Bushido: Way of the Warrior
(very working title, one is a literal translation of the other)

Alright, i've been indulging in two activities recently, dangerous when mixed: creative thinking and video games. With this came the inspiration to do a fast sword-dueling combat system (for a somewhat gritty samurai style), and this is the result. It's very fast and visual, one uses dice as counters and the randomizer as well, and it's best played in a very narrative style, despite having a quite gamist appearance.

Most of the system is uncertain at this time, but i do have these relatively simple sword dueling rules, and a few bonus ideas that i might detail later.

Each duelist has a core pool of dice, the size of which is determined by the addition various skills and attributes, as well as the swordsman's discipline with his personal weapon (which should be treated, cared for, and appreciated like a vassal, if not a brother). The range should be around 4 to 10 dice per character for a realistic game, 8 to 15 for a cinematic game, and up to 25 for legendary warriors, you know, the kind that defeat entire armies.

Now the weapon is just as important as the swordsman in its attributes (i have a cookie for whoever can clearly see the inspiration for the system). A given sword has three attributes.

The weight of the weapon is its wieldliness and momentum when striking an opponent or blocking an attack. A physically heavier weapon (such as a club) is going to have a high weight, whereas a light, maneuverable weapon has a low weight (well, yeah). The weight, in terms of mechanics, is the lowest number of dice that may be bid in a single attack. Swinging a large weapon such as a broadsword (or a no-dachi, if you prefer) takes a lot of effort to make a worthwhile strike, but the momentum of the weapon itself is a reward in its higher capacity for delivering damage. The heaviest of weapons would have a rating of 3, such as a long polearm, but a shorter polearm or broadsword might have a weight of 2. More maneuverable weapons, such as daggers and short swords may even have a weight of 0, the reasons for which will be explained below. A standard bastard sword may have a weight of 1.

The balance of a weapon determines how quickly one can recover from a swing, and in terms of game mechanics, determines how many dice a character has replenished after an attack that has not thrown him off balance. A standard sword may have a balance of +3, a clumsy one +1 or +2, and a masterly-made sword may have as much as +5 balance. Exceptional skill may yield a higher balance than the weapon normally allows, and an improvized weapon or a completely unfamiliar one may yield a lower-than-normal balance.

Metal fatigue determines how durable the weapon is. It may not even be metallic, it might be a bamboo shaft with an iron spearhead fixed to the end, it might be a wooden plank (or a chair) you're fighting with, who knows. Anyway, the metal fatigue measures the durability of a weapon, how much abuse it may endure before simply shattering into splinters of steel (or wood or bamboo or...). A sturdy weapon might endure 30 tics of damage before shattering, a common bamboo shaft 1 or maybe 2. On the weapon sheet (like a character sheet), there would be only 15 boxes for a weapon of metal fatigue 30. When a tic of damage is sustained, make a single slash, and when all the boxes are tic'd off, start crossing the slashes. When a battle is over and the character has downtime, he may administer care to his weapon, rubbing it down with the proper cleaning oils. When a character completely cleans and polishes his weapon, erase all slashed boxes, but keep crossed boxes as permanent damage; they've essentially reduced the metal fatigue by 2 for each crossed box. A skilled blacksmith may be able to restore crossed boxes, and even improve the durability of the sword beyond that which it held previously.

A shattered blade in combat may only be used non-lethally.

What's necessary for combat
Each duelist needs a number of D6 equal to their combat pool (the Official Term), and it's preferable that each player's dice be distinguishable from one another, then there need be a single D12, which i just couldn't help but include, as it seems to be the hub of the combat mechanic. I'm sorry, but i'm as much a gamist as anything else, i love rolling handfuls of dice.

Actual combat (apologies for the shift in style, sleep deprivation sets in)
Alright, here's how this works. The unit of time is "attacks", which may range from several seconds to even as much as several minutes, depending on the skill of the swordsmen (and i'm sure in some legendary battles a single "attack" may have taken hours!). An "attack" consists of merely one roll of a handful of dice, but in the game world, is many swings, strokes, dodges, parries, kicks, and strikes with the butt of the sword. Each player may bid as little as their weapon's weight, and as much as the weight +2. For example, a katana, having a weight of 1, may bid up to 3 dice in a single attack, while a polearm, having a weight of 3, may bid up to 5 dice. If there are too few dice in the combat pool remaining for even the minimum bid, all available dice must be bid.
Roll all the dice simultaneously (including the D12), and if each players' dice are indistinguishable, make sure to keep them geographically separated.
After the pips are reckoned for each player, move all the bid dice into a separate "fatigue pool". If you aren't separating dice between players (e.g. according to color, size), you may form a communal fatigue pool, just remember the maximum number of dice in each combat pool.

The target die
The D12 is the target die, or in other words, the sum of the dice that each player bid must equal or exceed the target die in order for their attack to be a success. This means that it is possible for both players to score a success, or neither player to succeed, or obviously one to succeed, while the other fails.

If there are no successes
If neither player's bid exceeds or equals the target die, then the attack is considered a draw, and another attack ensues. Recover the number of dice equal to the respective balances of the character's weapons from their respective fatigue pools, making sure that the combat pool does not exceed the quantity at which it started.

If there is one success with a bladed weapon
The player who scored a single success may recover his balance from the fatigue pool to his combat pool, while the remaining player must remove a number of dice equal to the succeeding player's bid from combat altogether as wounds. Take these dice from the victim's fatigue pool first, and if not enough dice satisfy, begin to remove from the combat pool. If both the combat pool and the fatigue pool are empty, the character is, well, unconscious or dead, depending on what the GM (or the victim's slayer) says.

If there is one success with a blunt weapon or a bladed weapon used non-lethally
The exact same procedure is used as with a bladed weapon, but instead of removing dice from combat altogether, move a number of dice equal to the succeeding player's bid from the combat pool to the fatigue pool. If there are dice in the fatigue pool but not the combat pool, the character is pinned, unconscious, whatever. The victor may have mercy and allow the victim a single attack's worth of fatigue recovery to continue the fight.

If there are two successes
In the case that there are two successes, neither player recovers their balance, and a tic is marked off of each weapon's fatigue. The swords ended up clashing pretty hard, with each warrior pressing their blade into the other's.
As said previously, combat is over when either combatant is pinned or out of the fight. Note that this is a dueling system, and according to the strict martial codes of the setting, only one enemy may engage another at a time.

---------
Well there ya have it, folks. Far from complete, but well on its way. I hope this provides some sort of inspiration or at least response from somebody, and i'm open to critiques, thoughts, observations, and revelation of clerical errors.
But i guess what i'm asking is, are there any glaring inconsistencies; does it sound fun and easy; and would you be interested in using such a system? I'd like focus on the roll-handfuls-of-D6-and-a-D12 at once mechanic, not chosen attributes, the fatigue system etc.

Oh yeah, and the D12 is used because it is common in non-combat rolls.

I really like the idea behind this system...and I think I can see what you were inspired by and where you want it to go. I do have two questions, though:

1) What would be the motivation not to just max out each swing (heaviest weapon possible doing throwing the most dice)? Since you recover your dice at the end of each turn, and it is important to score successes, why not just wing it all out there? My suggestion might be two fold: First, make each combat last for a given number of rounds (i.e. 10). Second, don't recharge the pools until the end of all the rounds, but make them much larger (i.e. each character has 20 dice). That might make it a bit more strategic: Heavier weapons would have a greater chance of doing damage but would exhaust the wielder faster...leaving him much more vulnerable to attacks later in the game.

2) Why are double successes canceled out? Since you're acknowledging that each round is actually a series of exchanges, wouldn't it be more logical that it means simul-strikes or mutual wounding?

Just my two bits.

It looks like fun. I'm with Greg on both his points, though -- a larger pool would be better, and less regeneration of dice. In your example, a decently made sword would give its owner 3 dice back each turn, and the maximum expenditure for that sword is also 3: there's no reason not to go all out.

Regaining that many dice might be appropriate for a cinematic/fantastic combat, but probably not for a more realistic one. Also, getting weapon damage without hurting the opponent sounds to me more like a double failure, not success.

I hope i transliterated the rules correctly (it looks like i did, but emphasis is necessary), but as playtested, the only two ways to regain your balance are by having both your opponent and yourself roll a failure, and by scoring a wound, thus disallowing your opponent recovery. While it's true that it might be a good idea to go all out at some points, regeneration really isn't nearly as common as you'd think. It quickly became apparent during playtesting that it was very much a game of resources. If you saw that you had the upper hand in terms of combat pools, you played lightly, with smaller strokes, until your opponent was nearly drained of his dice, then go all out for the kill, or at least a pin.

The point is, you don't recover balance if your opponent scored a success, period. He either wounded you, or your swords are buried in one another (damaging each weapon), and i've found in playtesting that this is easily the most common result, so you kind of have to play the odds and take chances by conserving your dice to outlast your opponent. Another good tactic against an ill-armored foe is to simply try to break his weapon.

Secondly, about the double successes. Consider the setting; usually fights are between two very devoted, well-trained, and well-concentrated individuals. If one sword strikes, the other follows it to stop it mid-swing, while the whole body moves into a better position. Actual wounds are relatively rare in terms of a fight, and have quite lasting effects on a character's ability to fight even well after a battle that went badly. Simul-strikes, in my eyes, would be such a rarity, that they shouldn't be given attention.

Thank you guys so much for your feedback

I hope i transliterated the rules correctly (it looks like i did, but emphasis is necessary), but as playtested, the only two ways to regain your balance are by having both your opponent and yourself roll a failure, and by scoring a wound, thus disallowing your opponent recovery. While it's true that it might be a good idea to go all out at some points, regeneration really isn't nearly as common as you'd think. It quickly became apparent during playtesting that it was very much a game of resources. If you saw that you had the upper hand in terms of combat pools, you played lightly, with smaller strokes, until your opponent was nearly drained of his dice, then go all out for the kill, or at least a pin.

Well, my rationale for making a double-success a lock up is as follows, but it's still pretty liquid at this point (considering the combat system is less than three days old). Consider someone using a big heavy weapon versus one using a small, light weapon, such as a short sword. The broadsworder must put a lot more effort into making even a relatively unsubstantial attack, but when he really puts his oomph into an attack, the thing is such a beastly chunk of iron, it's going to be moving slow enough that a skilled swordsman could merely stick up his sword at the right time, blocking it, or dodge the attack altogether.

Revision time! Alright, it stands that double success does not yield a recovery of balance, but weapon damage is only endured when each combatant's total is identical. This would also more than halve the previously given fatigue stats, making a sturdy sword something along the lines of 10 to 16, an average sword about 8.

Now then, a double failure is pretty much as it sounds, each combatant hardly put enough effort into the attack to produce anything worthwhile, and while the swords were swung, dodged or blocked, and nobody was wounded, each one ends the "attack" several feet from the other, catching a few breaths before lining up their next attack.

You also notice that i say that combat is more a matter of balance economy. Usually you aren't going to end up just outright killing your opponent, but you'll tire him out and get him pinned, you know, the classic sword-tip-to-your-throat technique. Then you can do as you please, run him through, let him go and spank him when he turns his back etc. It's less about wounding your opponent than breaking his defense and making him completely vulnerable.

Once again, thank you for all the replies. I'm just defending my rationale, i'll probably concede at least a few of these suggestions.

My $.02...

In regards to double-successes, there is certainly more than one possible result, and it's difficult to choose just one that would work better than the other.

If I were to make any suggestion, I would use your d12 to your advantage. Namely, boil it down to two possible outcomes--maybe one that favors both players, and one that does not--and let the d12 decide which one happens. On an even roll, it goes one way, and on an odd roll, it goes the other.

This does not have to be a separate roll--I would just take the target roll to determine this particular result.

Certainly, you could also come up with a bunch of different results and let ranges on the d12 determine which one happens (i.e., 1-4, weapon fatigue, 5-8, something else, etc.), but this might just end up bogging down the system without producing enough fun to justify the slowdown.

Alright, here's another idea i've been considering.
The point of the double-success feature is to represent that when a character decides to put a lot of effort into a single attack, or devote a lot of force, it's easy, with enough skill, simply to shrug out of the way and spoil all that force, letting the sword smash into the ground or whatever. My new solution to fix this is simple: on a double success, the player who bid more does not regain balance, but his opponent (the lower bidder) may recover a number of dice equal to the highest bid. This means that if a character is skilled enough to not devote much effort/balance into successful null of a great strike, he regains his balance, while his opponent is thrown off-balance. This also means that heavier weapons are at a severe disadvantage in this aspect, as they're forced to bid usually higher than lighter weapons.

Like i said, this is a system that's supposed to be very visual, using dice as a form of currency. I do like the thinking behind Sledgeman's D12 idea, but i don't feel it quite fits the feel of the system, it's designed to be nearly chartless. I feel that such results would be better rendered by the nature of the successes relative to eachother rather than to the target die.

Just my thoughts, and i'll keep entertaining the idea... the original concept was that the "attacker" chooses a number on from 1 to 12, and tries to roll a range within that, which determines hit location. Maybe, maybe...

A couple more things. I misspoke above when i said that the totals must be equal for weapon damage. In fact, each player's bid must be equal. This means that a character whose aim is to destroy his opponent's weapon may simply continue placing identical bids to his opponent.

Anyway, the point of this post. The system quite easily converts for hand-to-hand combat, and even for unarmed vs. armed combat. A character may learn balance and weight ratios based on a specific style, a very reckless boxing style might have a high weight, or a very fine martial arts style might have a high balance, and the character may earn "ghosts" (which i hadn't gone over above, but allow a skilled character to roll an additional die) for each style, which is essentially treated like a "weapon".

How familiar are you with The Riddle of Steel?

Mike

Well, i've read the quickstart guide, and i find the concepts in the combat section to be interesting, but most of my ideas for this were either developed spontaneously, or were developed quite a while ago on RPG.net. Oh yeah and a few "well i don't see this happening in any combat system so far..."'s. What caught my attention from TROS is the skill advancement system (i.e. the Conscious system), whose flavor is well-suited to a classical Japanese setting.

I wasn't implying that you were imitating, just that there were some similarities between your systems. That's meant to be a compliment, as I don't think there's a more accurate game than TROS out there right now.

Let me ask a different question. Do you see differences in the systems? What advantages does your system have over TROS? Or what is it intended to model differently?

Mike