From FATE rulebook (Page 41):

Dramatic Weapons and Armor
(This is the default for Fate)
Weapons are not judged in terms of highly specific statistics, but in terms of the advantage they provide in combat. The rule is simple: superior weaponry provides a +1 bonus. As such, two combatants facing each other, one with a mace and the other with a sword, are on roughly equal footing, so no penalties are applied. Situation also plays into this - if one combatant has a sword and one has a knife, and there’s lots of room to maneuver, the one with the sword gains a +1 advantage. If they have the same fight in a cramped sewer tunnel with little room to swing the sword, the dagger gains a +1. Armor operates on a similar principle - superior armor grants a +1. In most circumstances, superior armor is easy to determine just by looking. The only exception is when armor becomes a true detriment, such as underwater or in quicksand, in which case the lighter armor is superior. (Simply being in an open area is not enough to invoke .superior mobility..) The dramatic system works on a very simple principle: modifiers are only necessary to represent an advantage, not every specific detail of a fight. The assumption is that if two opponents are fairly matched, with roughly equivalent position, equipment and plans, the matter is settled purely by skill. However, if a character uses better equipment and smarter tactics, they will have an advantage over their opponent, and that.s what modifier are there to reflect. Guidelines for what sort of things provide modifiers can be found in .Other Combat Modifiers. on page 43.

Sidebar
Tactical Crunch
The dramatic system may not immediately appeal to players looking for tactical depth – after all, so simple a system can hardly reflect the complexities of combat. It’s a common assumption, but one we suggest revisiting. In the end, all tactics come down to the simple question of who has an advantage, and by how much - no system can ever fully capture all of the subtleties and minute details of combat. However, a GM’s judgement is far more adaptable and a GM can apply their understanding of tactics to any situation. This means that the dramatic system allows whatever level of tactical complexity that the GM is most comfortable with.

-------------------------------------------------------

I know this probably isn’t revolutionary- I believe there are other systems (Heroquest?) that do a similar thing- but wow, consider it deeply, this is really mind blowing and something all game designers should consider.

Consider, because it may save you a lot of time. A game designer can contemplate rules for initiative, the proficiency of an attack/defence, which will inevitably lead into variants; movement, disarm, counter attacks, dodge, parry etc. Which, mind you, a multitude of very good designers have done before you. And after considering and making rules for a plethora of factors in combat the design will ultimately fail because there will always be something-in human skill-unaccounted for. How many games have annoying combat flaws picked out by fastidious players? D&D has been plagued by them in every incarnation.

It may sound so simple to be silly but ultimately what is going to determine a winner in any situation is the one who is the most proficient. Aside from this there are small factors that, as the FATE rules points out, if two people of equal aptitude contest, can sway the balance.

If you like crunchy rules, then go for it, after all it’s only a game-but don’t kid yourself. I would say that FATE’s combat system is more realistic then many of the games blowing the horn of “highly realistic combat”.

Just a thought. And I hope it saves another would be designer from travelling down the long and arduous path of inventing multifaceted combat mechanics.

Best,
Akuma.

I like this. I like it a lot. I may put a paragraph to this effect in Skein.

Akuma Kyo wrote: A game designer can contemplate rules for initiative, the proficiency of an attack/defence, which will inevitably lead into variants; movement, disarm, counter attacks, dodge, parry etc. Which, mind you, a multitude of very good designers have done before you. And after considering and making rules for a plethora of factors in combat the design will ultimately fail because there will always be something-in human skill-unaccounted for.

Try something really revolutionary (?) and use a system of group concensus to determine the +1, where the GM's vote is one amongst many.

I mean, really the whole idea of having lots of crunchy rules is that you don't have to establish this or that bonus with your GM though time eating discussion. That was done, of course, because it was determined the GM simply must decide such things.

How 'bout no? Instead of having it judged by one user (GM) and thus rewards lengthy discussion (because sometimes you can convince your GM you deserve the reward/+1), it's all a cut and dried version of voting where everyone else votes whether you get it.

Crunch was to avoid lots of useless discussions because your using GM fiat to decide. Instead of crunch, you can try group concensus.

Ah hell, okay, I'm pimping it because that's what I'm using in a design, I admit it! :)

I know this probably isn’t revolutionary- I believe there are other systems (Heroquest?) that do a similar thing- but wow, consider it deeply, this is really mind blowing and something all game designers should consider.

It may sound so simple to be silly but ultimately what is going to determine a winner in any situation is the one who is the most proficient. Aside from this there are small factors that, as the FATE rules points out, if two people of equal aptitude contest, can sway the balance.

If you like crunchy rules, then go for it, after all it’s only a game-but don’t kid yourself. I would say that FATE’s combat system is more realistic then many of the games blowing the horn of “highly realistic combat”.

Just a thought. And I hope it saves another would be designer from travelling down the long and arduous path of inventing multifaceted combat mechanics.

Best,
Akuma.

(snippage)

In fact, I do the same in YGAD - but I've also taken the exact same reasoning to social conflict. You've got 5 health points in weapons combat - but you also have 5 'health' points in social combat. Say you and your opponents, the Marquis De Sade, are trading quips and maneuvering for favor during a social gathering. The fact that you've just been decorated by the King and are wearing that medal, and are the guest of honor, will give you a slight advantage (like one you might get in combat). It's your skill and the Marquis' that will decide which one of you becomes a jagged pile of verbal gaffes, though.

Combat should be exiting (IMHO), and tactical maneuvering, insight, and preparation (equipment) should weigh in - but in the end, it's all about getting the job done as best you can. (of course, I allow the players to 'cheat' a little through expenditure of karma points - but that's cause they're the protagonists).

Andrew: Don't you just hate that! That jumbled pile of combat crud festering in your head. It's like tripping on acid – you keep going round and round in circles.

Noon: it sounds a lot like Wushu, sorry to dampen your revolutionary spirit but have you seen the game? If not I highly recommend a perusal.

Tobias: “Combat should be exiting (IMHO), and tactical maneuvering, insight, and preparation (equipment) should weigh in - but in the end, it's all about getting the job done as best you can.”

- Touché!

Akuma Kyo wrote: Andrew: Don't you just hate that! That jumbled pile of combat crud festering in your head. It's like tripping on acid – you keep going round and round in circles.

Noon: it sounds a lot like Wushu, sorry to dampen your revolutionary spirit but have you seen the game? If not I highly recommend a perusal.

Err, I didn't mean to tout myself as revolutionary (though I did tout my idea as being good! :) ). It's just that if your going to cut loose, cut loose! This sample of FATE rules relies on GM fiat to determine if the bonus applies. Err, that's kind of contradictory, since when the player declares their actions they are essentially entering into negotiations with the GM. Further, the way it's set up rewards them for discussing the actions even more (since they might get the reward of +1 if they keep discussions goinng).

If your entering into negotiations it's better let a group majority decide, since you can't argue with that (where it's tempting to go in depth when you only have to convince one harried GM). And I'll go and have another look at the Wushu website now.

Akuma Kyo wrote: It may sound so simple to be silly but ultimately what is going to determine a winner in any situation is the one who is the most proficient. Aside from this there are small factors that, as the FATE rules points out, if two people of equal aptitude contest, can sway the balance.

I like FATE's approach to everything. For certain types of groups it works very well.

But Noon is right. A system like this essentially becomes "talk your way into a +1" since there's no system in place to manage who gets to say what and when and why and how much. Can I say "I maneuver him into a tight space!" and get a +1 with my dagger? Does it take a whole round to do that? Do we have to make Tactics rolls? Smarts? Agility? Can I just invent the tight space, Director-style, or does it already have to be there as part of the GM's description of the room?

That's a whole can of worms that game design rarely tackles in an explicit way. And FATE is much, much better than most.

(Disclaimer: I like FATE a lot, and intend to run it with my gaming group some time soon. However, I haven't actualy played it, or tried this suggestion.)

I would recomend allowing manouvering as a possible result of the previous round's combat.

For example, if I score a 'clipped' result or better on my opponent, I can make him check a box as normal, or narrate the result as a maneuver instead.

For example, if I'm using a dagger against a sword, I am at the disadvantage, but once I clip my opponent, I can close range and get the 'better weapon bonus' instead of the normal clip result.

This gives an extra element of tactical choice; the maneuver gives a greater advantage, but this can be taken back again. The 'clipped' result is a permanent step towards ending the fight, but only gives a one-round advantage in addition to the injury itself.

Regards,

Doug

I'm not personally familiar with Fate as a game. But my point would be thatn the point about advantage is true but the skill has to play a bigger part in this, rather than just the weapon/terrain.

For example the guy with the sword in the sewer is only at a disadvantage to the guy with the dagger, if he is less skillfull. If the guy with the sword knows what he's about will not try to swing the sword, he would grip it half sword, shortening the weapon.

IMO, the skill of the fighter is the biggest factor. A weaker fighter needs to use terrain/weapons etc, to level out the disadvantage of facing a more skilfull fighter. If the fighters are equally skilful then the one that can use terrain/weapon length etc will gain the advantage.

I my systenm I eflect this by useing a combat pool of dice, to support the use of illustared combat cards. The tactical decision then becomes not only which attack/defence to play but how much do you put into it as to go all out to soon, will leave you open later, if you're not successfull. It also allows the tailoring of you beck to weapon type etc.

my 2pence worth

Jonathan

Hereward The Wake wrote: I'm not personally familiar with Fate as a game. But my point would be thatn the point about advantage is true but the skill has to play a bigger part in this, rather than just the weapon/terrain.

I really like that house rule, Doug. Consider it stolen. Using skills to manage all kinds of moment-to-moment modifiers seems like the right way to go, rather than endless debates and appeals to the GM.

Consider something like Sorcerer (and Donjon): You can use one skill to generate bonus dice that roll into a related action. The same philosophy can be applied to FATE with the advantage system.

I think were going to find a lot of 'how I'd handle it' answers here. Really, that's the power of it.

What I wanted to address is the GM fiat system. This is negotiation, but with no rules support for it. By contrast, think of universalis...the coins and rules are a huge negotiation aid.

What weve got here are rules that expect the player to say his piece and then be quiet as the GM makes his descision. While at the same time it doesn't reward such an approach, much in the same way disadvantages in most games encourage the player to spend extra time in discussion trying to avoid their penalty being applied. You just accept it and you get hit with a penalty...you keep on about it and you might get avoid a penalty. Pretty clear penalty/reward system there.

These rules are a good idea, they just needs to go a little further.

I have to disagree with you there Callan. I see your point, but you are a being very specific about a style of play. There are other ways to approach this.

You just accept it and you get hit with a penalty...you keep on about it and you might get avoid a penalty