Topic: S Combat System
Started by: xiombarg
Started on: 10/31/2002
Board: Indie Game Design
On 10/31/2002 at 9:52pm, xiombarg wrote:
S Combat System
For those of you who aren't watching the GNS forum, this thread is spun off from this thread, and refers to the S combat system.
Andrew Martin wrote:xiombarg wrote:Andrew Martin wrote: Why not both? A fast resolution system that generates realistic results, and is fun and challenging to play. It's not that hard to create.
Uh, is that sarcasm? Do you have an example?
I think my S combat system for Fudge fits the requirements. If not, I'd like to hear about it! :) That way I can make it better.
Um, I'm not trying to be a grump, but if it were so easy to make a fast resolution system that generates realisitc results, and is fun and challenging to play, it begs the question: Why, traditionally, do most RPGs fail at this, then?
I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but what you're describing is the Holy Grail of Simulationist Gaming, at least for a lot of people, and I must admit I'm dubious that you've created it while no one was looking. :-D
That said, that doesn't mean I won't try to help you achieve it. Let's look at the system...
Okay, first look at the core: I know how to do a conflict, and I know how to do "Easy" tasks. How do I evaluate non-Easy tasks that aren't conflicts? The rules don't say. Did I miss something? How do I climb a wall, for example? It ain't Easy, and it ain't a conflict.
Moving on to the Duel system... Uh, aren't realistic and cinematic contradictary? Realistically, a lot of flashy fencing moves you see in movies don't work very well in practice.
Regardless, let's look at the system itself. Hmmmm, I'd need to actually play it to be sure, but how is this particularly different from a standard RPG combat system? It doesn't look that different from GURPS in broad outline, and it hardly looks "fast", even if you roll as many dice as possible at once, as you suggest. It's an awful lot of die rolling, and you're using all sorts of different types of dice with all sorts of modifiers. In my experience with similar systems, like Deadlands, that isn't fast.
At the very least, some sort of table of options and their effects seems to be in order here.
I'm ignoring the Skirmish system as we're mainly concerned with RPG combat here...
Okay, looking at the example for gunfight combat, I'm not sure why you consider this realistic. The way gun battles work, from what I've read of police experiences in firefights, is once you're shot, either the person is shocked that they've been shot, and they lie down and start screaming, or they get angry, and keep going until they've bled enough to pass out. I don't see how your system supports either of these realistic results.
Again, I'm not trying to be mean here. I will reserve judgement on "fast" until I try the system out. I'll give you "challenging", as there seems to be a variety of tactical options, tho little room for creativity -- how cinematic is combat if you can't swing on a chandilier? But "realistic"? This is essentially a hit point system, and I don't see why it's realistic at all. It seems to encourage the D&D "keep hitting the same guy until he drops" method of fighting, which isn't realistic at all. It doesn't jibe in any way with anything I've read about real combat, tho it fits quite well into the standard RPG combat genre, all the way back to D&D.
Basically, I'm seeing a very standard "roll to hit, roll for damage, rinse, repeat" system. Which there isn't anything wrong with that, but I don't see why it's particularly realistic, especially considering the fact that it uses a more or less static hit point system, or perhaps more accurately a White Wolf style Heath Level system.
Forge Reference Links:
Topic 4038
On 10/31/2002 at 10:37pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: S Combat System
xiombarg wrote: Hmmmm, I'd need to actually play it to be sure, but how is this particularly different from a standard RPG combat system? It doesn't look that different from GURPS in broad outline, and it hardly looks "fast", even if you roll as many dice as possible at once, as you suggest. It's an awful lot of die rolling, and you're using all sorts of different types of dice with all sorts of modifiers. In my experience with similar systems, like Deadlands, that isn't fast.
I've playtested it a lot and get a ratio from 1:3 to around 1:10, or 1 second of game time = 3 - 10 seconds real time, with a range of players. A new player to the system initially takes around 1:20 for the first time, then play very soon gets faster.
Uh, aren't realistic and cinematic contradictary?
Not with the action movies I've been seeing. I get Mexican standoffs, one blow kills, hostage situations work out just like in the movies, in all the games I've run and I stick exactly with the rules.
Okay, looking at the example for gunfight combat, I'm not sure why you consider this realistic. The way gun battles work, from what I've read of police experiences in firefights, is once you're shot, either the person is shocked that they've been shot, and they lie down and start screaming, or they get angry, and keep going until they've bled enough to pass out. I don't see how your system supports either of these realistic results.
Most police forces in the US are armed with 0.32 revolvers which are, IIRC, 1D3 damage in S. Recall that in the damage section, if a "1" is rolled, the damage is ineffectual on the first roll, otherwise it's likely to result in a wound (bleeding) on the second roll. This gives exactly the right results (no effect or bleeding or, sometimes, a deadly wound). The FBI recommends a "double tap" to the chest with a two handed grip, using a 9mm pistol, which also exactly works out in S.
This is essentially a hit point system, and I don't see why it's realistic at all.
...perhaps more accurately a White Wolf style Heath Level system.
Actually it's not. It's possible to drop/kill any foe with one shot or blow, where the weapon allows (SF stunners have this limitation). This cannot be accomplished in a hit point system, nor with a WW health level system, and I've played both to make sure of this.
Okay, first look at the core: I know how to do a conflict, and I know how to do "Easy" tasks. How do I evaluate non-Easy tasks that aren't conflicts? The rules don't say. Did I miss something? How do I climb a wall, for example? It ain't Easy, and it ain't a conflict.
Thanks for pointing this out, I'll check it out and correct it. Thanks again!
I don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, but what you're describing is the Holy Grail of Simulationist Gaming, at least for a lot of people, and I must admit I'm dubious that you've created it while no one was looking. :-D
It did take a while to design and write (around 2 years of spare time), but it was easier than my waiting 20 years for RPG designers to provide it for me.
Moving on to the Duel system... Uh, aren't realistic and cinematic contradictary? Realistically, a lot of flashy fencing moves you see in movies don't work very well in practice.
Seems to work very well in playtest. I must be explaining it poorly, writing is my poor point. Sorry.
At the very least, some sort of table of options and their effects seems to be in order here.
Agreed! I'm always looking for ways to improve it. Thanks!
Thank you for your comments.
On 10/31/2002 at 10:53pm, Mike Holmes wrote:
RE: S Combat System
I think one of two things must be true here. Either Andrew thinks that Action movies are realistic, or, more likely, when he says realistic, he means something like "conforms to action movie physics". Which would be valid for playing a game that assumed such physics.
Mike
On 11/1/2002 at 1:01am, xiombarg wrote:
RE: Re: S Combat System
Andrew Martin wrote: I've playtested it a lot and get a ratio from 1:3 to around 1:10, or 1 second of game time = 3 - 10 seconds real time, with a range of players. A new player to the system initially takes around 1:20 for the first time, then play very soon gets faster.
I assume this is achieved because of the limits, tactically, on what you can do? That is, because you CAN'T kick down a table and use it as a shield, or anything else creative?
Okay, looking at the example for gunfight combat, I'm not sure why you consider this realistic. The way gun battles work, from what I've read of police experiences in firefights, is once you're shot, either the person is shocked that they've been shot, and they lie down and start screaming, or they get angry, and keep going until they've bled enough to pass out. I don't see how your system supports either of these realistic results.
Most police forces in the US are armed with 0.32 revolvers which are, IIRC, 1D3 damage in S. Recall that in the damage section, if a "1" is rolled, the damage is ineffectual on the first roll, otherwise it's likely to result in a wound (bleeding) on the second roll. This gives exactly the right results (no effect or bleeding or, sometimes, a deadly wound). The FBI recommends a "double tap" to the chest with a two handed grip, using a 9mm pistol, which also exactly works out in S.
Uh, no offense, but did you pay attention at all to what I was saying? I don't see ANY rules for bleeding. Did I miss something? Under your system, if someone is hit, and then they're never hit again, they never pass out. Ever. This is NOT realistic. At all.
Similarly, I see no rules for shock. Shock is NOT a function of the amount of damage, tho that certainly factors in, but has a lot of do with the individual psychology of the person hit. Whether they THINK they're hit badly enough to go down. Pain, which is NOT the same as damage, though they're correlated.
I don't really see how your system is any different from a standard hit point system with carefully modulated damage to allow first-round kills. But it totally does not take into account situations where someone is out of the fight, but not dying. It does not take into account situations where a small wound eventually causes someone to pass out over time. It does not take into account the psychology of combat, which is NOT realistic -- one of the wonderful things about, say, reading Sun Tzu is how clear he makes it that soldier psychology is more important than actually killing people in winning a war.
This is essentially a hit point system, and I don't see why it's realistic at all.
...perhaps more accurately a White Wolf style Heath Level system.
Actually it's not. It's possible to drop/kill any foe with one shot or blow, where the weapon allows (SF stunners have this limitation). This cannot be accomplished in a hit point system, nor with a WW health level system, and I've played both to make sure of this.
Um, it's just a matter of what you set the damage as, which is what you've done. If a pistol does 1d6 damage and the average person has 3 hit points, then first-shot kills are possible. Under 3rd edition Vampire, you roll the successes you achieve hitting someone with a firearm into damage, and this is QUITE capable of one-shot kills. I've seen it happen.
Basically, when I say "hit point system", what I mean is a damage system sort of like this:
1. Roll damage. The damage determines the "level" of your wounds, whether this is a number or a descriptor. There may be all sorts of tweaks here, but ultimately damage determines the amount of wounds you take. Wounds are cumulative -- you add wounds from a previous round to the wound you currently took to get the total amount of damage.
2. When your wounds reach a certain level, whether that's a numerical value or the last "level" of damage in a description-based system, the character is out of the fight.
How is your system different from this? If you still don't believe me, say so, and I'll happily re-write your damage system as a hit point system and you'll see exactly what I mean, as it'll be mathematically equivalent. And it would still fail to take into account shock or bleeding, again, unless I'm missing something.
Mike Holmes wrote: I think one of two things must be true here. Either Andrew thinks that Action movies are realistic, or, more likely, when he says realistic, he means something like "conforms to action movie physics". Which would be valid for playing a game that assumed such physics.
Yes, but that's a very different definition than, say, the dictionary would give or what I would give. Andrew, Mike raises a good point here. When you say "realistic" do you mean "like an action movie" or "like reality"? Or do you think action movies accurately reflect reality?
On 11/1/2002 at 3:48am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: S Combat System
Mike Holmes wrote: I think one of two things must be true here. Either Andrew thinks that Action movies are realistic, or, more likely, when he says realistic, he means something like "conforms to action movie physics". Which would be valid for playing a game that assumed such physics.
To help clear things up, S is intended to produce cinematic action like in an action movie or TV series. For example, movies like those featuring a martini drinking British secret agent; or featuring humanoids with pointed ears and made in New Zealand; or starring an actor who was a weight lifter from Austria or Germany; or an actor whose key phrase is "Yippie Ki Yay, M* F*!" or featuring creatures whose blood can melt/dissolve metal floors and bulkheads. And TV series, like the two FBI agents discovering aliens and strange things; or starship crew in the near future meeting aliens and exploring strange new worlds. That's the cinematic part.
Note that S doesn't provide support for swashbuckling movies, like Errol Flynn-like movies where the hero swings by the chandeliers, knocks over a dozen extras with a single swing and so on. That's because I've seen very few of these movies, none of my existing RPGs have it as a feature and all of my players and friends scoff when they do see these type of movies. So I haven't bothered with this part.
S also provide realistic simulation of gun combat, as far as I can tell. Gun damage is based on "Guns, Guns, Guns!" by BTRC which I believe is one of the best/realistic references I have available. The FBI technique of a two handed grip on a 9mm pistol and firing a double-tap produces results which are expected by FBI authorities. US Police accounts of single shot incapacitations do occur in S as do the US Police accounts of firing multiple shots at a combatant, hitting and producing no effect.
S can also mimic every strange tale about infantry combat I've heard from the NZ, Australian and US military. These include a friend's account of a soldier being hit in the head by a large caliber military weapon, then getting up and fighting again with no appreciable difference in performance. And naturally produces the usual effect of instant death when struck by automatic weapons fire.
S is also designed to simulate both cinematic and realistic samurai sword combat. S is the only game system I know that can produce a simultaneous kill (both duelists being killed by each other at once), which is a feature in Usagi Yojimbo comics, also seen in samurai movies, and featured in books on Japan, both cinematic and on kendo or martial arts.
I hope that clears it up. Let me know if it doesn't.
On 11/1/2002 at 4:29am, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: Re: S Combat System
xiombarg wrote:Andrew Martin wrote: I've playtested it a lot and get a ratio from 1:3 to around 1:10, or 1 second of game time = 3 - 10 seconds real time, with a range of players. A new player to the system initially takes around 1:20 for the first time, then play very soon gets faster.
I assume this is achieved because of the limits, tactically, on what you can do? That is, because you CAN'T kick down a table and use it as a shield, or anything else creative?
I've had NPCs take character's hostage (a human shield), and achieved situations in game play like those seen in movies starring Clint Eastwood. And a simple Dodge action, along with using a Fait Accompli (for heroic editing) accomplishes using a table or other obstacle as a shield. There's a special rule for doing no offensive actions and keeping behind cover producing reasonably perfect safety. Creative actions are mainly accomplished by the player using Fait Accompli (a standard part of my playtests in my Fudge/S games) to produce a success for the character. This will later be replaced with my Token systems rules to better support heroic characters.
Bleeding and Shock
Shock is covered by the resistance roll of Will (or similar) versus the damage. Failure of the Will roll indicates unconsciousness. That's probably unclear in the rules on my site which is a failure on my part. Sorry about that. As for bleeding and so on, I haven't made any rules about it, because there was no need. Injured PCs are usually first aided, in hospital or magically or miraculously healed ASAP. For NPCs, they live or die at the PCs whim. I do need to put a "reminder" rule that untreated wounds lead to infection and death.
But it totally does not take into account situations where someone is out of the fight, but not dying.
It's covered by unconsciousness/incapacitation, and then coup-de-grace or first aid by other characters after the combat.
It does not take into account situations where a small wound eventually causes someone to pass out over time.
No need. Either the combat is over by then (they're very, very quick affairs), or the character is really incapacitated/unconscious; no longer capable of "obeying" the player's orders.
It does not take into account the psychology of combat, which is NOT realistic -- one of the wonderful things about, say, reading Sun Tzu is how clear he makes it that soldier psychology is more important than actually killing people in winning a war.
S is a Fudge superset and a combat system. Psychology is covered by the roleplaying system's 'vantages. For example, faints at the sight of blood, cowardly, and so on. Other psychological factors are automatically covered by initiative/speed and by positioning in combat. Time for psychological "warfare" during Mexican standoffs is available to the characters and works quite well in play, producing results as per action movies.
Wounds are cumulative -- you add wounds from a previous round to the wound you currently took to get the total amount of damage.
2. When your wounds reach a certain level, whether that's a numerical value or the last "level" of damage in a description-based system, the character is out of the fight.
Only wounds in S are cumulative (each giving -1 penalty to all actions). All other results can occur only once (death) or many times (rolling an initial "1" for a graze/bruise/scratch). Each impact can have no appreciable effect or can kill. This can't be modelled in a hit point system, as far as I can see.
I'll happily re-write your damage system as a hit point system and you'll see exactly what I mean, as it'll be mathematically equivalent.
Feel free to do so. I'd like to see it. By the way, all characters in S have no hit points.
On 11/1/2002 at 8:00am, Gwen wrote:
RE: S Combat System
If a combat system has rules for getting shot, resisting shock, bleeding and rolls to remain concious... that's four rolls for every shot. If you got a group of 5 playing against, say 5, NPCs... that's a lot of rolling and not necessarily "quick combat"
On 11/1/2002 at 8:26am, xiombarg wrote:
RE: Re: S Combat System
Andrew Martin wrote: I've had NPCs take character's hostage (a human shield), and achieved situations in game play like those seen in movies starring Clint Eastwood. And a simple Dodge action, along with using a Fait Accompli (for heroic editing) accomplishes using a table or other obstacle as a shield. There's a special rule for doing no offensive actions and keeping behind cover producing reasonably perfect safety. Creative actions are mainly accomplished by the player using Fait Accompli (a standard part of my playtests in my Fudge/S games) to produce a success for the character. This will later be replaced with my Token systems rules to better support heroic characters.
Okay, this is wonderful stuff. I wish it was actually in the rules. You said that writing was your weak point; I'm trying to help you here. The rules read like the maneuvers listed are all you can do, and there's no mention of Fait Accompli. If it's a standard part of your playtests, why isn't it in the rules?
In addition to a table of actions, you may want to include a discussion like the above where you explain, say, using a table as a shield is a Dodge action. Mention a lot of stuff people will want to do and how it's done under your system. And mention Fait Accomplis, or Tokens, or whatever. I mean, if it's in ALL your playtests, it seems kinda odd to me to leave that out, even if you're going to replace it by a slightly different system later.
Shock is covered by the resistance roll of Will (or similar) versus the damage. Failure of the Will roll indicates unconsciousness. That's probably unclear in the rules on my site which is a failure on my part. Sorry about that. As for bleeding and so on, I haven't made any rules about it, because there was no need. Injured PCs are usually first aided, in hospital or magically or miraculously healed ASAP. For NPCs, they live or die at the PCs whim. I do need to put a "reminder" rule that untreated wounds lead to infection and death.
Yes, I think this would be good. And you might want to update your examples to reflect this. Tho it does become clearer on a third re-reading of the injury rules. Perhaps if the examples were more extended...
Feel free to do so. I'd like to see it. By the way, all characters in S have no hit points.
Ah, okay, I see now. I concede this point. I was mis-interpreting your use of the word "cumulative" in the Injury rules. My apologies.
However, injury certainly seems to take a lot of rolls -- at least two, assuming the character hit in the first place. I'm sure it's fast when you run it, but then, you wrote it. Is it as fast when other people run it?
On 11/1/2002 at 8:48am, xiombarg wrote:
On Realism
To help clear things up, S is intended to produce cinematic action like in an action movie or TV series. For example, movies like those featuring a martini drinking British secret agent; or featuring humanoids with pointed ears and made in New Zealand; or starring an actor who was a weight lifter from Austria or Germany; or an actor whose key phrase is "Yippie Ki Yay, M* F*!" or featuring creatures whose blood can melt/dissolve metal floors and bulkheads. And TV series, like the two FBI agents discovering aliens and strange things; or starship crew in the near future meeting aliens and exploring strange new worlds. That's the cinematic part.
Okay, but this isn't "realisitc". It's cinematic. If this is what you're aiming for, I suggest you mention this somewhere in the rules. In the FAQ or something.
S also provide realistic simulation of gun combat, as far as I can tell. Gun damage is based on "Guns, Guns, Guns!" by BTRC which I believe is one of the best/realistic references I have available. The FBI technique of a two handed grip on a 9mm pistol and firing a double-tap produces results which are expected by FBI authorities. US Police accounts of single shot incapacitations do occur in S as do the US Police accounts of firing multiple shots at a combatant, hitting and producing no effect.
Woah, woah, woah! How can it be cinematic and realistic at once? Cinematic gunfights and realistic gunfights are very different. Or are you saying that only the gun rules are realistic?
And if it honestly does both, how does it reflect the differences between cinematic and real gun combat? Is this that Fait Accompli thing again?
S is also designed to simulate both cinematic and realistic samurai sword combat. S is the only game system I know that can produce a simultaneous kill (both duelists being killed by each other at once), which is a feature in Usagi Yojimbo comics, also seen in samurai movies, and featured in books on Japan, both cinematic and on kendo or martial arts.
Um, it is completely unclear from the rules that damage is simultaneous and not done in initiative order after the flurry of blows. All it says is the damage comes after the flurry of blows. I suggest you clarify this.
Any game that had combat actions or damage that is simultanous and not initiative based can do simultaneous kills. Hell, Battletech did this, IIRC -- you moved in initiative order, and then combat was simultaneous. Each mech could blow each other's head off -- simultaneous kill. It's a good way of doing things, I'll give you that -- but it's been done before.
Please understand that I'm not saying that S is a bad system. It seems to be a fairly solid combination of a lot of old fashioned RPG concepts: initatiative where one person gets to know what the other is doing first (seen in Battletech, certain parts of Underworld, and others), simultaneous damage (Battletech again), weapons with damage that can produce first-turn kills (Vampire, to name one), and maneuvers (GURPS, D&D 3E). But it isn't realistic -- you said yourself it's cinematic. I can see you've tweaked it so a lot of things are possible, but you admitted realism wasn't your goal -- perhaps versimillitude is a better word? As for "fun and challenging", I need to try it out before I can judge that. (And, frankly, I'm loath to try them without the Fait Accompli rules.) I think the Injury rules are neat now that I fully grok them, tho they look like a pain to actually use.
On 11/1/2002 at 10:16pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
RE: S Combat System
And if it honestly does both, how does it reflect the differences between cinematic and real gun combat? Is this that Fait Accompli thing again?
Fait Accompli allows for the spectacular stuff, but cunning/smart players can manipulate the initiative system to achieve gritty cinematic action without needing to use Fait Accompli. It's all done through timing and using character interaction skills.
The Fait Accompli rules are in my Fudge section of my site. Naturally this is a bad place to put it when they should also be with the S rules.
As for damage and combat speed, it's very important to roll the first damage die with the skill die, this helps keep the speed up. If firing multiple shots, like a burst from a SMG or a double tap, roll multiple dice with the skill die and discard those that roll 1's. It's also important, though I don't state this (bad Andrew!), to not roll too much. Stop rolling when the victim is incapacitated. That's because this state is easy to see, but death is harder to sense. Only continue the damage rolling after combat when characters check the fallen. This is a shortcut, but gets realistic behaviour from players -- the characters don't "psychically" know that their victim is dead.
Thanks for the suggestions people! I'll be rewriting and improving the injury rolls as they are definitely confusing. I'll also add a bleeding or continuing damage rule as well, as another person was offended by their lack (in another forum).
On 11/1/2002 at 10:22pm, Andrew Martin wrote:
Re: On Realism
xiombarg wrote: Any game that had combat actions or damage that is simultanous and not initiative based can do simultaneous kills. Hell, Battletech did this, IIRC -- you moved in initiative order, and then combat was simultaneous. Each mech could blow each other's head off -- simultaneous kill. It's a good way of doing things, I'll give you that -- but it's been done before.
Please understand that I'm not saying that S is a bad system. It seems to be a fairly solid combination of a lot of old fashioned RPG concepts: initatiative where one person gets to know what the other is doing first (seen in Battletech, certain parts of Underworld, and others), simultaneous damage (Battletech again), weapons with damage that can produce first-turn kills (Vampire, to name one), and maneuvers (GURPS, D&D 3E).
I grew tired of existing RPG combat systems that were poor wargames, a friend asked me for a better system to play an old GW skirmish game and I came across problems with a PBeM and Face-to-Face games I was running at the time where combat didn't work out right and didn't fit the source materials (Samurai Japan). I started writing S before I came across The Forge and RPG.net, and Fait Accompli (FA) and later Token were developed from the experiences of reading and playing Indie games.