Swordfighting system - Link

[zmobie]

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=188

The link above is for a video-game sword fighting system, but I thought it would also be great for an rpg. What kinds of adaptations do you think you could make to it for tabletop use? Are there systems out there that are similar?

[JoyWriter]

I think the requirements are very good, although I suspect a tabletop game would have greater complexity in attack types replacing things like timing combos. In a console game your input options are limited by the controller but time is recorded accurately, in a tabletop game they are limited by the capabilities of your system to interpret narration, and traditionally timing is not an issue. (Although that's not to say it couldn't be)

In other words what details about a strike matter? It's generally best if people don't accidental trigger details they did not intend, so either have a system that offers bonuses for special attacks, which are also susceptible to special defences, or have a typing system (strong/weak/slicing/bashing/mid/low) that applies automatically to attacks but that is recorded for everyone to see.

On mobile combat, I built it into my own system at a very early point. In my experience the best way to produce it is to abandon "dodge" as something that nullifies an attack without consequence. Like this game suggests, it should either require you to move about, or loose some kind of focus or balance. I find in a combat system, it is generally better to replace action with another kind of action, as this means from the moment combat starts, something is happening, unless you specifically disengage for a breather. Such a disengagement is so useful in swashbuckling games, because the two players can agree to pause, get their strength back, and possibly switch to a battle of words, and having the chain of actions exaggerates and underlines that pause.

[Daniel B]

zmobie,

very interesting system. As a matter of fact, I've been working on a new system after having having reached similar conclusions as the writer. (Your article?)   I've been working on a combat system for my own RPG; it shares many similarities with the "Dueling Gameplay" system, but some differences. Keep in mind it's still rough. (I hope I haven't posted this system already.. hate to repeat myself and annoy others)

Please note, I don't want to derail the thread. Just offering up this system to compare and contrast. It is an honest attempt at a system spawned from similar intentions.

I've been trying to work in the concept of combat advantage into the game, to be much more of a factor on combat success than relative ability. Two duelists would have relative attack/defence scores that would lead to an "average advantage". All other factors held equal, the character for whom the average advantage favours is going to win the most fights. However, where it gets interesting is that the characters can jostle the combat advantage around that average. A less-experienced fighter can dodge and weave and take steps to boost his relative advantage. Furthermore, he can work to obtain situational advantages such as higher ground, or disabling the other character.

Let's start with the major differences. Unlike the "Dueling Gameplay" system, I have not removed hitpoints due to the fact that scaling is very important in my game, but they're vastly different from D&D hitpoints. I decided that a pixie shouldn't be able to kill a dragon in one hit just because the dragon let down his guard, but by the same token, a super-highly-trained battle-pixie fighting against a combat-inexperienced dragon should be able to take down that dragon far more quickly than the hitpoint system of D&D would allow. Incidentally, hitpoints don't go up as the character rises in "level", in this game; they're more a measure of sheer mass and size.

The hitpoints of our system are reminiscent of but not the same as the wound tracks of older systems:
Surface    ooooooooo  (  0%   full bar / round)
Light        ooooooooo  (-10%  full bar / good sleep)
Serious    ooooooooo  (-20%  full bar / full day & sleep)
Critical     ooooooooo  (-50%     1 hp / day if critical bar at least 2/3 full rounded down;
                                              1 hp / week otherwise)

In brackets beside each bar is a percentage and a healing rate. The % represents how much one's combat ability is affected if the bar is brought to zero hitpoints. The healing rates apply even if the character suffers damage in the intervening time. The healing rates are also concurrent if the Critical bar is at least 1/3 full. (This can lead to cases where the character is full health except for having only maybe a half-full Critical bar).

Please note that the character is not dead if their critical bar is empty. They only die if all bars are at zero hitpoints. Now, the next question is, how can an attacker hit the critical bar "directly". This is where the combat advantage comes into play, and where the system looks a lot more like the "Dueling Gameplay" system. I said that this is not like the wound track systems of yore because the "Surface" and "Critical" tracks see heavy usage, while the middle two see far less. The reasoning is that: why should an attacker care to work through the first three levels? He wants to bring down his opponent as fast as possible, by eliminating critical points first. Then combat becomes very, very potentially lethal to the defender. Conversely, the defender wants to mitigate as much damage as possible, so that he can survive this fight and go on to participate in many more, by keeping as much damage as possible up at the surface level.

(The Surface level exists to give the game a more movie-like feel. The characters can suffer tons and tons of scratches and glancing blows but continue fighting like they were fresh off vacation. Furthermore, it allows for combatants as vastly different scales to hurt each other. If a pixie has perfect combat advantage in combat against a dragon, one hit from that dragon is still likely going to eat up the surface points and do genuine damage.)

The Combat Advantage grants a sort of tug-of-war back and forth. An attacker with full combat advantage does pure critical damage, while a defender with all the advantage mitigates the damage to pure surface. At the levels in between these maximums, the ratio of surface to critical damage changes, while the amount of damage done to the middle two bars is at most one point. For example, in decreasing advantage for the attacker, a 4-damage weapon would do:

• (a) 4 Critical
• (b) 3 Critical, 1 Serious,
• (c) 2 Critical, 1 Serious, 1 Light
• (d) 1 Critical, 1 Serious, 1 Light, 1 Surface
• (e)                1 Serious, 1 Light, 2 Surface
• (e)                                1 Light, 3 Surface
• (e)                                            4 Surface;   highest defender advantage

This tug-of-war is brought about through combat advantage. I said earlier that the fighters could jostle their relative advantage by dodging and weaving. In fact, in addition to changing the chances to hit, combat advantage give characters the ability to "tug" their damage. A battle-pixie with a 1-point damage dagger can bring a human being with the hit-points shown above to 50% combat effectiveness with ten successful strikes, if that battle-pixie can fight well enough to maintain full combat advantage (i.e. by doing ten points of Critical damage). Then, the pixie is even MORE likely to win.

Combat Advantage itself works a tiny bit like the "Stamina meter" mentioned in the other system, but I hadn't directly associated it to stamina. (I'd likened it more to literal combat advantage, where your opponent is in a vulnerable position thanks to his mistakes, your efforts, and the general chaos of combat. That said, I love the idea of an actual stamina meter.) Consequently, the more advantage you have, the harder it is to maintain, like running out of stamina. The "Fighting For Position" methods were tied into this, simply increasing or decreasing one's combat advantage. I imagined that if a character is in a really bad state, he could "disengage for a breather" to reset the advantage to it's natural average, which depends on the relative combat ability of the characters. This would look like the natural breaks in actual combat.

I'm looking to flesh out this system and plan to take a much closer look at the "Dueling Gameplay" system, so I'm looking forward to anything people have to say on this thread. As I mentioned, the system is *very* rough, but the Combat Advantage mechanics I'm currently mulling over work like this: each player keeps track of his advantage as a number that starts at zero and can increase indefinitely, limited only by the weapon they're using. When this advantage is at zero, all damage is surface. The character can dodge, weave, feint, etc. to gain higher advantage, and as they do so, the damage increases in "depth", maxing out when all the damage they can inflict is critical (or maybe the advantage increases indefinitely, to account for situational damage modifiers or buffs). Despite the fact that this combat advantage climbs easily, it is also reset to zero just as easily, such as if the defender takes a "breather step backwards" or if the attacker changes weapons or is distracted by a loud noise nearby.

I'd also like to have a system where the advantage pushes the actual chance-to-hit-or-defend around the natural mean, but this one is trickier because as it gets farther away from the mean, the more likely it should come back again (or else it's not a natural mean). It would give a battle-pixie a more reasonable chance against a combat-inept dragon.

Daniel

[MacLeod]

An interesting idea, this thing. I'm not a big fan of realistic systems and their complications though... But a more complicated, tactical style of combat does interest me.
To the point, I wrote this little thingy as a rough outline about 5 minutes ago. I'll go ahead and claim a 'compare and contrast' stance as ol' Daniel here did.

Rough Idea!

Combatants have 20 Stamina and 100 Focus.
Actions drain Stamina. If at any point a combatant's Stamina is reduced to 0, he is considered defeated. Focus is reduced by damage. When a combatant takes damage and his Focus is reduced to 0, overlapping damage (often simply referred to as Overkill) is applied to his Stamina. Damage dealt is based on the type of attack performed, the combatant's current Stamina and the difference between his Attack Roll result and the opponent's Defense Roll result.

IE: Fighter A is battling Fighter B. Fighter A has 13 Stamina and 65 Focus. Fighter B has 17 Stamina and 15 Focus. Fighter A performs an Aggressive Heavy Attack against Fighter B whom attempts a Greater Dodge. Fighter A rolls 4D6, getting a 17 while Fighter B rolls 3D6, getting a 12. Fighter A beats Fighter B by 5. Fighter A deals 24 damage total (Heavy9 + Stamina10 + Difference5 = Total24). Fighter B has his Focus of 15 reduced by 24 which produces an Overkill of 9. The Overkill applies to his 14 Stamina, reducing it to 5. Fighter B is about to go bye-bye.

Piercing Damage: Piercing Damage reduces Stamina directly, bypassing Focus altogether. If any of the Attacker's dice come up 6, deal 1 Piercing Damage. This effect stacks with multiple 6's.
Adrenaline Surge: Every Initiative, each combatant gains an Adrenaline Surge. PCs roll 1D10 while NPCs may roll a different die. It is recommended that faceless henchmen receive a D4 at best, or perhaps just 1 point.
The result of the die is then split up between the combatant's Stamina and Focus in any amount.
Advantage: Gaining the Advantage over an opponent reduces your Stamina costs by 1 and increases your Attack/Defense rolls by 3. You can gain the Advantage by being on higher ground, backing an opponent against a wall, flanking the opponent and using the environment intelligently.

Attacks have two connotations; Strength and Style.

Strength

Light: Drains 1 Stamina. Deals 3 damage.
Medium: Drains 2 Stamina. Deals 6 damage.
Heavy: Drains 3 Stamina. Deals 9 damage.

Style

Brutal: Double any damage dealt to Stamina. This includes Piercing Damage. If the target is Parrying and the attack is successful, reduce his next Adrenaline Surge by half.
Aggressive: Pushes the target 5' in a direction of your choice. You must follow the opponent. If the target Dodges and the attack is successful, you may push him 10' instead.
Feint: Reduce damage dealt by 5 but apply a penalty of 5 to the target's next roll. If the target Counter Attacks and the attack is successful, increase damage dealt by 6.

Defenses have two connotations; Determination and Style

Determination

Minimal: Drains 0 Stamina. No bonus.
Lesser: Drains 1 Stamina. +3 on the roll.
Greater: Drains 2 Stamina. +6 on the roll.

Style

Counter Attack: Drains 3 Stamina. Successfully defending deals 10 damage to the attacker. Successfully Counter Attacking a Feint increases the damage dealt to 15.
Dodge: Drains 1 Stamina. You must move at least 5' after the roll whether it was successful or not. Successfully Dodging a Brutal Attack allows you to deal 5 damage to the Attacker.
Parry: Drains 2 Stamina. Success allows you  to move the attacker 5' in any direction. You must follow the opponent. Successfully Parrying an Aggressive Attack allows you to deal 5 damage to the Attacker.

I just sort of took what was in that article and filled in some blanks... To make things simple, I would just end up stapling this little tidbit to Risus or some other system that uses a bunch of D6s that are rolled and totaled up.

[JoyWriter]

Hey MacLeod, the funny thing about your game is that it means that effectively every attack you do drains your health! I suspect for that reason the numbers could require very fine tuning to have the right feel. I also like the way that the moves interact, not pure janken, but close enough to make initiative matter (I'm guessing that's what initiative is for in this system but that is a blind guess!) I quite like the idea of having initiative being quite hard to fight for, perhaps even requiring spent focus, if we're already going in that direction. For characters of equal initiative, or generally, it could run on a system of blind set choices, with tokens or dice. I'll see if I can get my brother to play through a few rounds with me so we can get a feel for it. In that super simple version there would just be a 1d scale with a wall at either end for advantage, like street-fighter or something, as this is obviously currently a 1d system! Any thoughts on how to make it more 3d? I was thinking actually about handing out narration rights for the surroundings, which either player can then use.

Also, if you use multiple dice already, it feels more natural to me to use combat advantage as an extra dice. But that's a matter of fine tuning anyway.

Also, for a blade struggle, you could slowly drain both players focus/stamina by a random value, until they give in!

[MacLeod]

Indeed. Think about boxing. Being too aggressive while making lots of ineffective attacks will tire one out... once fatigued, the smarter boxer closes in for the kill, delivering a powerful blow that exhausts his opponent to the point where he can no longer stand.

The Adrenaline Surge will take care of most Stamina drain in the beginning of the fight, so each fighter is capable of delivering powerful swings at the get go without worry because of the Focus buffer. However, once that goes away or Piercing Damage + Brutal Strikes starts to get ya... it could be curtains pretty fast if a combatant overextends himself by making Heavy Attacks while trying to keep aggressive by Counter Attacking.

But yeah, those numbers are just something I threw out as a basis to get things started. 100 may be too much Focus but I suspect that Stamina shouldn't change much.
I think the difference between the Strength connotations may need to be tweaked...
I hadn't thought about Initiative really... Using Focus and/or Stamina to ante up your Initiative score is a good idea though. Makes for an interesting gamble.
I like the idea of having two or three actions around... but splitting them up over the course. I think I mentioned this idea some where before... Have a deck of cards numbered 1 ~ 30, each combatant draws three cards and take their turn in order from highest to lowest.
As for the 1D comment... I'm sure you could make this into a 3D game by introducing the concept alone. Perhaps use narrative control based on success. Instead of taking an action to attack, make a Movement check, for every multiple of whatever (say, 4 if we are dealing with 3/4D6) that combatant is able to narrate where he goes, what he finds, etc... You could have opposed Movement/Event rolls or whatever... One combatant wants to slice a rope that is suspending a nearby chandelier above the opponent, success means it happens and the combatant gains Advantage for a couple of rounds.

Overall, I'm not sure. This is all swirly conjecture at this point. I haven't play tested the idea at all. It needs tweaking, I'm sure... and more options most likely. I would like to have setup maneuvers where the idea is to get an opponent in a vulnerable position and then deliver a mighty blow that cuts straight to his Stamina. Neat stuff like that.
Hmm... I forgot to have a Defensive Attack and Total Defense action in there as well. @_@ Whoops...

[Vulpinoid]

Why aim for a 3d system?

For a 1-on-1 duel, a 1d system is perfectly adequate.

Consider a point at the centre of each combatant, then consider a line drawn between these two points.

The distance between the combatants can expand and contract, the line can spin as the two combatants move around one another, but there is still only a single line between them.

Combatant 1 jumps up onto a dumpster, while combatant 2 is still on the ground, and now the line angles up to the first combatant while angling down to the second. Still only 1 line.

Once you get multiple combatants, I can see the reason for adding more complexity...but bear with me at the moment.

(Also I know that this probably isn't quite what you were aiming at when you made your comment about the system being 1d, so this is a bit of a tangent...)

Let's say that a fight location has a couple of known obstacles in it...a dumpster, a chainlink fence, a pile of trash. Each of these obstacles has one or two ways to mechanically reflect on the narrative.

Dumpster = High ground (when standing on it you get a better perspective of the combat field, and a melee attack has a better chance of hitting your legs...less damage), Shield Wall (when behind the dumpster you can't be shot).
Chainlink Fence = High ground, Climbing Obstacle (a successful climbing test is required to get past this obstacle).
Pile of Trash = Unstable (when standing on the pile of trash, you've got a good chance of falling over), Ad-hoc Weapon (every round, if you search through the trash you've got a chance of picking up a random item that could be useful to do a bit of extra damage to someone).

Every round, the combatants are trying to get close enough to one another to launch decent attacks, but every round they are also trying to bring the fight toward one of the obstacles in order to gain the benefits that the obstacle might provide. This is where initiative, focus (and possibly some kind of strategy skill), comes into its own. Each round players spend a secret amount of focus to move themselves with respect to a specific obstacle (toward it or away from it), and each round they spend a secret amount to move with respect to their opponent. The loser of the initiative makes their moves, the winner of the initiative may then adjust their moves according to what the loser did (or maybe they get to negate the losers actions by sacrificing some of the focus points they were going to spend).

Every turn, players take note of their relative distances to the key obstacles and to each other.

It's just a rough idea for adding a strategic element into the conflict without resorting to miniatures and maps. Needs work, but I'm sure you get the idea.

V

[MacLeod]

I was thinking... maybe the idea I presented could tip its hat towards at a space behind Storming the Wizard's Tower* and quickly do a Kansas City Shuffle on its ass when it looks the other way. =D
Choose targets to engage against, declare Attack and Defense connotations, ante in for Initiative, make Attack and Defense rolls simultaneously, compare Attack results against Defense results, determine consequences in order from highest Initiative to lowest initiative, rinse and repeat.
If a combatant defends successfully and his attack is successful, he may roll another die and add it to the total. Using the difference between the rolls, one can add damage as usual... or opt to make a special maneuver where he attempts to gain an Advantage over his opponent. Perhaps each multiple of 3 allows the combatant to roll a die, the result of which must beat the previously mentioned Defense result. If so, he gains Advantage or some other such nonsense for a bit.
What do y'all think?

Storming the Wizard's Tower website
http://www.lumpley.com/storming/?page_id=72

[MacLeod]

I got another idea... how's about instead of killing the the guy right away by reducing his Stamina to 0, we do a Critical Hit like in WFRP. =)
I was also thinking... Boxers clinch when they need a moment to rest, right? As long as they aren't catching tough hits, they are regaining some of their momentum. Perhaps a combatant who goes a round without being damaged regains 5 Focus automatically, in addition to the Adrenaline Surge. Come back like a champ! =D

[JoyWriter]

V, that's exactly the kind of thing I meant, except that before the dual started up players could roll to decide the location and so the background for the fight! So one player would focus on the chain link fences and obstructions, whereas another would prefer pulling drainpipes off walls or dealing with falling stuff. The change this would make to the original system would be that there would be a positioning roll, with dodges or aggressive attacks adjusting the roll. This doesn't quite give the "back to the wall" idea I was thinking of, unless you use the same system with a quick points and lines/linked areas view of a map, so people could add "empty space" if they wanted to to help with dodging. This way you keep the idea of "I'm pushing them into a corner" rather than the arbitrary "I'm moving them around the map, even though I really wanted to keep them here".

Choose targets to engage against, declare Attack and Defense connotations, ante in for Initiative, make Attack and Defense rolls simultaneously, compare Attack results against Defense results, determine consequences in order from highest Initiative to lowest initiative, rinse and repeat.

I would change it to the following: Ante for initiative, then loser declares attack and defence first, or perhaps just one of the two, with them alternating. I like the idea of simultaneous resolution just 'cause it means that the winning player must be careful near the end not to take himself down too.

For focus recovery I'd change the "without being damaged" to "without attacking", so you get the opportunity to just hang back if they're nailing you and take less damage, but because it's focus not stamina, you can't do it forever.
Actually, I've got an idea for initiative; what if the bidding is focus and goes on indefinitely, throughout the rounds, so if you start out at 5spent to 6 spent, you can put more and more focus into reading your opponent, so people could hang back defensively pushing up their initiative, which is obviously dodgy as it may well make you lose. The other nice thing about this is it stops incessant initiative rolls while still giving a continuing reason to put your initiative surges into focus.

I reckon if someone successfully attacks and defends their probably already pretty happy with it, I'd make getting an advantage part of the manoeuvring rules, with the idea that if you spend all your time dodging blows you're going to find it trickier to keep a handle on getting high ground etc. On the other hand you could have three options instead of just attack, which would be to attack, to hold back in the hope of getting focus, or to hold back in order to use the environment. On the other hand I suspect that interacts with dodge in a really uninteresting way, so perhaps not.

I totally agree on the crit hit thing, I was just thinking the same; if you defeat an opponent without loosing all your own stamina, then either they are at your mercy, and a booming voice from the sky asks you to finish them, or they take a randomly determined injury depending on the weapon you used. That one is more compatible with possible simultaneous loss, and might mean that fist fights would go nearer the edge than sword or knife fights.

It also fits a thing I love at the moment, which is encounter based health with long term injuries, influenced by my love of necromunda. One reason I love it is that even once mitigated, you can make it so lost fights leave permanent scars on characters, building up another side of the character at the same time as the more conventional experience stuff, presuming you have that of course.