A Combat System for Firefights

[mjbauer]

I'm trying to come up with a combat system that is fast to simulate the excitement of a mildly gun-fu style shootout (like THIS) but also has rules to govern the variables that may effect the outcome of individual acts. In other words, I want just enough rules to govern actions and give variety to a fight but not so many that it bogs down the pace.

I know this is a tall order, I've been working on a solution to this single problem for quite a while now. I usually end up simplifying as much as I can into a single roll then I find that I've forgotten this and that and the next thing I know I've built it back up into something complicated again.

I like the idea of choices and having to sacrifice between two or more (apparently) equal courses of action.

EX: Should I take time to make one accurate shot, take cover and start firing or try to squeeze off 3 quick shots before anyone else can?

And, of course, the question is always made while trying to anticipate the opponents move. Like a game of Hearts (the card game), you have a number of cards that you can play, but not knowing what the next person has in their hand makes each move important. You want to play each trick with the lowest card that still accomplishes what your trying to do, (why play a Jack if a Seven will do?) Play it safe and you might end up in a position where you have to follow the other player's lead. Play it too aggressively and you could expose your plan and you end up without resources and at the mercy of another player.

Gunfights are complicated because there are so many variables:

• Range (Both the distance from the target and the usable range of individual weapons)
• Movement (both of target and shooter)
• Cover (Does it decrease the likelihood of being hit? Does it reduce potential damage for the shielded areas? Does it completely protect the shielded areas?)
• Single shot vs. Auto (accuracy vs. frequency)
• Reloading (Which was discussed fully in another thread)
• Ammo type (Are all bullets equal?)
• Type of gun (pistol, shotgun and light machine gun behave differently and have different benefits and drawbacks)
• Grenades (If you miss with one, what does that mean? Where does the grenade go? Could it still blow up someone? Do you always know when a grenade has been thrown? Can you not know? How do you determine?)
• Visibility (How does darkness, smoke or weather conditions effect the difficulty of a shot?)
• Gun Mods (how do sights, scopes, stalks, etc. effect the accuracy of a gun? What about silencers?)
• Close Combat (Do guns get a bonus or penalty at point blank range? Bonus to damage, penalty to accuracy? Bonus to accuracy for pistols only?)
• Armor (Does it fully repel all damage below a certain number? Does it work as a second set of hit points until it's gone? Does a character need to be fully armored, head to toe, to get the benefit of armor?)
• Hit Location (A shot to the head is far different from one to the foot)
• Common Sense (Should every gun at max damage potentially be able to kill any unarmored person who is standing still? Logic says "yes," but gaming fun says "no.")

I'm looking for the balance between all guns and all shooters being the same and each gun attack taking into account 12 variables and needing 5 rolls (a calculator a protractor and possibly a slide rule).



So far I have a D6 system where you roll a number of dice between 3 and 6 (equal to your "Shooting" ability) and each die that turns up the result of 3-6 is a success, while 1-2 is a failure. More successes equals more damage. Guns have a 3 tiered damage system (minimum, medium and maximum damage) this eliminates the need for an extra dice roll for damage.  So, say a pistol has a 5/10/15 damage scale. Each success that the player rolls is one level of damage. One success equals minimum damage (5) and three successes equals maximum damage (15).

When using an automatic weapon you can "spray" a group of enemies and trade damage for multiple hits. So, for a submachine gun with damage of 6/12/18 you can focus your fire on one person and do up to 18 damage on that individual, or spray up to 3 people for 6 damage each (one person hit for minimum damage per successful roll).

The 3 tiered system also works for explosions. Center of the blast is Max damage, slightly outside of the center is Med damage and on the edge of the explosion is Minor damage. Here's a diagram (I'm a visual person).

I'm not completely set on this system, in fact it's the third version I've come up with (all different variations of D6 mechanics). I'm open to a complete overhaul, I just want something with minimal book-keeping, minimal math, and minimal memorization of rules and exceptions to the rules.

Notice that it doesn't take into account variables and difficulty yet. Three successes is Max damage on a stationary target and I'm not sure how to incorporate difficulty. Assigning everything a difficulty to roll against seems easiest but still very fussy. All rolls could be opposed, but that requires finding the corresponding trait to roll against and comparing the two which is more steps an I'm trying to reduce the number of steps. I'm intrigued by Dogs in the Vineyard's conflict resolution, with a group of dice representing an entire exchange (but not just taking the total and the best roll wins). I like how there is negotiation and nuance built into it, though I can't figure out how I can adapt that to descriptive combat.

I know that I'm going to have to compromise a bit, leave out a few things that would be cool or fun for the sake of simplicity and probably have a few more rule exceptions than I would like, but I think that it's possible to come up with something that I'm ultimately happy with. What I would like is any insight that you might have into my current system (how to improve or streamline it) and examples of other combat systems that keep things fast and fun.

[mjbauer]

So, here are some options that I've come up with as potential solutions to a few of the above  problems:

1- Use a cheat-sheet: Rather than trying to consolidate the various elements, keep all of them but create a comprehensive and quick reference sheet to aid players.

2- Scripted Combat: Rather than simplifying combat with less paperwork, have players declare their actions simultaneously and record their rolls on a "combat action sheet" which offers each of the options that a player can choose from each round. This can also include what bonus or penalty is offered for each action.

3- Different Dice Have Different Meanings: Use colored D6's to represent different aspects of a players roll. Maybe a player can shoot using any of their 3 main Stats (STR, AGI, INT). AGI being a quick shot, INT being a precise shot, and STR being a... this is where the idea fall apart. Maybe one color of die represent accuracy and another damage and another quickness. Or maybe not. I think there is some potential with the colored dice option I'm just not sure how to implement them.

4- Matches: While damage is determined by the amount of Successes rolled maybe accuracy is determined by rolling doubles or triples. No matches = a body shot, One Pair = 3-4 (right & left leg) 5-6 (right & left arm, 6 is the weapon arm), Two pair or a Triple match = headshot. So if a player rolls (1,2,4,5,5) that's three Successes and a pair of 5's (max damage to the non-weapon arm).

5- Weapon Die: Originally I was thinking that gun mods would add an extra die to your pool, but reflecting on it I started to think that it was too powerful, especially if your "shooting" skill is a lower number (3 or less), then adding 3 mods to your gun could potentially double your chance of success. Instead I'm thinking that each weapon gets a separate die to represent the weapon itself. Unmodded Weapons would have a lower chance of hitting (1-5 = miss, 6 = hit). Then a mod could add 1 or 2 points to the hit probability. So the Weapon die could be pretty worthless on an unmodded gun and as helpful as another die in your pool if your weapon was heavily modded. 

I think I'm making some progress. I like the matches idea a lot and I think the solution is going to be a combination of these methods.

[chance.thirteen]

Attention and Perception are also big in real gunfights. Where are you looking, where do you expect them to be, and how fast do you react to change and surprise? Most RPGs give you an unlimited ability to decide what you do, regardless of any factors.

[mjbauer]

Attention and Perception are also big in real gunfights. Where are you looking, where do you expect them to be, and how fast do you react to change and surprise? Most RPGs give you an unlimited ability to decide what you do, regardless of any factors.

Absolutely.

If you see someone, take cover for a second, and then come up to shoot at him should there be a penalty if he isn't where you expected him but still visible? What if he's gone, can you decide to shoot at someone else? What if no one's there, do you make a shot at nothing because that's the action you declared? It's can get really nit-picky if you want to let it.

That doesn't even begin to address being able to see or hear what direction shots are coming from.

[chance.thirteen]

Fog of war on the large and the small scale is hard to deal with.

I personaly have designed a space combat game where it was all about where based on whatever sensor inputr you were getting a target might be. It needed a computer to keep track of it all and you end up with weird twisted expanding shapes of probability.

Even the simple DEA-style break down door and go room to room is so full of moments un uncertainty. Fortunately the targets usually are surprised for a second or two, enough time to incapacitate them.

[Aloeus]

I'd be very interested in a system like this... The only one I'm aware of is Aces and Eights, which I suggest you check out if you haven't already.  The big problem with breaking down a game to this level is that the more little details you add, the more of a headache it becomes for the GM.  It's also very easy to forget little +1s here and -2s there if you have dozens to keep track of.

[Vulpinoid]

I'd like to see a combat mechanism using the card game "SNAP".

Two players waiting for the appropriate moment to strike, seeing the chance when the doubled cards are thrown down.

As a combination with this, you could have the face values of the doubled cards actually revealing something about the shot that was taken.

Pair of twos, a crappy shot, but at least you've managed to graze them.

Pair of kills, dead shot between the eyes.

Or apply something about the card suits; "My armour lowers the damage when hearts have been played"..."My weapon deals an extra degree of damage when spades are played".

It'd get the adrenaline pumping a bit, then once the cards have been "snapped", you can work out whatever modifications to the shot are applied....before heading onward to the next "SNAP!".

Each play of cards could represent a second of game time.

Just an idea that I though might be cool...

V

[mjbauer]

I'd like to see a combat mechanism using the card game "SNAP".

Two players waiting for the appropriate moment to strike, seeing the chance when the doubled cards are thrown down.

As a combination with this, you could have the face values of the doubled cards actually revealing something about the shot that was taken.

Pair of twos, a crappy shot, but at least you've managed to graze them.

Pair of kills, dead shot between the eyes.

Or apply something about the card suits; "My armour lowers the damage when hearts have been played"..."My weapon deals an extra degree of damage when spades are played".

It'd get the adrenaline pumping a bit, then once the cards have been "snapped", you can work out whatever modifications to the shot are applied....before heading onward to the next "SNAP!".

Each play of cards could represent a second of game time.

Just an idea that I though might be cool...

V

There is some real potential with this idea. Thanks.