Hi all,

I'm working on an action setting, so right now my mind is on emulating high-flying cinematic butt kicking in RPGs. I'm not posting this in the game design forum because I’m going to use the Fate RPG, an existing game system.

One thing I want to try is ignoring damage ratings for weapons, an idea that existed as some shadowy, amorphous entity floating around in my head for some time. Fortunately, my thoughts on this matter were crystallized when I read Wushu by Daniel Bayn, a neat action RPG. I’m going to briefly talk about how Wushu handles weapons, discuss why I think removing the mechanical benefits for weapons is an excellent option for cinematic roleplaying and how I will implement this in Fate, and then ask the forum for help with narrating the perplexing (at least for me) issue of missile weapons.

I have a some points I’d like to make before I continue. First, I plan on ignoring the effects of armor in addition to the effects of weapons. However, I’m only going to talk about weapons in this post because armor isn’t so problematic for me. Second, just as I don’t plan on giving weapons intrinsic benefits, I don’t plan on giving weapons any intrinsic weaknesses. Third, I don’t want to give the impression that the “benefit-less” weapons idea is the One True Way (tm) to play cinematic games. YMMV, “if your gamet ain’t broke don’t fix it,” and all the other caveats of respect for your way of playing apply.

The way Wushu handles weapons is that weapons don’t actually factor into damage at all. Indeed, weapons don’t have any intrinsic benefits and are, in effect, just embellishment. In Wushu, cool descriptions give the character bonuses to his role; if the character uses a weapon, it is essentially part of the scenery which can be used to get descriptive bonuses.

This is easy enough to port over to Fate (and likely many other RPGs) – I won’t give weapons any inherent advantage and will narrate the coolest result based on the wound scored. I think this method of handling weapons would focus play more on the action and reduce “packratting,” which I think is undesireable in an action movie game. Unless, of course, packratting is part of a character concept, but even then I won’t give any actual in-game benefits/hindrances for the stuff people pick up. (if there’s interest, I’m willing to explain, in another thread, what I’d do to prevent undervaluing a packrat concept)

Not giving weapons any mechanical benefits seems like an easy way to “equalize” character concepts. For example, in the games I’ve played, a bare-fisted martial arts master concept is usually at a disadvantage when fighting a sword master concept. While this is probably realistic, I don’t think this effectively reflects cinematic reality.

So removing inherent tactical benefits from weapons seems like a good idea for the kind of game I want to play. However, missile weapons bug me. Missile weapon versus missile weapon isn’t so bad, and missle weapon versus hand weapon at close range isn’t bad either – it’s missile weapon versus hand weapon at a distance that is my problemThe ability to attack at range is a tactical advantage that I can’t wrap my mind around.

I think it would be helpful if I describe my planned method of task resolution, especially on how damage is dealt. I plan to make use of Fortune in the Middle (FitM) and what I call “effects-based damage” (which, I’m sure, is already in use in other systems, possibly under a different name). Effects-based damage is defined below.

Character A and Character B engage in combat. They roll the dice (traditionally that’s 4dF – four Fudge dice, which for those who don’t know are d6’s with two “+” sides, two “-“ sides, and two blank sides – but it could be different) and add the relevant attack skill. A and B compare results and determine the winner of the exchange. In the Fudge RPG, this way of adjudicating contests is called simultaneous task resolution; in the Fate RPG, this is called exchange-based turns.

The damage done to the loser is proportional to winner’s degree of success – a larger degree of success results in a correspondingly more severe wound. In Fate, there are four wound levels: “Clipped,” “Hurt,” “Injured,” and “Taken Out.” A Clipped wound is very short-lived – it only penalizes the character’s next roll. A Hurt wound gives a penalty that is more lasting. According to the way I would run this (which is slightly different from standard Fate), the effect of being Hurt stays with the character until the character spends a turn addressing it, but usually lasts no longer than a scene. An Injured wound is even more severe, plaguing the character until it heals (whatever that means). Finally, a Taken Out wound removes the character from the fight. The ultimate fate of a character suffering a Taken Out wound is up to the winner of the fight (who is hopefully on the side of the Taken Out character!).

What I like most of this kind of damage system is that a wound doesn’t necessarily have narrated as physical damage – using FitM, the severity of the wound can be used as a guide to describing the results of the exchange in an entertaining manner. Because only the mechanical effects of the wound matter, I call this “effects-based damage.” It’s like the effects-based power system of Champions, which models a fireball and ice bolt as the same basic power – “attack blast” or something (I’m actually only familiar with the Fuzion name for the basic power, but I believe it’s the same concept).

For example, let’s say we’re playing a swashbuckling game and sworsdman A engages swordsman B. A wins, scoring a Clipped wound on B. Given this genre, the Clipped wound that A inflicts could be narrated as a jarring elbow strike that momentarily disorients B, manuvering B into a momentary positional disadvantage, or unleashing a witty barb so insulting to B that B is temporarily stunned. In a similar manner, the other wound levels can be narrated in a variety of ways (although, given their generally long-lasting effect, I have difficulty thinking of ways to narrate Injured wounds that aren’t physical damage to the character).

My dilemma arises when a character using a missle weapon. Say character A is far away from B. A is using a pistol while B has only his sword. While I could run this as an opposed roll between A’s attack skill (“Pistol”) versus B’s defense skill (“Dodge”), I feel this gives A too much of an advantage because A gets to fire at least one shot at B before B can attack. Another option is allowing B to use Fate’s optional “Fighting Defensively” rule, whereby B can receive a small bonus to his defense but can’t do damage to A. However, this feels kind of clunky and cheesy to me, because Dodge is a defensive skill and I generally wouldn’t allow the character to fight back anyway.

What I would prefer is using A’s attack skill versus B’s attack skill, as if it were any other contest (I kind of view it as A and B vying for narrative control of the exchange – I may just distill offensive skills down to “Physical Attack,” “Mental Attack,” and “Social Attack,” to better reflect this). But I can’t think of many “believeable” ways to narrate the outcome if B wins the contest. I’m not so concerned with movement rates and exact distances, so in most cases I wouldn’t be opposed to B closing the gap in the span on one round. However, if B is routinely far enough away from A I think that, over time, this would stretch the players’ suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. Another idea I’ve had is that A’s weapon could misfire, but this could get old fast and is not always appropriate to describe the more reliable firearms of more modern eras. I have also thought that B could use the scenery to somehow injure A from a distance. This is the old “cutting-the-rope-that-holds-the-chandelier” routine. Yet another idea is that, because only the effects of the wound matter, there doesn’t even need to be narration – A suffers a wound but there’s no apparent effect. While this is playable, it’s rather bland and probably should only be used a last resort. However, after these, I’m out of ideas for narrating this situation.

So, in the end, I guess I’m basically trolling for ideas on how to narrate this kind of situation and “sell” it to the players. Even as I write this I’ve become aware of new possibilities (the chandelier thing just came to me), but help is very much appreciated. And, of course, discussion on "benefit-less" weapons is also welcome. This post has turned out a lot longer than I thought it would be, so I hope it was interesting! :)

Thanks,
Jon

[edited for some typos]

Jon-

Sounds like a good system that meshes well with the style of play you want. My take is that you've got contradictory desires, though, and that's why no clear answer is shining through.

Either:
---missile weapons confer an advantage at a distance ('relse why use them?)
or
---they don't ('cause all weapons are just flash)

The easiest answer is full-on anime. (The whole thing where folks jump into the air, the background gets all streaky, and suddenly range has closed.)
I'm not hearing much concern for "reality": "[dodging a missile weapon] gives A too much of an advantage because A gets to fire at least one shot at B before B can attack."

If the tone's not that extreme, my solution is to lay this on the players' shoulders. Put the onus on them. Make them come up with a rationale before handing them the dice. Damage for the shooter has a max of "clipped" without this rationale. (And "clipped" is easy - anything that'll give them an edge for next round.)


-Matt

Wow! Thanks for bringing Fate up here, and thanks for putting so much effort into making sure people get the context.

I'm going to focus on what I see as the main thrust of this post, though -- the question of a ranged attacker versus a not range-capable defender.

One thing to remember about Fate combat is that you aren't always "competing to wound one another". Wounding someone is just a possible outcome -- which can be traded out for any other "maneuver result", by looking at the level of the wound you would have inflicted, and instead opting for a more advantageous position, a non-wounding suboptimal circumstance for your opponent (disarming's a good example of that), and so on.

So, here's our two combatants -- Sniper and Dodger.

Sniper's range of successes are pretty clearly laid out -- the greater a margin he gets, the more on-target his attack is, and the more wounded Dodger becomes.

Dodger, meanwhile, is mainly working on getting out of the way. Let's look at the range of possibilities if he were actually able to wound Sniper by successfully dodging, cooked down from their wound level to the severity of the result:

* Scratched (the tie) - Negligible result
* Clipped - Minor result
* Hurt - Serious result
* Injured - Major result
* Taken Out - Supreme result

(Interestingly, something like this is going to show up in our next revision)

Using this, I can think about this from two perspectives -- one, "how much better of a position does Dodger end up in?", and two, "how successfully does Dodger deprive Sniper of his ability to take a shot?" -- and pretty easily translate it into narration.

Examples, based on a statement by Dodger of, "First priority, don't get shot -- take cover where I can. Second priority, close the distance with Sniper so I can explode with kung-fu action at my next chance."

* Scratched (Negligible) - "Sniper's firing but not hitting Dodger, who's running and diving all over the place to stay ahead of Sniper's aim, but can't seem to find any cover that lasts."

* Clipped (Minor) - "Dodger ducks and weaves with Sniper's shots falling wide of the mark. He manages to make his way over to a wide column, enough to hide behind for a while, but not positioned well enough to make an escape."

* Hurt (Significant) - "Dodger makes his way across the battlefield -- every time Sniper gets a bead on him, he's made it to another bit of cover and the shots don't land. The distance between the two of them closes dramatically, but it will still be another exchange before Dodger can get a chance to lay hands on Sniper if Sniper keeps shooting and stays his ground."

* Injured (Major) - "Dodger ducks, weaves, and then suddenly barrels forward and -- out of sight. Where is he? Sniper looks through his scope, swinging his rifle around, trying to relocate his target. And then -- Dodger's there, maybe half a dozen paces away. What do you do?"

* Taken Out (Supreme) - as above, but "And then -- Dodger's there, right on top of Sniper, closer than the rifle barrel is long. There's no way to bring the gun to bear, and he's got the drop on you in this next exchange."

This is just one set of examples, meant to illustrate a point. The big important thing is to listen to what the character's trying to achieve, and if they succeed, to interpret the results in terms of the position along the continuum from a "neutral" result (Scratched) to a "perfect" result (Taken Out).

Hi Matt,

Garbanzo wrote: Sounds like a good system that meshes well with the style of play you want. My take is that you've got contradictory desires, though, and that's why no clear answer is shining through.

Either:
---missile weapons confer an advantage at a distance ('relse why use them?)
or
---they don't ('cause all weapons are just flash)

Garbanzo wrote: The easiest answer is full-on anime. (The whole thing where folks jump into the air, the background gets all streaky, and suddenly range has closed.)
I'm not hearing much concern for "reality": "[dodging a missile weapon] gives A too much of an advantage because A gets to fire at least one shot at B before B can attack."

If the tone's not that extreme, my solution is to lay this on the players' shoulders. Put the onus on them. Make them come up with a rationale before handing them the dice. Damage for the shooter has a max of "clipped" without this rationale. (And "clipped" is easy - anything that'll give them an edge for next round.)

Firmer theoretical foundation:
What's firmer than saying that you have a rule that applies equally in all situations? If you've stated explicitly that weapons provide no mechanical advantages ever, then you shouldn't need to justify a single instance of that rule, particularly if you've already justified the rule in the grander sense. Otherwise, you might see the knife fighter crying foul, saying that your rules commit sins of inconsistency.
If you want a Sim defense, all you have to do is say that it's genre emulation - in any action cinema, it's never the accoutrements that affect the interplay of opposing forces. Depending on the subgenre, the real forces change, but the overlying principle is constant - the craftsman needs no tools.

Hi zaal,

zaal wrote: Hi all,
My dilemma arises when a character using a missle weapon. Say character A is far away from B. A is using a pistol while B has only his sword. While I could run this as an opposed roll between A’s attack skill (“Pistol”) versus B’s defense skill (“Dodge”), I feel this gives A too much of an advantage because A gets to fire at least one shot at B before B can attack. Another option is allowing B to use Fate’s optional “Fighting Defensively” rule, whereby B can receive a small bonus to his defense but can’t do damage to A. However, this feels kind of clunky and cheesy to me, because Dodge is a defensive skill and I generally wouldn’t allow the character to fight back anyway.

Hi Iago,

iago wrote: Wow! Thanks for bringing Fate up here, and thanks for putting so much effort into making sure people get the context.

iago wrote: One thing to remember about Fate combat is that you aren't always "competing to wound one another". Wounding someone is just a possible outcome -- which can be traded out for any other "maneuver result", by looking at the level of the wound you would have inflicted, and instead opting for a more advantageous position, a non-wounding suboptimal circumstance for your opponent (disarming's a good example of that), and so on.

Shreyas Sampat wrote: Firmer theoretical foundation:
What's firmer than saying that you have a rule that applies equally in all situations?

Here's my two cents:

Well, if weapons are just color, I'd say you could do the same thing for range. This is very similar to what Fred said, but I think you could just loose the entire concept of range.

I'll assume we have two characthers, Gun Person(G) and Melee Person(M), both are trying to hurt the other.

Possible Results are:
Scratched- No effect. M couldn't get close enough to land a blow, G couldn't hit

G-Scratched = M disconcerts G by getting into Melee Range
M-Scratched= obvious

G- Clipped = M got close and landed a blow
M-Clipped = obvious

G - Hurt = M sneaked up behind G and landed a telling blow
M- Hurt= duh

G- Taken out= M really got up close an clobbered G
M-Taken Out= obvious

You could also do the reverse: Say G and M are in melee, both trying to hurt the other, I'll just do G this time, as M's effects are what you'd expect.

Scratched= same as before

M-Clipped= G managed to disengage and attack at range next time

M-Hurt= G reached a great sniper postion, (M must spend a turn getting up there)

M-TO= duh

Just a thought, anyway, sounds like a cool game.

Hi fitheach,

Welcome to the Forge!

fitheach wrote: And keep in mind, I am using something in between a scene based and a round based combat system...

fitheach wrote: ... I never forget the back flip maneuver a triad killer does in "God of Gamblers" to evate a blow with a sword to his head. He ends up lying flat on the floor and his big bad gun is pointing at the melee fighter. *bang* and he won.

This is the style of cinematic game I have in mind. Ok, maybe yours won't be such high flying and so on. But may be I could help you at least a little bit.

Hi zaal!

zaal wrote:
Yeah, high-flying, over-the-top action is what I have in mind :) . And you certainly have given me food for thought, so thanks!

damion wrote: Just a thought, anyway, sounds like a cool game.

Perhaps you might ensure that all PCs are capable of both melee and ranged attacks?

A barehanded monk might also be able to project chi missles, a ninja assassin would have shuriken to complement her katana, and a street tough would have twin pistols to back up his switchblade.

If all the PCs are prepared with ranged attacks, it'll always be within their power to move the exchange into a ranged-vs.-ranged space that they might find more believable.

WhiteRat, that's a great idea.

But surely, one of the choices for a character's ranged weapon could be "improvise."

Dr. Jones (Indy's father) with an umbrella, vs. fighter pilot with machine guns. Sounds like an equal match to me.

- Walt

WhiteRat wrote: Perhaps you might ensure that all PCs are capable of both melee and ranged attacks?