We can work out the terrain under foot and the kind of footwear we are wearing, my turn shoes vs you hobnailed boots. The damage to my arms after the hit from your sword, which numbs my arm because the plate armour I am wearing, and I am at a minus. but now we need to check the concussive damage of my axe vs your mace, and see what damage happens then we may need to roll to see if the armour is damaged, to see how that affects my agility, which will affect my combat and manoeuvre rolls. Though of course if we hit some where not covered by plate we need to check damage differently, maybe torn muscle, so now I am bleeding HP each turn having a cumulative effect on my stats or a broken bone, so suffering immediate loss of mobility rolls and x amount pain HP. But wait, I have a shield which I put in the way, and that take the amount of HP damage, you roll a crit, I have to roll to see if the shield splits, but it wasn't a mace you were using it was a sword, so in nearly splitting my shield, the sword has gotten stuck in my shield, then you have to roll to get it out, but you roll a fumble so now roll to see if you are disarmed or the sword breaks, checking on that don't forget to +15 as you have an ULFBHERT sword (very strong) and so it could go on. All these aspects can be included in a high resolution approach, but if all they are doing is adding modifiers to rolls or making make more rolls it is adding more stages in resolving the action. But not of themselves making the Fidelity any better, especially if the goal is to recreate the fast and furious decision making process of small group melee combat. More detail does not make for more truth, of itself. It why I have mentioned and asked what people think are the important aspects they want included in the action to be resolved. |
Gamesman6 | 21 Jun 2014 2:31 a.m. PST |
Ethanjt21 "Die roll + Weapon Skill + Agility + Concentration. vs the opponent protecting from it, higher number wins, maybe consult a chart with the difference to see what happens. That would add fun random flavor." But if all those factors are only modifying numerically the die, roll why not just turn them in to one factor, weapon skill? Otherwise the different factors are not affected by the combat. After all could one have someone with a high weapon skill that was not agile or had high concentration, or at least high enough to nopt make much difference. Cappofero the slow day dreaming sword fighter! ;) Also at the end of the day, those factors are not offering me tactical choices or decisions. it all really comes down to how good my dice roll is. Nothing wrong with that but then if that is what it is why not just roll a dice and see who wins. Some of my most memorable RPGs and wargames used very simple roll 1d6 each higher score wins, no modifiers Be cause it was so simple runs of luck etc took on more meaning and made the game fun, also very fast. Conversely some of the more miserable experiences are those that increased the levels of resolution, even by only a few factors but more time was spent figuring out modifiers blah blah, and it still ended up being about good opr bad dice rolls and added nothing to tactical decision making. If one trains in combat and spars, or when we watch, or read about it in fiction it is the choices that are made and how those relate to those of the opponent, producing a result, that make it interesting it, isnøt about combining stats and modifiers and the rolling random dice. That's just what has now become accpeted as what it should be in the games world. Best |
Lion in the Stars | 21 Jun 2014 9:22 a.m. PST |
If you'd like to see another example of realistic details, check out the melee combat rules from the Anima RPG. There is an entire full-page table that has you cross-reference weapon type against armor type to give you your to-hit numbers (and counterattack chance). Blargh! Give me something that can resolve things quickly, so that the die results happen about as fast as the results in real combat. |
Patrice | 22 Jun 2014 2:39 a.m. PST |
Thanks Gamesman6. :) In fact I certainly have a difficulty to think that "high resolution" is realistic. Give me something that can resolve things quickly, so that the die results happen about as fast as the results in real combat Yes I agree entirely. |
thehawk | 22 Jun 2014 7:26 a.m. PST |
The old Darklands 15thC computer game is still a good one. This article is worth a read as it explains the relationships between armour, weapon, strength, endurance etc. link something on armour link something on ageing link something on combat systems and tactics link Legends of Eisenwald combat: link |
Gamesman6 | 22 Jun 2014 12:29 p.m. PST |
"In fact I certainly have a difficulty to think that "high resolution" is realistic." Well that is the point, it isn't, resolution is the detail, but the detail is only important if it helps to get you to the fidelity (Truthfulness) you are looking for. "Give me something that can resolve things quickly, so that the die results happen about as fast as the results in real combat" Fast results yes but anything that basically centre around just rolling dice, turns me off. |
Andy ONeill | 24 Jun 2014 6:47 a.m. PST |
Some people have studied real combat. The problem is, you're not going to like what they found. There's a study of football hooligans based on cctv. Real close combat isn't very deadly at all. Nobody is really trying. There is a lot of posturing and not a lot of real hurt going on. Direct parallels were drawn with animal behaviour such as stags, male chickens et al. The two animals face off and posture a lot. One gives up and runs off. Anyhow only one thing matters, the motivated hooligan will win. No matter what the weapon skills size or anything. One way to be really motivated is to be a psychopath. Shortcuts the mechanism which stops one hooligan really trying to hurt the other. Very few hooligans seriously injure anyone deliberately. Another study is on modern warfare but I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in what the major factors are in combat. The short story is psychology (motivation again). Brains and bullets: how psychology wins wars, Leo Murray. The problem is that 99% of people don't really want to kill anyone. They may say they do. They may think they do. When it comes down to it most soldiers are pretty bad at actually killing anyone. Roughly 1% excel. This is somewhat paralleled in air combat where roughly 4% of fighter pilots score the vast majority of kills. They're shooting down planes rather than looking some poor blighter in the eye as they stick a pointy thing in him so aces can still have some empathy and succeed. If you can actually find a good description of medieval battles then it's pretty common to see a long slugging match which doesn't seem to be very decisive. The fighting can go on all day long but very few actually seem to die in the close combat. Something happens – this can often seem pretty minor. One side breaks and runs. They are run down by cavalry and butchered and or drown crossing some stream which seems improbably small on the map. Current thinking is that most of the combat was really two sides stood some distance away from each other posturing or just panting for breath. Over heating was a major problem for the heavily armoured. I think also if I was an adventurer I would like it to be in a world where medical magic was perfect. Otherwise all those "minor" 1-4 hit point scars would make getting out of bed agony after a while. Reallity's not so much fun. So should we do about rpg combat? I like the feng shui approach. The game is an action hero movie. Players wish to do something then the ref decides whether it suits the script ( plus ) or not ( minus ). Along with some other factors like whether it's an entertaining idea. Injuries are glossed over. Heroes are always creased in places aren't nasty. There's a series of cut scenes lying in blood, hugged by friend, the ambulance pulls up, notifying friends through to them waiting long hours in the hospital, visits to the sick bed
Before our hero recovers perfect health. |
Gamesman6 | 24 Jun 2014 8:10 a.m. PST |
But what happens when two motivated (sociopathic) hooligans with weapons face it each other. ;) Read things by Rory Miller and Marc MacYoung, But especially by Miller. While the mooks may fall in to the don't want to be there do a lot of posturing and only get stuuck in when they know they are going to win, the PC may not be falling in to those aspects, also one has to consider that while there are general trends training and context can shifts those trends one way or another. Also the effect of "othering" makes violence and killing to be done, so if you are in setting where players are facing other species, especially ones that seem less "like us" will be easier to kill, and also if those species are perceived to be a particular threat to "us". Think of the propaganda that gets attached to the enemy in conflicts, the less human, the easier to kill kill |
OSchmidt | 24 Jun 2014 8:19 a.m. PST |
Dear Thread I must reiterate that my post in the other thread basically said three things. 1. Real Combat is not at all what game designers think it is as it appears in the rule books. As AO'Neil points out, if you study it you are not going to like what you find. 2. In addition real combat invokes emotions and patterns of behavior that are not always governable. Super-heroes can stumble and fall. There may be some little snot across the steam with a slingshot who's going to give the super-hero Goliath a bad day. 3. Why bother with all this realism in a fantasy game, you're not really interested in it. You're interested in the "archetypical" character as a trope. David in the above tells a moral tale that things are not always what they seem and might does not always yield Victory. I'm sure that had the Philistines won, they would have noted how the stupid Israelites sent a mere boy against them out of incompetence and cowardice and Goliath pounded him flatter than snail-snot. Do not forget that in our Ad&D we are not playing only a game, but we are creating legends and legends is the land of the archetypical hero whose abilities are far and above that or ordinary people. So who cares about realism. |
Gamesman6 | 24 Jun 2014 10:15 a.m. PST |
Well I guess some people do care a bout "realism" as the thread goes one! ;) and is as you say we are dealing with people who are far and above the common form then why wouldn't that combat be more something other than what we see in AD&D et al. The "problem" with combat for me in most RPGs is that is it is not either like actual combat, nor the reality of what is felt to experienced by people when they read fiction or watch movies, so it is unsatisfying, can be slow and tiring. A big issue for me is that RPGs have generally just used variations on a theme, dice and modifiers, to create a numeric value that determines who wins,just look at the games design sections of forums like RPGnet. Games like FengShui mentioned above do things to challenge or use this in an interesting way, but most games just stick to doing the same thing, for no better reason than that it was has always been done. |
Andy ONeill | 24 Jun 2014 11:27 a.m. PST |
At the end of the day it's a game. It has to be fun. I swopped out the special abilities of Feng Shui for rather less awesome ones for a Harn based campaign. Only thing about it is the action point system means you need an aid to run the game easily. I use a piece of paper stuck on foam board and pins for a track. You can pretty easily tune the game by messing with the abilities. You want to emulate shield wall style combat. Slap on a plus on defence in shield wall ability. You want a sword saint who can chop down an orc a second? Slap on a 1 attack an action point versus extras ability. It's very easy to fine tune because the core mechanics are so simple. And it gives a very quick game. Washes whiter
.. |
Lion in the Stars | 24 Jun 2014 12:29 p.m. PST |
Give me something that can resolve things quickly, so that the die results happen about as fast as the results in real combat Fast results yes but anything that basically centre around just rolling dice, turns me off.
If you don't like rolling dice, then why are you playing a game that uses them? Look: Exalted and Scion have you describe your action, the cooler your description the more bonus dice you get. In the Anima RPG, you compare your weapon type to the target's armor type to see what your to-hit chance is (and what your chance of getting counterattacked is). In the end, EVERY game but Malifaux boils down to who rolled better dice. In Malifaux, the game is 'who drew the better card, or had a better card in their hand to play'. No matter how many modifiers you add to the pile from your armor of badassery and your sword of mook-slaying, at the end of the day, all they are is modifiers to the die roll. The more modifiers you add to the pile, the slower the combat resolution. It's why I prefer 'success-based' games for RPing. They just let you put another die in your hand, then count how many rolled whatever it is to be a success. |
Gamesman6 | 24 Jun 2014 1:09 p.m. PST |
"If you don't like rolling dice, then why are you playing a game that uses them?" I'm not in general;) I was talking against an argument that seemed to be about speed and rolling dice. "In the end, EVERY game but Malifaux boils down to who rolled better dice. In Malifaux, the game is 'who drew the better card, or had a better card in their hand to play'." EVERY Game? ;) and just because they are the normal way of doing things that doesn't mean it is a the best way, just the most accepted. Look I have nothing against dice or cards, one may need a randomiser, but they could just be flipping a coin. if one is able to make a choice following the tactics of what one can do in a melee say, with another mechanic perhaps that does that. "No matter how many modifiers you add to the pile from your armor of badassery and your sword of mook-slaying, at the end of the day, all they are is modifiers to the die roll." If that is how the system works, but that is what I am talking against. If the system ends up being about dice rolls then keep it simple, like I said I have had enjoyable games with simple opposed die rolls no mods no nothing. Of course if that what one enjoys then do it, and dice work for it then great but if the question is how to model something in a different way, then I am suggesting to use a different approach, rather than just trying to use the normal system but with extra bells and whistles. best |
Gamesman6 | 24 Jun 2014 1:11 p.m. PST |
"At the end of the day it's a game. It has to be fun." Indeed it does, I like the sound of how you used FS, and I'd like to play it. Though I still follow the quest to find the right way to have fun for me ;) |
Andy ONeill | 25 Jun 2014 4:33 a.m. PST |
Well the idea is the next planned scene of the quest is where the fun is. You can have a scene or two of your own on the way there
but the chances are that alley you thought led to safety ends up in the scene I had planned anyhow. As a GM you don't want to force the group to follow an absolute path. You do, however, want to encourage them to head in a direction which will work. So it's a loose atmospheric kind of path. Divergence is more likely to mean I adapt the route there rather than deus ex machina. The first time someone decides a fish out the restaurant tank would be a cool weapon it's entertaining. That +1 miniature shark to face is a one time offer though. |
Whirlwind | 27 Jun 2014 8:35 a.m. PST |
@Otto & A O'Neill 1. Real Combat is not at all what game designers think it is as it appears in the rule books. As AO'Neil points out, if you study it you are not going to like what you find. I can well believe the first point without agreeing at all with the second. I've asked about this specifically because I think some (not all) RPGs or small skirmish games might be interesting with more realistic combat in there. @ AO'Neill: I've read and thoroughly digested Brains and Bullets and would echo your recommendation. But (since it isn't its aim), it doesn't deal with small unit pre-1700 close combat to any great extent. So I could have just as easily posted a question along the lines of "how would you extend the work of Brains and Bullets to include small unit combat?". However, Otto's words in the other thread implied that there was something more mechanical at work (unless he meant that there is a morale collapse in being the inferior-skilled fighter before any actual damage is done). Also, there are some reasons to think that the baseline chance for a pro-fighter (boxer/martial artist/duellist/fencer/warrior etc.) to get involved might be somewhat higher than in a gang fight. 2. In addition real combat invokes emotions and patterns of behavior that are not always governable. Super-heroes can stumble and fall. There may be some little snot across the steam with a slingshot who's going to give the super-hero Goliath a bad day. Well, this shouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility to work into a game. Most games do do this to some extent (that open-ended roll in MERP could throw up a surprise or two!). 3. Why bother with all this realism in a fantasy game, you're not really interested in it. You're interested in the "archetypical" character as a trope. David in the above tells a moral tale that things are not always what they seem and might does not always yield Victory. I'm sure that had the Philistines won, they would have noted how the stupid Israelites sent a mere boy against them out of incompetence and cowardice and Goliath pounded him flatter than snail-snot.Do not forget that in our Ad&D we are not playing only a game, but we are creating legends and legends is the land of the archetypical hero whose abilities are far and above that or ordinary people. So who cares about realism. Well D&D is not the only game
:-) Some games are more fun with realistic rules, some less so. But it is worth having both available, surely? I think also if I was an adventurer I would like it to be in a world where medical magic was perfect. Otherwise all those "minor" 1-4 hit point scars would make getting out of bed agony after a while. Reallity's not so much fun. The wounds/healing rules in Maelstrom actually do work like this link ! You do *not* want to be badly hurt by something sharp. But on your wider point, sure, motivation is key. But there is enough recorded combat to make it worthwhile having the right physical mechanics in there, as well as the mental ones. Regards |
OSchmidt | 27 Jun 2014 10:00 a.m. PST |
The real litmus test as to how much realism you wish is easy. Rather than calculating the game from the standpoint of what you can do to the enemy calculate it the other way around. For example. When you are not in the immediate presence of the enemy, life is pretty good. No one is attempting to kill you. When you are in the immediate presence of the enemy we can assume he is as you are attempting to kill him. Rather than going through all the gobbledygook at the moment of blows and turns and modifiers, simply assume that each figure(person) is doing his level best to survive, and that can be by avoiding being killed, or killing the enemy. Either one- doesn't matter. Therfore make a factor for the defensibility of the figure which can be more or less constant from combat to combat through the whole game. Thus if you are say in immediate contact with an enemy cross reference your value with that of the enemy on a chart, (if you wish) and get a factor you must roll to "survive and be saved." The enemy does the same. Example, Assume that within the presence of the enemy you deduct from a D 20 his offensive power and add back in your defensive power. This will yield a number less than or equal to that you have to roll to survive one turn in immediate contact with the enemy. Oh one thing- regarless of the numbers a 1 is always a save, and a 20 is always a death. Thus assume your Super Conan figure comes up against a light, militia Thespian with a broken bamboo spear and a worried look. Conan rolls a 20. He's toast. The Thespian rolls a 1, he lives to be the national hero. \This will separate the men from the boys as far as your gamers go. NOW for the real fun! The system above breaks down when you have two less than sterling characters. For example, the Thespian above is matched with a Clactonian who has a Frisbee and a lisp. You change the die to the next higher size over the superior of the two plus 1.. thus assume the Thespian has a save of 3 which +1 means 4. Thus when fighting each other the Thespian is toasted on a 4 while the Clactonian on a 3 or a 4. Thus you switch the dice on the following criteria. Highest Save value. 1,2,3 4 sided die. 4,5 6 sided die. 6,7 8 sided die. 8,9, 10 sided die. 10,11 12 sided die. 12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19, 20 20 Sided die. The highest number in each die is always a fail, the lowest always a save. Obviously there are different spreads. The lowest 4 sided die represents people like ordinary joes and rrecruits. The two step increments represent more and more experienced and professional and once you get 12 and above you are into superhero land. A bit rough but it will serve quite well-- provided you have the stones to match your Goliath against his David.
Otto |
OSchmidt | 27 Jun 2014 10:10 a.m. PST |
Dear lits Hmmmmm that's a rather neat Idea I cooked off the top of my head. It also will simplify multiple combat easily. Thus a person matched against more than one opponent (up to 4 you can't cram anyone else around him) will roll have to save four times to survive. So that means in the first turn he will have to save four times and assuming his assailants do not survive his attention, on the next turn 3, on the next turn 2 and on the next turn 1, or 10 saves on which he must roll less than or equal to his save. So if he is a Goliath of great ability that's 10 times he must roll a die and not get a 20. Hmmmm odds aren't so great he will survive now! Hmmmmmm I have to design a game to use this in. |
Lion in the Stars | 27 Jun 2014 8:28 p.m. PST |
In the end, EVERY game but Malifaux boils down to who rolled better dice. In Malifaux, the game is 'who drew the better card, or had a better card in their hand to play'. EVERY Game? ;) and just because they are the normal way of doing things that doesn't mean it is a the best way, just the most accepted. Look I have nothing against dice or cards, one may need a randomiser, but they could just be flipping a coin. if one is able to make a choice following the tactics of what one can do in a melee say, with another mechanic perhaps that does that.
The times I've been sparring, I haven't been thinking about what move to do. My sole thought is 'there's an opening!'A better fighter than I has fewer holes in his defense or can close any hole faster than I can strike, but even the good/professional fighters don't consciously think of what move they're going to use. So I'm in favor of a system that gives a general skill rating and the victor of a fight is handled in the comparison of the skills. To use the example from Tenra Bansho Zero: I have a Agillity of 7 and a Melee Weapons skill of 3, so I roll 7 dice and succeed with any die showing a 3 or less. You are shooting me, so your Senses is the controlling stat. Your Senses stat is 6, but your skill with that pistol is 4. You will roll 6 dice and succeed on a 4 or less. On average, I will have 3.5 successes, call it 4 for this example. Your average roll will also be 4 successes. This is a tie, so we both re-roll all our dice. Next time, I only get 3 successes while you still got 4 successes, so you successfully hit me with some close-range gun-fu. (Either one of us could have spent Kiai points to add more dice, or we could have used an Art of War technique to guarantee a certain type of damage or other special effect) Exalted's mechanic is a bit similar, except that we're rolling a number of d10s equal to our stat plus the skill (plus any magic points we spend, or if we unleash magic combos) Otto's mechanic of bigger/smaller die works. (BTW, Otto, Chessex makes D14s and D16s, and I've seen d24s and d30s in stores) But everything boils down to the question of 'how do you determine your chance of hitting and doing damage'. However you get there, the only thing left is applying your randomizer. I prefer to add dice-to-roll and count successes than to figure die roll modifiers for solo combat, but I'm quite capable of handling die roll modifiers (as that's how Infinity does things). |
Gamesman6 | 28 Jun 2014 2:22 a.m. PST |
My point is whether one thinks of it or not, and I agree one doesn't "think" of the actions as such, though you can, those choices are important to the out come of the action. Even if one is boiling down to the base "there's an opening", that opening is something they leave or something you create. Yes one can "model" that with just dice rolls and mods, but that is engaging IMO, as I get blocked by working out dice rolls. If one likes dice use them but again I'll still say iof one want something different, look at different ways, not looking at different ways og juggling numbers and dice |
OSchmidt | 30 Jun 2014 10:01 a.m. PST |
The question of.. "But everything boils down to the question of 'how do you determine your chance of hitting and doing damage'." Like everything else in this hobby you pull pull it out of thin air. Make it up as you go along. By the way I recently put on an ancient game at "The Weekend" convention using ancient "tossing sticks" not dice. Worked Well, but this was for a big game, not an individual man to man game. |
RTJEBADIA | 04 Jul 2014 12:09 p.m. PST |
I think the way to balance the "you don't think" with the "choices are fun" school of thought is to allow "strategic" choices but not "move" choices in hand to hand combat. In fact, I'm thinking of making a low level skirmish game that uses this. I somewhat disagree with the statement that "even the good/professional fighters don't consciously think of what move they're going to use" on two levels. One, if you're thinking about what you're doing at a very low level, you're probably a worse fighter, not a better one. An untrained fighter might not think much but they'll be ineffective because they're not thinking, while an untrained fighter might be thinking too much about every little motion to "try to get it right" and end up moving very slowly and, quite possibly, still ineffectively. A good fighter is thinking. But he's not really thinking about every little action because he's trained enough in it that when he sees an opening he knows how to take advantage. He is making choices about his "strategy" that are very game-able, however. My own take would be to have characters make a choice between one of a few actions and then make an opposed die roll to see which gets their way. Perhaps if the roll is "tied" then there is some compromise solution or nothing happens. Actions could be as broad as "Damage," "Control, "Break Control," or "Take Down." Status would be important, too-- if you are attacked from behind or let the enemy get behind you then you are easy to control and damage. If you are knocked down you are relatively easy to damage and can't do much yourself but if the enemy wants to control you he has to get down on the ground with you. If you are controlled your options are affected and the opponent gains some other options, such as shifting your or his position. Weapons could have a similar effect-- perhaps a bayonet on a rifle makes damage easier as well as more damaging but it makes it harder to control. That way weapons are a distinct advantage but if an experienced fighter faces an armed inexperienced fighter the experienced fighter probably still has the advantage but they have to play to their advantage instead staying in the position and status that gives the bayonet an advantage. |
PMC317 | 04 Jul 2014 11:04 p.m. PST |
For close combat, I tend to just use opposed rolls in the games I run; so the PCs are rolling d20s to hit, and the NPCs anything from d6s to d20s themselves. Highest roll hits! For shooting, well, everyone uses d20, and the mooks and NPCs get to hit (or not hit) depending on the situation as I see it (or if they roll above 15 usually). I don't really want my PCs to die, because I tend to run heroic games. Except when I run Dark Heresy. In which case the PCs better get used to rolling new characters if they're not careful. The grim, dark, future is violent and bloody
! |
Weasel | 09 Jul 2014 9:42 a.m. PST |
If you want a realistic game, have enemies behave realistically. Nothing breaks suspension of disbelief worse than yet another mob of bad guys marching up to get mown down, simply for the chance of landing another hit on the heroes. Enemies that withdraw, fall back, negotiate and bribe will lead to players following the same actions. |
Pages: 1 2
|