This is an idea I discussed briefly with Ron at Forge Midwest which he encouraged me to post up to First Thoughts!  Obviously, it's not a fully formed idea, since it's being posted up here, but it's something I've been tossing around for years.

At a local mini-convention several years ago I ran a fun one-shot martial arts/comedy game called "Fighting Game: The Movie!"  Basically all the characters were participants in a martial arts tournament.  I ran the game in a very Story-Game-like way, though I didn't have the Indy Game vocabulary at the time to explain what I was doing with it. Basically, I handed out stats and generic moves lists and such, but players had to provide for their characters the important stats of their Name, Ordinary Occupation, Signature Move, and Reason For Being In The Tournament.  It could be serious or zany, whatever. So we have a character who is in the Tournament with the Goal of "Find Out About Father's Death," but I remember we also had a person whose Ordinary Occupation was "Baker" and thought that winning the tournament would somehow make her better at baking cupcakes.  Her special move was a gun that shot frosting.

So instead of having the players fight a lot of NPCs, I played the Tournament Boss and his Evil Assistant (with a business suit and a whip), and then all the players came up with interesting reasons to arrange matches with one another to achieve their characters' goals.

At the time I used the Big Eyes Small Mouth core system to do this, since it seemed genre suited, but it didn't really encompass all of my needs.  I wanted to come up with a better martial arts/chop saki kind of RPG system, something that could be used for something fun but would also reflect my real experiences with martial arts.

It seems to me, along this vein, that the "roll to hit" mechanic, which is a staple of RPG combat systems for pretty much all-time, is really kind of dumb when you actually think about it. Assume in the setting of my game that any player-character is a reasonably competent combatant/martial artist already.  Why should they have to roll to HIT anything? Martial artists hit boards all the time; "boards don't hit back."  I think it would make more sense in my system to toss out the roll to hit. If you say you are hitting someone, you hit! Unless the other person blocks your hit, which to me is the part that requires a roll.

In my theoretical design there are six "ranges" and the roll is on a D6.

Range 1 is the closest range of combatants, a face-to-face, nose-to-nose range, we'll call it grappling range.  Range 6, the combatants are too far away to hit one another with anything but a ranged weapon, be it gun, bow and arrow, or chi blast if you're doing a setting that has that sort of thing.  The in between ranges represent closeness of body where different moves are available at different ranges.  So for example if you're at Range 3 with someone, you can kick them, but you're too far away to punch.

Your range represents how easy it is to hit someone with certain attacks. The "attack value" of an attack is represented by the maximum range at which that attack will work.  A grapple has an AV of one because it only works at Range 1.  A punch has an AV of 2.  A gun has an AV of 6.  Your AV is considered the result of your "roll to hit."  Your attack ALWAYS hits unless the other person does something to block or evade it, in which case you've provided them with the number they need to roll -- subtract the AV of your attack from the range you're standing at. 

Here I guess is where I kind of run in to my first problems - I've made it impossible for a grapple attack to hit at all, for example, because it requires a range of 1 and has an AV of 1 as a result; 1 - 1 = 0 and the opponent never has to roll anything to automatically block it. Of course if all they do is block, it ends their turn and the other person can attack again, so there's a mechanism for countering. You beat the other person's attack by a value of 2 (3?) and you get a counter attack. It happens immediately, again, there's no need to roll to attack, just declare how you are countering. The other player now has to respond to your attempt at counter.  And so-on.  And you can also choose to not block at all, to accept the results of a grapple attack and try to counter out of that stance instead, with a small bonus, but having taken damage.  What I'm after is a system with very fast rolling.  And I want to eliminate "roll to hit" because in my mind how you respond to an attack is more important than the attack itself.

Now within this, I haven't really added anything yet that would allow for varying skill levels of opponents, and I think there should be this or advancement would feel flat.  So perhaps another D6 that you roll represents the "X factor" of your personal skill?  Or in the case of using weapons, you may have to roll an extra higher target number if you're forced to defend against a weapon, or use a weapon, with which you're unfamiliar.

Is there a way to keep the flow of this and still add advancement and varying skill? Do you think the "range" mechanic would be frustrating if fighting multiple opponents? (Perhaps some kind of Thug Rule could be implemented for Jackie Chan Versus 100 Ninjas type of fights... I'm rather fond of house thug rules.) I'm also after general thoughts, since I know there's a wealth of experience in this group.

I have to agree that the way most RPGs deal with close combat, UA/hand weapons is highly unsatifactory to anyone woh has some experience of those skills and many who don't
It seems that your AV numbers should be the other way round, ie the closer you are the higher the AV, as the closer someone is to you the harder it is to react/defend against as the reaction time is less, the further away the more time you have to read what they are doing and stop it.

Having been working on comabt systems for a  long time this is a problem I have been battling with, making the game involved yet fast flowing and playable.

It come down to, I belive the interplay between the tactical choices the players have tomake combined with a simple reselution mechanic. It not something I am happy with yet as I have certain elememnts I want in the games.

I'll be interested to see what comes.

How do you propose to cover the changing of distances, or is that an auto matic based on the attack you choose?
How do you decide wh can act when?

best
JW

I have to agree that the way most RPGs deal with close combat, UA/hand weapons is highly unsatifactory to anyone woh has some experience of those skills and many who don't
It seems that your AV numbers should be the other way round, ie the closer you are the higher the AV, as the closer someone is to you the harder it is to react/defend against as the reaction time is less, the further away the more time you have to read what they are doing and stop it.

Having been working on comabt systems for a  long time this is a problem I have been battling with, making the game involved yet fast flowing and playable.

It come down to, I belive the interplay between the tactical choices the players have tomake combined with a simple reselution mechanic. It not something I am happy with yet as I have certain elememnts I want in the games.

I'll be interested to see what comes.

How do you propose to cover the changing of distances, or is that an automatic based on the attack you choose?
How do you decide who can act when?
I ask as these are IMO vital in dertemining much of the action and how it will flow.

best
JW

Here is what I had in mind for movement -

There are two ways to choose to move.  There is Defensive movement, which means you're moving on your guard and are slow.  You can change up to two Range values in either direction moving defensively.  You move but don't attack, but get a chance to counter if someone attacks you at the new range.

Or instead, there is Offensive movement. If moving Offensively, you can move as many Ranges as you want in either direction -- maybe Offensive isn't the best word since it can also mean a "hard retreat" kind of mechanic as well as charging in with an attack; open to suggestions on this. If you do this, you can't defend against the next attack and are open to it...or you might be rushing in with an attack. You get the attack as an auto-hit like any other attack, but since you're rushing in the Opponent has a bonus to his roll to defend against it because you are charging; he can see it coming.

I see what you mean by saying the values seem reversed! Here's what I'm trying to get at -- the AV of the attack is the absolute minimum range you need to be at to use it and have it work.  At the extremes you have a gun, which can hit at any Range 1-6.  On the other hand a Grapple only hits at Range 1.  The actual "roll" (I misstated above and it wasn't totally clear) is the result of your Attack Type minus Current Range between you and an opponent.  So for example, if I'm using Chi Blast (which could hit at Range 6), but standing at Range 1, the value my opponent must beat is AV Minus Current Range: 6 - 1 = 5.  If I'm using Chi Blast at Range 5, my total attack roll to beat is 6 - 5 = 1.

Or maybe I should consider the absolute closest range to have a value of 0?

OK that clears things up a bit.

What about who goes when? The relation between what you are doing offensive/reactive and who can actually go when will play a part in how successfull an action will be.

JW

Initiative is an interesting question.  The standard mechanic of course is "roll off, highest roll goes first." That's pretty easy to use and everyone understands it.

But I'm thinking about the start of an actual martial arts spar and it's very different.

You have two opponents. They get in to position and size one another up. They look at one another's stance, pace around, look each other in the eye, looking for weaknesses.  This may take a very long time. Tension builds as it happens.

Finally someone sees an opening, and exploits it, or, one person just gets impatient, and goes. Normally the person who goes first is actually at a very slight DISadvantage, unless his skill greatly outpaces that of the other person.

It would be great to have a mechanic that captured this tense calm moment.

Ambush attacks, or someone just rushing in suddenly without the size-up, don't need an initiative mechanic.  Someone is rushing you! They either have the drop on you, and you get a slight disadvantage to your roll to defend, or, they're charging you blindly, and you have a slight advantage on your roll to defend.

I've been working on a system to handle this precise thing. What i've been thinking is this

I want nitiative to be skill based, not random. Skill provides command of the battlefield, awareness of the attackers, and efficient body positioning for maximal defense and offense with the least expenditure of energy. So, the more skillful tends to have control of the action at the start. Various martial arts have this concept. Aikido's "control the first movement" or Iado's "step to the side, and cut immediately" come to mind.

But when does the battle begin? With the thrown punch? Or with the stance? Or with the sizing up of the opponent? I was thinking that you could open the combat with a "seek opportunity" move and essentially roll the hit location before rolling the attack. There's your opening. Now the defender can try to block the opening if they have the ability, but when they do, they create other openings. Meanwhile you can throw feints or use other maneuvers to try to create better openings. What could take minutes in real time could be happening in the space of a heartbeats in-character...until one of you runs out of the resources to close the openings and the other throws the punch. At this point the struggle switches to blocking the actual punch, and maybe you've used up too much resources in closing holes in your guard (i.e. your oponent caught you flat-footed).

Anyway, its a work in progress but I think it has some potential

I think a good system should provide one mechanic that works well on both close and ranged combat. To hit a tree(/or a board) with a rifle, if you are just standing in front of it is an easy task.

I`ve been working on this for quite a long time and developed a system, where the attack roll determines how hard to block/avoid the attack is and how much damage the defender takes. The defender has to get the same or a better result to block. Fast and easy.

The skill is used for determining how good the attack was - or if untrained characters are fighting - how sloppy...
(The same mechanic is used for every check in the system.) The attacker keeps attacking unless the defender can do a successful countermove or he stops...

At the same time both attacker and defender get tired, depending on the kind of attack, used weapon, etc. Many fights end because one of the combatants can`t move his arm anymore (from wounds) or collapses from exhaustion and loss of blood.

Duels are working really great and are a lot of fun - I hope encounters on a larger scale work as well, but this hasn't been tested yet (, because the "damage vs. armor-part" has been rewritten seven times...)

Only drawback to the point is the need to keep track of the exhaustion, which is always changing and has nice little side effects...

Could you make exhaustion deplete skill points, rather than being something you have to track? That way as character takes exhaustion, his attacks and defenses get more sloppy.

James

In fact this is one of the little side effects I mentioned...

For example a fighter with total average attributes and skills scores a "good hit" on 11,12,13,14 (on D20 - 3 times rolled - best counts). If he reaches the first level of exhaustion he gets a penalty of 1, so he only scores good on 11 to13.
Reaching the 4th level he cannot score good anymore (basic rules...).

Exhaustion may decrease in combat as well - therefore I have to keep track of it. I could make it a lot easier, but I tried to create a realistic and intuitive playable system and had to compromise on that...

couldn't you achieve the same effect by changing the skill level. So an average character falls to sub-par when he takes an exhaustion. When he recovers in combat, just move his skill up to average again.

Quick and painless:
This would be a mechanic, which would work, but doesn`t fit...
There are 3 levels of success: let`s call them: sloppy, normal and good - ~1/3 possibility each (not exact, because you roll 3D20 and only the best counts... - so it is 1/3 only under worst circumstances...). If I would reduce the effective skill level, the thresholds for getting a normal or good success would have to be recalculated - and stay at 1/3 - what doesn't seem right to me.

It does work on another system (my favorite one - written by a friend of mine):
For every five points (you could also say make it every point - if you like...) you roll under your skill you get an extra effect - so every reduction of the skill level lessens the chance to get additional effects - it is very simple and fits his style best - thus I have another style, I wanted a system to fit my needs...

AJ_Flowers wrote:

I see what you mean by saying the values seem reversed! Here's what I'm trying to get at -- the AV of the attack is the absolute minimum range you need to be at to use it and have it work.  At the extremes you have a gun, which can hit at any Range 1-6.  On the other hand a Grapple only hits at Range 1.  The actual "roll" (I misstated above and it wasn't totally clear) is the result of your Attack Type minus Current Range between you and an opponent.  So for example, if I'm using Chi Blast (which could hit at Range 6), but standing at Range 1, the value my opponent must beat is AV Minus Current Range: 6 - 1 = 5.  If I'm using Chi Blast at Range 5, my total attack roll to beat is 6 - 5 = 1.

One further nit: The system does not reward you for being inside an attacker's optimal range. If a judoka closes to Range 1 for grappling, he's at a greater disadvantage against the Karateka's Range 2 punch than if he had just stood out there and gotten pummelled. I don't think this was the intended effect.

Given the comments, perhaps it would make more sense if range explained which attacks were available to you, but the actual attack value was based on the speed of that type of attack (as well as the skill of the attacker).  Seems to make more sense - thanks for the comments on it!

Burning wheel has good ideas on the question of didtance between the fighters and effective ranges for the different attacks.
TROS has a differnt view of the who goes when thing.

I like aspects of the Feng SHui systems of who goes when.

JW

I just read through Burning Wheel and I really like the way it handles the optimal range mechanic. I would generally break out the hex paper and miniatures and try to figure out how far away everyone is from each other. Burning Wheel doesn't go this route. Instead, it keeps distance abstracted, you roll position tests versus your oponents to see who is in optimal range and go from there. Its a pretty cool method that I can't wait to see in combat.

I bought TROS a month ago, but have yet to receive it in the mail. Every day I run to the mailbox to see if the book has arrived only to have my hopes dashed. I am very excited to see how they handle combat in general.

Yeah I like aspects to the distance thing in BW, I know from RL historical combat that didstance isn't something that you can easily keep track of in games terms so their version does a good job of it.

I like aspects of the Feng Shui timing system as its more about when you can do something and how much you can do, there fore you have to think about how complicated your actions are as if they aren't successfull its going to be longer before you can do something again. again soemthing that translate well in to apsects of RL combat.

JW

I have to admit, my "baby" in this mechanic isn't so much the range stuff, which I could redo or toss, as the fact that I'd rather see the defender than the attacker be the one in the active (ie, rolling) position in the system.  It turns combat on its head.

I'll take a look at Burning Wheel and see how it does it, since I'm always in favor of elegant systems.  One problem I had with an earlier draft of my idea is that the modifiers started to stack up too quickly, which goes against the element of having something that flows.

If you set the "attack value" to the attackers skill in the maneuver you can then use all of the different martial arts "moves" to create various trade offs between range and bonuses.

You could invent a bazillion moves or you could just make categories...like Fast Punch, Strong Punch, Fierce Punch, where Fierce Punch has a big bonus but is useable at only a single range, while Fast Punch has a penalty but is useable at several ranges.

Yes whatever one does it seems to end up with things stacking up and loosing the flow of the action.

While your system is interesting I think you will just find that by inverting the normal roles, ie defender being active, you are still going to have the same problems as any other system just the other way round.
I don't see how that one can't get around the modifier problem without a radically different system to create a mechanic that doesn't need them.

You might want to look at a simple system which sounds very similar to what you are diescribing. Its designed for 3Musketeers type duel but makes use of the idea that the attack succeeds but the defender rolls to see if THEY prevent the action from taking its full toll.

I've been trying to get you the link but not working. It was a free rules set. You can try www.eurekamin.co.au and contact them or search there.

JW

Valamir your suggestions are very similar to what I have come up with for my weapons based system, with mine currently intergrating with the Timimng system, bigger moves take up more time and there foreleaving you less time to something else.

As you say if the Attackers current skill value(which could be modified by their current health stamina etc)  was modified by the attack value of the maneuver you could then have the "fixed" attack number, against which the defender would be active against as AJ wants?

The enjoyable bit then a the attacker would be choosing the maneuver that would give them the best oppertunities based up their current fatigue, wahtever, level?

JW

What if the range determined the attacks available, but you got a penalty for attacking at a closer than "optimal" range.  So, a rifle might have a range of 6, but if you attacked at range 4, you'd get a -2.  That way, grappling will work better than a high kick or a bo staff when you're right up next to each other, but the math is still pretty simple.

But then aren't you back to having to determine a what distance you are at and who gets to decide the distance between two fighters?
JW

Burning Wheel uses a positioning test to determine who decides starting distance. The winner can place themselves at optimal range for their attack. Their opponent then needs to attack from outside optimal range or close the distance with maneuvers. I should note that BW has different mechanics for ranged combat and melee, but the concept is pretty similar in both for positionings.

The penalty for being outside optimal range seems to work well. Of course, a rifle would be at optimal range over a broad field of fire and only suffer meaning ful penalties at the extremes.

Hey guys,

One of the problems with combat system design is its vulnerability to "hey! this too!" thinking. Let's get back to Amanda's straightforward idea, because it's the new thing, the idea in this thread. Stuff like distance, order of action, and many other details are concerns in all combat systems, in one way or another, and we don't have to hash them all out and over again.

Straightforwardly: in applying this idea to a combat procedure in an RPG, there is no missing. One does not roll to hit, or throw coins, or draw cards. One simply hits. So! How is combat then conducted? As a series of defenses. It strikes me that the system might distinguish between a skillful defensive act, which seems (to the observer) to have occurred even before the attack; a desperate and reactive defensive act, which the attack probably interrupts whatever the person was doing and is therefore successful even if it doesn't land; and being blindsided or simply not reactive enough.

See what I mean? It doesn't have anything to do with the nature of the attacks; we start by assuming that attacks are (a) successful and (b) damaging. So lists of attack options and whatnot, as you'd see in a video game or dozens of RPGs, are not to the point at all.

With all that laid out and in mind, now we can think about ordering just a bit. It would have to be a matter of disposing of those who simply got out-timed (smack!), of those who were forced to defend in some reactive or disadvantaged way, and of those who defended handily, probably simply by not being there anymore. In what order might that be done? I have some ideas about that, but Amanda, what do you think?

Also, Amanda, I know this is a First Thoughts topic and that you might not have taken the notion much further, but now that it might have become more solid to you through posting, what sort of game might you like to see this in, or as a key part of? "My Life at the Dojo" is possible, but perhaps a bit pedestrian if it's just about sparring matches. Especially given our discussions at Forge Midwest, what sort of context do you think would be both fun and relevant for skilled, potentially deadly personal combat?

Best, Ron

I'd like to offer up my "sword of damocles" mechanic for inspection.  It is an attempt to model an exchange in one roll, which thus sort of eliminates the to-hit roll.  Anyway the idea is as follows:

Rule:
Any failure on a combat action results in the sword [of damocles] falling on the acting character.

This obviates the need to determine or resolve blow by blow type combat.  I think it should also eliminate quite a lot of weapon modifier type stuff.

It seems to me this would work best associated with a sort of escalating bidding device.  So a sample resolution model would be something like this:

- players propose actions with a difficulty number
- they then roll some dice trying to get higher than this difficulty
- difficulties accumulate through multiple actions by both parties

So if Joe and Bob are fighting by means of a system in which they each have, say, 2d6 to roll, it might be something like:

Joe proposes a 4-point difficulty opening thrust, rolls, gets more than 4, stays alive.

Bob proposes a difficulty 2 beat, total difficulty is now 6, rolls more than 6, stays alive

Joe proposes a 4 point feint-and-lunge, difficulty is 10, rolls below 10, dies.

I would suggest a mechanic that captures the shifting momentum of combat. Ron suggested defenses might be classified as skillful successes, desperate successes, and failures. Using this model, I would suggest a mechanic that would allow the successful defense to modify the next action. So if I pull off a skillful defense, the amount by which I was successful could be used to decrease my oponents ability to defend against my attack. If I successfully but desperately defend, my successes actually improve the oponent's chance to defend (essentially, I had to throw a lot of energy into the defense that my oponent can then use). In a truly desperate defense it might negate my next attack completely, allowing the oponent multiple attacks, causing more and more desperate defenses.

Alright, heres a device with more movement and range.

Seeing as all literal representations of range to date have failed IMO, I'm going to resort to abstraction.  Also to give movement some bite I'm going to keep some elements of a dojo setting, in order to erstablish another dynamic: defend or give ground.

So we have two physical displays.  The first is the mat map, which for arguments sake we can imagine as a 3x3 grid.  A token representing "the fight" is placed in the central square at the start of the game.

The range between the combatants is not represented on the mat map; it is represented instead on a slider which carries "some numbers" from zero up.  These are range bands, and a token is placed on the slider at the start of the bout to display the relationship between them, as they both stand in the central square of the mat map.

So thats the setup.  Assuming inititiative is determined by lot or inspection of entrails, whatever, the intended sequence of action would look something like this.  The Attacker, on their turn, adjusts the Range slider by one or more bands; they do so becuase they have attacks listed that are available only at certain range bands, or gain bonuses according to bands.  Different styles can have different amountsa of attacks etc. differently distributed among the range bands.

So our attacker has determined the current range, and anounces an attack.  The defender must now "fight or fall back"; that is, either roll off for an attempt at defending the attack, or concede, by falling back and representing this by moving the fight location token that appears on the mat map.

This makes for a nice symmetry in which the attacker has their finger resting speculatively on the range slider, and the defender has theirs resting on the fight location token, ready to fall back.  That sounds like a good level of basic tension between them.  However, I'm also assuming that the defender can be compelled to fall back out of the ring, that is, off an edge of the mat map, and thereby lose a half point.

This need not be kept as a literal device permanently; just as in reallife, the restricted space is an abstraction of complex environments.  You could conceivably teach players fiorst to use tyhe mat mapo, and then fight combats on differently or uniquely shaped maps.  In fact, considering that both combatants arre represented by a single token, you could conceivably stick this on any grid map.

Anyway thats an outline of something making more use of space, movement, and the dojo concept.  Stuff that would still need to be determined includes: how your RNG works for the blocks, some detail on what kind of choices are available to someone falling back, and some kind of initiative system.

I find it a real pity this query has not garnered more responses.  It's an interesting bone to chew on and a recurrent problem in RPG design.  Ron's proposal was also interesting and I am sorry we have not seen any attempts at an implementation.

Seems to me its a pretty sad day when such an interesting question simply falls off the front page.

Thanks for all the recent replies on this thread! I'd meant to jump back in to it this weekend but the Forge was being refurbished so it slipped out of my brain.

As to Ron's question about context:  I really think the system would be cool for fun martial arts fighting adventures, along the lines of the "tournament game" I once ran using the somewhat inadequate BESM.  I'm also a big fan of the kind of mystical karate genre with powers and so-on, so here, as cheezy as it sounds, I'm thinking of an adventure flavored almost like Mortal Kombat, with very deadly and personal combat. But you might have an element of gods and mortals fighting as well, so even if the combat results in a lot of damage or loss characters don't instantly die.

As for the idea of a "move list," with different types of punches and so-on it definitely brings to mind the kind of fighting game genre I'm emulating. But, I tried that initially in a larger treatment of the system but discarded it, because it was so crunchy, too much to write out and memorize. I wanted to take the mechanic back to its initial abstraction.

Contracycle: I like the idea of keeping the ranges abstract. I want the system to flow without having to measure distances precisely.  The idea of a band with a token to represent this between two opponents definitely has some merit there. Sorry it took me a while to get back to your PM on it!

I may start a new thread with drafts of more specific rules based on the feedback here.

True. It has gone silent.

OK, Here's my implementation Idea. Skillful defense requires you to roll more successes (even numbers are successes) than the oponent's attack value (AV).

Daniel-san has Karate Defense of 4 and is attacked by Sho Nuff with a deadly but slow Power Punch (AV = 2).

Daniel-san rolls four defense dice and gets four successes, meaning he skillfully defends against Sho Nuff's attack with a margin of 2 successes. So his next attack has a +2 AV

Daniel-san then uses the Crane Kick (AV = 5 + 2 = 7). Sho Nuff defends with his Karate Defense of 6, rolling 4 successes. This is 3 short, which would result in a 'hit' unless Sho Nuff gets "desperate." (You could roll hit location at this point to see where the damage would be--let's say its the head)

Sho Nuff decides he really does not want to be hit in the head, so he pushes himself. Sho Nuff can roll up to 6 additional dice (because of the Karate Defense of 6). However, each additional dice will temporarily reduce his Karate Defense until he is able to "get a breather" which would require him to force Daniel-san to skip an attack by hitting him hard enough to stun him. Sho Nuff pushes all 6 dice in the hopes that he will be able to block the attack and destroy Daniel-san with his counter. He rolls 4 successes, which means his desperate defense has worked but left him open to attack unless he scores well in his counter.

Sho Nuff decides to use his Jab 7, and rolls a location "left shoulder." Daniel-san can not avoid the hit without pushing and even if he pushes, he's got a good chance of taking damage. He rolls his 4d and gets 2 successes. Daniel-san can not avoid being hit, and Sho Nuff's 5 success margin is high enough that he might be able to retain initiative. He decides to push 2 dice, and rolls one success, reducing the margin to 4.

(need some kind of damage mechanic here)

Daniel-san is bleeding, but he has initiative and Sho Nuff "no can defense." He tries his Crane Kick (AV = 5), with an automatic 5 success margin. But, is it enough to keep the intiative, or will Sho Nuff rally back?

AJ_Flowers wrote:
so here, as cheezy as it sounds, I'm thinking of an adventure flavored almost like Mortal Kombat, with very deadly and personal combat. But you might have an element of gods and mortals fighting as well, so even if the combat results in a lot of damage or loss characters don't instantly die.

Hey everyone,

It's time to let Amanda think! She will return with something using this idea, I'm sure, but now's a good time for the thread to end. Unless Amanda says otherwise (PM please), it's closed.

Best, Ron