Realistic Combat - A Thought

[Mithras]

I've just read Kris Havlock's wonderful article on Medieval Combat http://www.gggames.net/medievalcombat.shtml I recommend it!

As I read it, however, a thought struck me - RuneQuest seems to fulfil nearly all of Kris' requirements for a 'realistic Medieval-style' combat system. To think this was one of the first fantasy RPGs, this is quite impressive.

Some of Kris' points are very much dead-on: making weapon damage the equal of modern firearms; giving long weapons superior reach over shorter ones; using a hit location system that has a tendency towards arms and legs, not the body; giving shields a crucial part to play in any combat; and so on...

The only thing I will say is that RuneQuest doesn't use any form of 'stance', there are few options to use in combat other than 'hit the motherf***er!!!'. If there were then RQ combat would be even slower than it is (eek!), but it is one of the reasons I tend not to use the system much anymore. I'm after combat options these days, giving players tactical choice (and more than using power/feat X,Y or Z). Kris explains the whole stance thing better than me, and if he's reading I'd love to follow up on his mention of 'some people have suggested ..' who? where? for what system? I'd like to chase down that lead on stances ...

[NPC unable to log A-A]

Claiming that RQ combat is realistic is truely a horror from the ancient past of roleplaying games. I remember in decades past many claims over Runequest. Nobody could explain the sheer sillyness of the combat results. Examples? Try fumbling and destroying your own head with a spear or knocking off your leg with a mace.
For the survival of the players there were powerful heal spells. In one example I remember one character was riding into battle and had his leg cut off. But no problems resulted as he grabbed it and stuck it back on using Heal 8 (or similiar, it was many years ago)
In any realistic melee combat limbs are very rarely cut off and then only by large weapons (you can cut off a leg with a dagger in RQ). Legs are rarely a target for heavy cutting weapons which are generally aimed at head or body. Roman legion tactics were to thrust with the sword and penetrate 2-3 inches with several quick strikes, no attempt or need was found to hack off limbs in order to kill.

RQ- the limbs off, limbs on, fumble limbs off, heal limbs on, .........

the horror..................................

p.s. I found the article linked to incoherent and self contradictory (if any wishes to I will debate this.

[Mithras]

You reckon?

I'm not going to stand up and say that RuneQuest was a good realistic set of rules. There was no First Aid skill in my edition, feeble characters had as few as 2 hit points in a limb, and tough characters 5 (??).

But lots of the points he makes, RuneQuest addresses. The game may have some gaping holes and horrible inconsistencies, but it addresses the matter of making combat lethal and more realistic. As for Heal spells, I never used them as were. Too damn ubiquitous. There was no re-attaching, and you needed wild healing herbs prepared and applied for a Heal to work (and that took time in hours).

RuneQuest is one of the few games I've ever played where (skilled and armoured as I was) I almost crapped my self when three unfriendly hill-men hurled down javelins at me. 'Christ - if just one of those things hits me - I'm dead ...'

And for starting characters you (well I) feel like that sword or spear is a real weapon, that the shield is a life saver right there. That any attack could be the one that lays you out.

[Mesa Virga]

Originally posted by NPC unable to log A-A
Try fumbling and destroying your own head with a spear or knocking off your leg with a mace.

Sorry, this kind of thing can and does happen. Quite apart from a variety of ludicrous self-hits with sporting equipment, my favourite was from a friand of mine at a kung fu class:

He mishandled a sword quite badly, and cut his own neck. The sword was a blunt display model - if it had been sharp he waould have gone through his own carotid artery. I do a lot of Arnis (stickfighting), and accidental self hits happen all the time.

Matt.

[Mock]

I read that article also, and found it to be very enlightening. I have no combat experience, aside from sparring sessions in martial arts classes (which were much more chaotic and less organized than I expected them to be...but that can be attributed to being a beginner, I suppose).

After reading it, I also thought about how one would incorporate any of the suggestions he lists into a combat system. My worry is that it would become heavily chart-based, i.e. cross-referencing the stance to the attack, to determine how powerful it is, and so forth.

Hmmm...just had a couple thoughts.

Suppose you identify some combat factors from the Kris' article (just select a few, rather than all). For simplicity, I'll do two: stance and maneuver (maneuver covering offensive and defensive actions). Represent each of these with, say, a d6. Once combat begins, the players turn the stance die to a particular number, representing their chosen stance for this exchange of blows. Again, suppose that the stances are measured from 1-6, with 1 being the most defensive, and 6 being the most aggressive. The number on that die corresponds to a modifier for both attack and defense--thus, stance 1 would only offer a +1 to an attack, but only a -1 to defense, while stance 6 offers +6 to attack but leaves you open with a -6 modifier to defense. Combine this with the maneuver roll, and you get your total for that exchange.

Alternatively, the maneuver die could also be set to a number, again adding it's own modifiers to attack and defense. The final value would be resolved by rolling a third die and adding appropriate modifiers. This might require some math, especially if the numbers get large.

Other ideas might be using dice as counters to measure recovery time from an attack, or fatigue levels, or to even fall back to a physical arrangement of dice or objects to represent stances (weird, but interesting to consider).

-Mock

[Mock]

Something I left out:

Changing stances should be fluid--the player can opt to shift stances throughout the battle (not, of course, in the midst of an exchange, but from blow to blow, perhaps).

Additionally, this kind of system could build in a mechanic to force players into stances--for instance, if a player is consistently beaten (but not killed), they'd end up on the defensive, at a disadvantage--this could be reflected by some mechanic requiring them to shift into more and more defensive stances (perhaps by limiting their "maximum" aggressiveness, or something).

EDIT: Oh, and the reason that stance 1 in the example still leaves you with a -1 on defense is that I'd say the only way to have a "perfect" defense is not to be in combat in the first place ;)

-Mock

[A-A]

When a 5' charater holding a 6' spear sticks it through his head? Accidents through incompetence can happen (e.g. George Bush) but nothing like as often as RQ. RQ in days of old (15+years ago) had some vociferous proponents who did make ridiculous claims of the realism of the system. Perhaps my memory is too long.

Mostly I just hate serious fumbles as I like my charaters to be at least competent and not have a 1 in 60 chance of shooting their arrow through their own head each and every time they fire.
I know a lot of gamers like the comedy element but they are not an element I want from any game (TOON or other dedicated comedy accepted.

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Mock
Represent [stance] with, say, a d6. Once combat begins, the players turn the stance die to a particular number, representing their chosen stance for this exchange of blows. Again, suppose that the stances are measured from 1-6, with 1 being the most defensive, and 6 being the most aggressive. The number on that die corresponds to a modifier for both attack and defense--

Hey, Mock - that's really, really cool.

Why couldnt I think of such a nifty way of dealing with it?? :rolleyes:

[Mock]

Originally posted by Mithras


Hey, Mock - that's really, really cool.

Why couldnt I think of such a nifty way of dealing with it?? :rolleyes:

Thank you! It's funny, but I was just going to write some sort of "hey, me too!" post lamenting the fact that Kris' article was awesome but would never be realized, when that idea popped into my head.

I was giving it some further thought, andrecognized that there could be finer divisions of ability - say including offense and defense as separate modifying dice. Then, a person with a shield (with, say, a d8) might have the ability to select a broader range of defensive options than a person without a shield (who might only have a d4 in defensive options). This could be represented in a single stance die as well - a person with a shield could have a larger die, showing a broader range of options on overall stance (although in that case, you may want to reverse or otherwise alter the modifier scale, since a larger die only offers you additional options at the top end).

-Mock

[Mithras]

Oh, I see - you could use other die types, too... even more interesting. So the stance die is like an active defence. What have you got? Spear .. nice, hoplite shield ... mm very nice = d8.

So our hoplite can go from a +1 defence through to +4 and 5 up to the 'hide behind your shield' +8. But he receives a -8 to hit with that spear while he does so.

A very nice mechanic.

[Mock]

That's pretty much exactly what I had in mind. I'll give this some more attention and see if I can find any other tweaks.

-Mock

[NPC Deathlok]

This is a really cool idea, Mock. The only issue I have with it is that you can only modify one aspect: you always have a negative modifier to defense (in your first example with the d6) and a positive modifier to your attack. Perhaps you could have two parts to the equation. Say, a 'base' number and a d6 that changes as you alter your stance.

So the hoplite with a shield has a base of +2 defense - d6 and 0 attack + d6. If he goes all-out attack, he has a -4 to his defense, and a +6 to attack.

Or we have a Viking berserker armed with an axe. He has a base of +3 attack, -1 defense. His all-out attack is +9a and -7d, and the closest he can get to hiding behind his shield is -3a, +5d.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that there's another way to get at this problem, and that this is only a partial representation of the idea floating around in my head.

Still, the idea of a variable stance is a really cool one, and I just had to try doing something with it.

[NPC Deathlok]

Wow, I used two completely different systems in my example, andneither was what I had in mind. That explains my nagging doubts at the end of the post. Anyway, please ignore the numbers in my last post and use these instead. They're at least consistent.

The Hoplite with spear and shield has a base attack of 0+d6 and a base defense of 8-d6. When the hoplite completely disregards his own safety by setting the die to 6, he has a +6 attack and a +2 defense. Hiding behind his shield and setting the die to 1 gives him a +1 attack and a +7 defense.

The Viking Berserker with an axe has a base attack of 3+d6 and a base defense of 0-d6. So full offensive (die set to 6) is +9 attack, -6 defense, and full defense (die set to 1) is +4 attack, -1 defense.

So the die represents your stance, with 6 being most aggressive, but not everyone is equally effective defensively and offensively, even when the stances are identical (read: when the dice are set to the same number).

Josh Morrow

[Mock]

Originally posted by NPC Deathlok
The Hoplite with spear and shield has a base attack of 0+d6 and a base defense of 8-d6. When the hoplite completely disregards his own safety by setting the die to 6, he has a +6 attack and a +2 defense. Hiding behind his shield and setting the die to 1 gives him a +1 attack and a +7 defense.

The Viking Berserker with an axe has a base attack of 3+d6 and a base defense of 0-d6. So full offensive (die set to 6) is +9 attack, -6 defense, and full defense (die set to 1) is +4 attack, -1 defense.

So the die represents your stance, with 6 being most aggressive, but not everyone is equally effective defensively and offensively, even when the stances are identical (read: when the dice are set to the same number).

Josh Morrow

Ah! Good thought! I've been working on my idea--got about 5 pages of notes written up on it right now. I've worked out some ideas that include recovery time, weapon weights, and so forth (don't worry, despite all that it shouldn't be too hard to follow). Bear in mind that what I've written doesn't address your issue, and I really like your solution. In defense of the original idea, you could always say "hey, this game is about attacking, not defending, you big wuss!" :D

In your idea, do you assume that the die type is standard (e.g. d6 only) or would you include other die types?

Anyway, to expand a bit on the recovery idea, I looked at it two ways. One, my system incurs a penalty for maneuvers based on how wildly aggressive it is--i.e. if you leave yourself wide open, it takes longer to recover. Basically, the penalty lasts for a number of "bouts" equal to the aggressiveness of the attack minus the recovery value, with a minimum recovery time of one bout.

Another factor of recovery is that it indicates how fast you can shift stances--i.e. you can shift stance by a number equal to Recovery, in either direction. High Recovery may mean you can pretty much freely shift stances, while low recovery means that in the duration of one bout (which would be pretty quick), you can't quite get all the way into the stance you wanted.

I've also associated skill levels with stance/attack values, and so forth. To be even grittier (and rules-heavy, sorry Mithras), I've tentatively identified recovery penalties based on how much gear you're trying to swing around.

I've identified a working system to demonstrate getting flustered, being beaten into the defensive, and so forth, but it's all hypothetical. If interested, I can post the document as an attachment once I clean it up.

The thing is, if we use dice as counters, once there is a good understanding of the rules, it's a matter of turning a die to the proper number to determine your modifier, so even with some math involved, it's easy to keep track without constantly writing and erasing on the character sheet.

Incorporating your idea, Deathlok, would not affect too much of the system, I think. I'll have to do an investigation of that...

-Mock

[NPC - Sarim Rune]

The article was quite good. Mostly common sense sort of stuff. The part that was missing for me is that most fights can come down to "Who wants to win more."
This is an element that is rarely reflected in any game and is quite frankly the most important element in a fight. Although it's an awkward 'rule' to implement. "Sorry, your character simply doesn't want to win this fight as much as the other guys, you lose."
But this is the truth of it. Aggression is the key to many a victory.
Combat comes down to pain and trauma. Trauma will shut your body down, thus stopping you from fighting. Guns cause a lot of trauma that will shut your body down very quickly.
Edged weapons cause less trauma to the body by their attacks. But that's not the purpose. The trauma from edges weapons comes from blood loss. And if you want a magic number, it's 2. The human body (on average) needs to bleed out 2 liters of blood before sufficiant trauma occurs to shut down a body.
A cut to a arm is insufficient trauma and would take a person hours to bleed out 2 liters. A shot to an artery(sp) or into the chest can cause internal bleeding that can make a person bleed that 2 liters in a matter of seconds. that is why a person really succumbs to edged weapons.
Hand to hand is actually really tricky. It's really easy to cause lots of pain with your fists or feet while not causing any real trauma. Blunt force is just 'inefficient' for causing trauma, in many times regardless of the martial training one might have. You can kick a person in the arm for a long time before they might ever pass out (if they even do), for example. But a good punch to the temple can cause enough trauma to take somebody out.
Most hand to hand is all about who wants to win more because it's so difficult to cause sufficient trauma. You usually just push a person past their threshold of pain, they metally give up and you finish them off. You can't get there by being defensive.

So aggression is what allows a person to get the hits in to cause the trauma. If you want to be realistic in your game, that is the path to follow.

[NPC Deathlok]

I think (and this is all presupposing a system like the one I proposed earlier) the equipment wielded by the character is pretty well represented by the base bonuses/maluses to attack and defense. Bigger or smaller die types aren't really necessary to reflect this.

I thought, upon first reading your post, that a larger die could reflect the combat skill of the individual. After all, a d8 could translate into a +2 attack or +2 defense advantage over a character who is using a d6.

While this might be workable, it also means that the character setting his die to 8 is also easier to hit than a character with a die set to 6, so having a larger die isn't an absolute advantage.

I can't off the top of my head think of a way to fix this. Of course, you could always apply skill modifiers to the base bonuses of the character as well, but then, what aspect of combat experience gives you a larger set of bonuses, and what gives you a larger die?

I want to think of something, because using multiple dice is a way to add complexity to the system without making it rules-heavy (I realize you like rules-heavy, but what's wrong with making a rules-heavy and a rules-light version of the same system? :) ). All it really needs to make sense is a justification for using a dice bonus as opposed to a skill bonus.

Josh Morrow

[Mock]

Originally posted by NPC Deathlok
I thought, upon first reading your post, that a larger die could reflect the combat skill of the individual. After all, a d8 could translate into a +2 attack or +2 defense advantage over a character who is using a d6.

While this might be workable, it also means that the character setting his die to 8 is also easier to hit than a character with a die set to 6, so having a larger die isn't an absolute advantage.

I want to think of something, because using multiple dice is a way to add complexity to the system without making it rules-heavy (I realize you like rules-heavy, but what's wrong with making a rules-heavy and a rules-light version of the same system? :) ). All it really needs to make sense is a justification for using a dice bonus as opposed to a skill bonus.

Josh Morrow

I don't actually like rules-heavy more than rules light; I like both kinds, as long as they're good systems. I realized the die-type problem you identified too, and couldn't think of a way to fix it using my system without introducing purely imaginary modifiers, or introducing inconsistencies in the way you calculate modifiers.

However, using your system idea and a standard die type, I have developed (mostly talking to myself in the car) what I think is a fairly comprehensive way to handle several factors we've identified. It's a bit more abstract than a separate die for each factor, but I think it accommodates most of what we want.

I don't want to write it in the post, 'cause that would take so long. My next post will include a text file containing the system--let me know what you think when you get a chance to see it.

-Mock (who's currently madly typing up the system to make good on his promise)

[Mock]

Okay, here's the draft of the system. All apologies if I made anything unclear--I think it's a pretty solid setup. Deathlok, you'll recognize your idea for attack and defense in here. I chose the d12 because it is easy to set on a side and is pretty stable.

I didn't include any non-combat stuff. That'll be addressed some other time. Oh, and the name is tongue-in-cheek.

Read, review, ponder--let me know what you think! It's a zipped Microsoft Word file.

-Mock

[NPC Deathlok]

Cool beans. It's late and I have an 8:30, but I'll read it and reply at work tomorrow.

Josh Morrow, who still can't get the login to work.

[NPC Andrew Martin]

So why not just use Fudge, section 4.32 Offensive/Defensive Tactics?

Here's a quote:

Before each round, a fighter may choose to be in a normal posture, an offensive posture or defensive posture. An offensive or defensive stance increases combat skill in one aspect of combat (offense or defense), and decrease the same skill by an equal amount for the other aspect of combat.

There are five basic options:

+2 to Offense, -2 to Defense
+1 to Offense, -1 to Defense
Normal Offense and Defense
-1 to Offense, +1 to Defense
-2 to Offense, +2 to Defense

Each combat round, a player secretly chooses a combat stance by selecting two FUDGE dice and setting them to a result from +2 to -2, which represents an offensive modifier. (The defensive modifier shown above with the offensive modifier is automatically included.) Both sides simultaneously reveal their choices.


It's available at: http://members.dsl-only.net/~bing/frp/fudge/fudge4.html, and was written in June, 1995.

Even uses dice for measuring offense and defence factors...

And the method is easily ported to any game system that uses numbers for combat skills.

[Patrick Chipman]

I don't believe additional complexity is needed to handle melee weapons realistically (except, perhaps, if one wants to take stances and reach into detailed account); instead, I think designers can simply dispel their "Amtgard-SCA-D&D-melee weapons must suck compared to guns or we'd all use swords" mentality. ;) It's important to remember that guns replaced melee weapons because they're much better at penetrating medieval armor, require arguably less training and maintenance, are smaller, and, most importantly, can kill at a distance. It's interesting to note that melee weapons are as good, if not better, than guns when it comes to inflicting severe wound trauma against an unarmed opponent.

Anyway, let me return to my more general point of realism and detail. I maintain that realism and detail are not necessarily the same thing. Realism is the ability of a game system to produce results that coincide with observed events in reality, while detail is the depth of description of the results produced by a game system. While added detail can, of course, add to realism, the details themselves must still be realistic, or you're just going to great lengths to explain something in a completely false way. Realism, on the other hand, can be accomplished with relatively little detail, so long as the underlying game system can produce valid results.

Since realism and detail aren't the same thing, you can emulate some of Havlock's claims in an abstracted system; Skew Effect's implementation of System X is one such system. In Skew Effect, melee weapons have equal damage to small arms and, additionally, are often considered armor-piercing, depending on the common mode of use of the weapon. Long weapons tend to, but do not always, have higher damages and lower difficulty modifiers to reflect the fact that having a longer reach means more and more effective hits. Shields are handled through a Block Skill (based on the Strength Attribute) which, if successfully used as an evasion, completely negates the incoming attack. Hit locations aren't handled, mostly because the wound penalty and low numbers of Wounds (1x Endurance) rather rapidly take combatants out of the fight on a solid hit -- which is more realistic than allowing someone to take several solid arm and leg hits before going down. ;)

To summarize, it is possible to match Havlock's researched claims in a more detailed system; however, unless you need or want that detail and can't fill it in yourself, it might just be easier to use a more abstract system with a realistic bent.

[Mithras]

To Mock I say: I will read this file this afternoon. Fast work!

To Deathl0k I say: The single d6 idea is a good one.

To Andrew Martin: I slap my forehead with the palm of my hand

To Patrick: I, of course, am a rules-lite junkie and do believe that you can get realistic results without complex rules. I think that from my perspective, you've got to generate a wish list of effects you want in your combats. What do you want them to emulate. To say 'every friggin detail' means you are gonna end up with Rolemaster or somesuch. Emphasise those elements on your wish list.

I would want : choice in combat through stances and fighting 'moves'; less wild randomness in combat; and finally (and one of the most important for me) a Hero Wars-style use of Extended Contests where the fighters jockey for position until someone makes a mistake and takes the blow the blow that ends the fight.

[Mock]

Originally posted by NPC Andrew Martin
So why not just use Fudge, section 4.32 Offensive/Defensive Tactics?


No reason. I just thought I'd try to come up with something on my own. I've never read FUDGE (well, I tried, but I got bored), so the similarities between this idea and FUDGE's tactics stuff is purely coincidental. But as your quick overview of it shows, FUDGE takes the same conceptual approach that I'm using.

I'm also not claiming this idea that we've worked out is the first, most innovative, or best system ever to use tactics and stances in combat--it's merely a system that does. I haven't playtested it or anything (well, my playtest mainly consisted of setting a d12 on a table and hitting the table to see if the d12 would roll around. It was more stable than a d10, so I stuck with it.)

-Mock

[Mock]

Originally posted by Mock

I'm also not claiming this idea that we've worked out is the first, most innovative, or best system ever to use tactics and stances in combat--it's merely a system that does



Boy, is my face red. I apparently did claim that stance is a unique idea, in the document I wrote.

My bad--I thought it was unique at the time of writing, but after reading Andrew's post, it turns out that it is not. My apologies.

[Mithras]

Having just read Kris Havlok's other article that tries to put his research into practice using D&D3E, I note with interest that he tackles stance with virtually the same system as FUDGE (positive/negative mods coming off of a number of stances you select).

Mock, I read HITS, and I think it is a good clear system. In my usual manner I couldn't see myself using Recovery and its associations. A number of things I especially liked, one of which was reach. Very good.

I had a thought as I read, and you half answered that with Fear/Pain. Being forced into a stance by your opponent. My take on combat is not to trade blows, chopping up the other guy till he's bled too much and goes down. I want to end with just one of two 'hits'. Plus I'd be aiming to keep combats very short (with 1-6 bouts). My twist on HITS, then, would be to have a successful attack be equivalent to 'winning a bout' (not actually hitting the other guy). Each time you win a bout you get to reduce the other guys morale, fighting will - whatever. Maybe jump down to a d10, then a d8 then a d6 etc. He still has the skills, but his nerve his breaking, he's forced to fight more and more defensively.

Something similar at the start of a combat - initiative. All that circling and experimental jabbing before someone's nerve breaks and the action begins. What's all that about? I see it as some kind of contest with the loser having his stance forced upon him by the winner. You know, either a probing stab to see if he takes the bait (goes Aggressive) or gets Defensive. But what do you roll? Attack? Wits? Combat Savvy? Maybe there should be no roll. The fighters conceal their stance die and try guessing what their opponents is. Winner gets to change the losers stance to whatever he wants.

I see this happening every few bouts, when the fighters disengage.

My preference, you see, would be just to have a basic minimum number of bouts a stance is ineffect for (like ... 3). And then disengaging a re-engaging - giving both sides to change stance. I don't know how though.

Anyway gotta dash >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[NPC]

Thanks for the input. I re-read it and noticed several inconsistencies/errors - not so much in how I envisioni the system, but in how I actually wrote it out.

I'm also not sure how to model the probing, and sizing up of the opponent, either--although I definitely like your idea of reducing the die size as one loses ground to an opponent. However, I covered something similar in Recovery and in the Fear/Pain section -- I'll have to see if I can streamline that.

I did just now develop a method for Feinting, which would pull an opponent into a less guarded (read: higher stance number) position for a moment, allowing a fighter to score a hit which cannot be as well defended. Basically, a character divides an attack into two parts, and makes a standard attack roll, but declares the first move a feint. The defender must succeed at a Wits check against the value of that feint, or be pulled into a less defensible position.

Finally, in response to your comment about the one or two big hits that ends a fight, the only thing in HITS that kinda reflects that is the fact that injury can pile up quick (especially if you have a relatively low toughness). With weapons being quite damaging (which is how I want it) you can rack up the wounds pretty quick. But maybe not quick enough...

Also:

Errata

-I used Unarmed Defense in the stats, but kept calling it Basic Defense throughout the paper--it's the same thing, and I'm not even sure I like it anyway.

-I'm not sure I made it clear, but the final value of the skill (once you modify it for stance) is actually a modifier to a d20 roll, not a target number in and of itself. Hopefully, I didn't make that blunder too often.

-Other errors that I haven't yet found :)

[NPC Deathlok]

Wow... We could just be using FUDGE. Why didn't we think of that?? All these smilies, and no "flabbergasted" or "shocked" face. How sad.


Josh Morrow

[Mock]

Tricked by the login problem...again.

The last post from "NPC" was actually from me. I wanted to edit it, but alas could not. The thing I wanted to add was that I talk about going berserk at certain points, but I probably shouldn't have used that word--it's not a rule on being a berserker, but rather supposed to reflect getting mad and making stupid mistakes.

That's all.

-Mock

[Mithras]

Mock, as I said before, its a nice piece of work you hammered out there. You did say you might come up with better sounding names for things later. I'm all for that! I'll chip in! One of my favourite tasks is naming things ...

Thinking back, I have got a 'stance' system of my own I wheel out on occassion for all-action one-shots. But nothing as complex as this. It involves a pool of 6 d6 for each hero. Assign the dice to whatever you want to do in combat (including physical activities). 1d to fire your pistol, 2d to jump the coffee table and 3d to avoid the machinegun bullets. A '6' is a success. In hand to hand you'd do the same allocating 5d to attack and 1d to defence (for example).

Rough and ready, no modifiers, fast, fast fast. And not very realistic (so why am I mentioning it in a thread on Realistic Combat???)

Keep going Mock!

[Mock]

Hey, that was my idea! ;) I called it the "pool system," where everyone was just represented by a cluster of dice they allocated freely.

I actually thought it was a particularly useful mechanic for a setting I developed in which the players are machine intelligences in mechanical bodies (thus, they "allocate" power to various "subsystems", etc, damage was represented by power loss...I'll stop before I get carried away with myself)

It's a brilliant system for fast-play over-the-top action, too. I have a system using cards where a card equals a bullet, and you play as many as you feel comfortable with against your opponents, who play cards to try to avoid them.

But, like you said, we're wandering away from the realism thing!

-Mock

[Mock]

...in the proposed "HITS" system (I guess that's redundant, isn't it?), initiative is determined by the person who assumes the most aggressive stance first, or maybe who is the first to break a certain threshold on the aggressiveness of the stance, like 3 or 6. This way, you have players in relatively wary, defensive stances (1 - 3, say) who can take shots at each other, but the first person to move past three suddenly begins combat in earnest, getting the first swing.

-Mock

EDIT: Er, I mean getting the first really powerful swing. This mechanic may not reflect it quite right. Hmm...

[Delta1]

What ever mechanic you choose/design, IMHO it must be quick if you want to simulate reality.

Mithras: Liked your Zenobia by the way.

[Mock]

I'm not of the opinion that detail=realism. I think that for different people, different details will enhance the sense of realism. Thus, if a person feels that the essence of combat is chaos, then a chaotic system with lots of randomness may feel more realistic than others. If a person believes that you need to measure as many factors as possible in order to realistically evaluate combat, then a stat-heavy, chart-heavy system might seem real to them. In Mithras' case, for instance, he's looking for systems that offer stances, can capture the non-physical interactions that occur between combatants, and can resolve combat in one or two big moves. For him, that begins to feel real. For me, I like to see systems where weapons are really goddamn dangerous, and where people have to watch their butts or get put out of action pretty fast--that seems "real" to me.

In short, I don't think it's detail in general that determines realism in any given system, but what specific details are emphasized and how they mesh with your idea of realism.


Originally posted by Delta1
What every mechanic you choose/design, IMHO it must be quick if you want to simulate reality.


That's a good point--things happen fast in real life, and any overly bogged down system steals any sense of realism, even if it accounts for things like skin elasticity factor and prevailing winds. :rolleyes:

However, it's my feeling that we can only approach the real speed-of-life asymptotically--at some point, a game system can't become any faster, unless you let the GM say, "Hmmm. You win." (and, of course, that is a possible CRM, although it might not be all that much fun). The faster the better, but we have to accept that it can only go so fast. Combat will almost always be broken down into a methodical pattern, simply because it helps us work through a very complex situation in a systematic way.

In real life, the brain absorbs, quanitifies, categorizes, and responds to a vast amount of information in an extremely small amount of time. Capturing that process in a game system would be fascinating.

-Mock

[Mithras]

Delta, thanks for the acknowledgement there! Zenobia is very definately not realistic - but it is fast!

Mock, I think you have something there with your idea of initiative. He who dares to be most aggressive, goes first. But obviously you don't want to go all out if you can help it, because you'll leave yourself with no defense. So you try to figure out what level of aggression (stance) your foe is going to take, and notch it up a bit ...

Sounds very valid to me. No dice rolls, no modifiers.

Could it work??

Re. realism, I think Balbinus started a nice thread on this subject over on the main forum. I'm off there now .......

[Deathlok]

Both players could set a die in secret, then expose them at the same time. In essence, you're bidding for initiative by being more aggressive from the outset.

Of course, this could devolve into a metagame contest between the two players (or the player and GM), but that's always a danger with tactical combat.

Josh Morrow
(who still is not able to log in!)

[Mithras]

Originally posted by Mithras
Maybe there should be no roll. The fighters conceal their stance die and try guessing what their opponents is. Winner gets to change the losers stance to whatever he wants.


Hey, Deathl0k - is that what I already said, above and elsewhere? You're thinking on my wavelength. I pre-booked - find yer own channel, man :)

I agree you don't want a chess-like brain-busting tactical logjam at the start of every combat. See, the danger here is that Mock's writing a duelling system, and that's not what he wants. It seems to be what you end up with when you start getting detailed with inter-pesonal issues in combat, in one-on-one tactics.

[KlausGreen]

I have read through the posts in this thread and see a lot of "if I use weapon or shield X I should get this and this adjustment". This is not satisfying to me as it is not very important what you're holding if you don't take into account what the other guy is holding, or how nimble/agile he is, or indeed what elevation or surface he is standing on.

There is a vast difference between standing level with your opponent, just the two of you, you have a spear, he has a short sword. You are propably not trying to stab him as much as trying to keep him away, because if you overextend yourself and miss (which is fairly probable as even a short sword would be able to turn the tip of your spear) he would close very quickly and probably kill you with his shorter more adaptable weapon.

But if the two of you stood on a staircase with you at the top, you could probably hold him forever and tire him sufficiently to making him give up (the logical choice when placed in a strategically bad situation).

Another item of importance is what you're wearing in addition to your weapon. For instance, try to use a spear effectively (fast, furious stabs and small steps to engage/disengage your enemy) while wearing for instance Chain mail. It is tiring, very tiring as is most activities in this kind of Armour. When you have been fighting in heavy armours for an extended time you can sometimes loose consciousness from just a single light blow that would normally not even be counted as a glancing hit. Another funny thing, try making a heavy blow against the shield of a person wearing something heavy on their back (backpack, large weapon, strapped on shield etc.) and you'll quickly see that they need good reflexes and a lot of strength to keep them from turning at least a bit, regain their posture and be ready to receive another. This goes to show that a hit on the shield is not necessarily a miss, it might just be tactics. Not to mention that carrying a shield is taxing for the arm strength.

I don't think a roleplaying game should take all the eventualities into account, but I think that taking some things into account while discounting others is merely widening and deepening the natural Canyon of Credibility that exists between any game and the real world inhabited by real people (tm)

KR KGA

[NPC Tom F.]

The works of the historical European weapons masters are an invaluable resource if you want to utilise the real techniques and stances that were used. There is an amazing plethora of manualsavailable on the web for free.

www.thehaca.com The Historical Armed Combat Association

and

www.aemma.org The Academy of European Mediaeval Martial Arts

Are good places to start.

There are a lot of people out there who practise some form of armed combat training. Some much closer to reality than others (There is even more tribalism and polarised viewpoints among them than in the rpg community) but all of them have the opportunity to gain insight into combat that no rpg can give you. Talk to these people or better yet, convince someone to lend you a harness and sword for a day and train with them.

I elaborated more in two previous posts but the Thing ate them.

I hate the thing.

Always remember to copy your posts first.

P.S. Armour is not really that encumbering or tiring, just very fucking hot. (Which tires you out I guess) Gambesons are awful, reeking, hellish things that get stuck when you're trying to take them off forcing you to breathe in noxious vapours which can make you pass out.

Oh for a temperate climate.

[Mesa Virga]

IMX, armour can be encumbering and tiring (and hot). I have a chainmail hauberk and it can significantly affect my manoeuverability and fighting.

The significant extra mass yields inertia. It's harder to both get going (i.e. dodge) and slow down (recover). 'Braking distance' after a charge or run is significantly increase so you have to slow earlier which tends to telegraph your intent somewhat.

The extra weight tires the thighs and knees rapidly (and I'm pretty fit), leading to a general slowing of manoeuvres. Of course, all this is probably less important if you train in the stuff every day, but even more experienced folk must suffer from the fundamental effects of physics.

Matt.

[Deathlok]

Mithras: :rolleyes: well, I didn't think the two ideas were the same... Mine was just that whoever set their die to the highest (most aggressive) value got initiative... Basically, I ripped it off of the Lord of the Rings Trading Card Game (HERESY!!), where you bid "burdens" (basically, the amount of corruption on Frodo) in order to go first.

It seemed like your idea of changing your opponent's stance fit more into the idea of gradually shrinking the loser's die, making him/her be more defensive.

And yeah, it's turning into a dueling system. But hey, I like those :p, especially when the system has a duel mechanic and a "quick resolution" mechanic for multiple-participant battles. One of the things I really liked about Underworld (even though I've never actually seen the real game.. just read all the Design columns for inspiration/tips).

Josh Morrow

[Mock]

Originally posted by Mithras


I agree you don't want a chess-like brain-busting tactical logjam at the start of every combat. See, the danger here is that Mock's writing a duelling system, and that's not what he wants. It seems to be what you end up with when you start getting detailed with inter-pesonal issues in combat, in one-on-one tactics.

I have to agree--it's becoming a duelling system (and you're right, that always happens when I try to create something that reflects the advantage of positioning, stance, etc.). I think HITS is a decent duelling system (of course I do...I wrote it ;) ), providing the kinks are ironed out.

On the other hand, I don't know how useful it would be if the players are in a larger scale battle, not just individual one-on-ones. I'm not sure if HITS is fast enough to accommodate the flow of a large fight without dropping additional elements. Do any of you see a way to distill it any further, to keep the flavor of choosing aggressive vs. defensive positioning while keeping speed up (no one wants to be in a battle with 20 combatants where every single one has to choose a stance, then strike back and forth, etc.--how can this be minimized for large battles?)

In a large battle, I'd emphasize speed, multiple opponents, and aggressiveness, and minimize the rest.
Andrew's suggestion about FUDGE's tactical options seems to fit well here--establish how fast you are moving, and how aggressively (those may be linked) and limit encounters to one or two major blows, which end the fight (the loser being incapacitated or killed, at the winner's discretion, like in Feng Shui).

-Mock

[Mithras]

I suppose you could follow the combat of a small 'knot' of NPCs and PCS for 3 or 4 turns, before switching to another knot, keeping up the tempo. Moving rigidly from player to player would be too repetitive and disjointed, participants would forget what they are planning ...

[Mock]

That would still leave some players out for possibly a long while--I'm looking for the free-for-all feeling that you get in the big chaotic fight scenes.

In a really big fight (I'm thinking upwards of 10 individuals involved--the classic orc horde situation), everyone could occasionally roll a die (the number of sides doesn't matter) and anyone with a matching number ends up next to each other for the next few rounds, and can fight until the it's time to move away. If we keep battles to a few decisive moves, it won't degenerate into musical chairs, and you'd end up (hopefully) with the PC's hewing their way through a crowd of bad guys in true heroic fashion.

This would only work for battles where the enemies were fairly generic--a fight between the an important NPC and the PCs would need to adopt a more detailed mechanic, but if there are two mechanics--high-speed and low-speed--it's definitely a possibility.
-Mock

[Desperado]

I skipped around and didn't read the thread all the way through, but I got the first and half the second page done. Ah well.

Character A attacks, rolls his dice or die. Character B defends, rolls his dice or die. Highest number wins. Character B in defensive stance? GM gives him a bonus. Character B has a sheild? GM gives him a bonus. Character A uses a faster weapon than Character B is defending with, GM give him a bonus.

Is there some inherent need in us all to overcomplicate things? especially creative-based things such as RPGs? If you're making more of an adventure game I can understand function over form. Adventure games are like wargames, just one character per person. There's not much role-playing or interaction . . . just a bunch of people using statistics, much like a video game, to win over the enemy. But Role-playing games are different. a fight that takes 15 minutes in-game shouldn't take two hours to acomplish in real time (Average MERP results).

That's why I never liked DnD, really. mechanics are centered around combat, even if the book encourages RPing and says that not all encounters must end with combat. Maybe I'm a dreamer . . . oh well . . .

[Mock]

Originally posted by Desperado

Character A attacks, rolls his dice or die. Character B defends, rolls his dice or die. Highest number wins. Character B in defensive stance? GM gives him a bonus. Character B has a sheild? GM gives him a bonus. Character A uses a faster weapon than Character B is defending with, GM give him a bonus.


How is this different, at its heart, than the various systems proposed already in this thread? All of them seemed to be "Dice Roll + Modifier, highest roll wins" approaches--it's the application of modifiers that differs. Some base it on aggressive or defensive posture, others would apply bonuses for weapons also, and so forth. Granted, extra features add complications (or, as many game companies call them, "advanced rules"), but the root of the mechanic is the same.

But I see your point--it's not about which system to use. Overcomplication is a risk, in this thread especially, because the topic is "realistic combat." We want to incorporate many things, generally as ad hoc rule expansions, in order to accommodate that thing we forgot. I'm not exempt--the system I posted has a bunch of extra rules because I thought of them while I wrote it.

I don't really like roleplaying, so I'm naturally inclined toward combat stuff anyway. I do agree that a 15 minute combat should be resolved in...well...15 minutes. But, since the thread is realistic combat, we go back to the topic at hand:

What I'm looking for now is a way--any system--of making combat fast and furious without having to sacrifice the feel you want: i.e. if you want a heroic game, can combat be fast? alternatively, if you want a gritty game, can combat still be fast?

-Mock

[[Ego]Wumpus]

There were some interesting ideas thrown around regarding stances, and the defensive and offensive variations thereof. Having been a boffer LARPer for several years, the suggestions struck me as a potentially very good way to model such combat.

(I say potentially because I'd have to see it in practice to say anything more.)

However, boffer LARPing is much different from real combat; you don't have issues of balance and force that real combat relies on. Refering to Vegetius and his books regarding Roman combat, one notes that even at that time it was very clear that the physics of a combat style are very important.

Witness:

A roman gladius is primarily a thrusting weapon; penetration of even an inch or two was likely to result in the death of the victim.

A longsword was primarily a swinging weapon; longer and with more weight, a single blow was unlikely to kill the victim.

The reason for this apparent paradox is simple; longswords distribute their force (a function of mass and relative velocity) along a much larger area than a thrusting weapon. In theory, all the force of a thrusting weapon comes in along a particular point. Any armor that is there must be able to rebuke the force *at that point*; it doesn't have the ability to redistribute the force over a larger area. Note that this is an exponential function so any area will give the victim a much better chance of reducing the force at any given point to something acceptable.

And note that bones (ribs in particular) are as good as armor for this purpose.

So, it seems to me, that if you really want to figure out a good, non-arbitrary model, you might want to look at how much force the attacker can apply to what area, and how much force the victim can withstand per unit of area.

The attacker's variables will include:
- Strength; how many foot-pounds of acceleration the attacker can deliver.
- Weapon mass; how big the weapon they are using is. This will affect how fast the attacker can move it, and how much force it will impact with.
- Weapon edge; how large or small an area the weapon's force will be delivered to.
- Attacker's skill; skillful attackers will place a blow in weaker places.

The defender's variables will include:
- Force per unit area they can withstand, including both natural armor type and body type.
- Defensive skill; a good defender will be able to redirect the force of a blow so that the force goes somewhere less useful, or turns their body so that the vector of the attack applies minimal force to them.

So, in a combat, it would be necessary to look at several things:
- How much time is involved in the attack; heavy weapons cannot be accelerated as fast, so they take longer to be accelerated to a speed in which they are effective. This is a multiplicative effect, though, so the longer they spend, the more force there is behind it.
- Where the attack lands; mostly a contest of attacker and defender's skill.
- The stance of the attacker and defender; if the attacker is more off-balance, they may gain benefits to hitting their opponent, but be able to leverage less strength in the use of their weapon. If the defender is off-balance they will not be able to turn as fast or deflect as well. Remember; deflection requires the application of force itself. Someone who is off-balance and strong, may be able to hit well and hard, but will be easier to hit because they are unable to dodge.
- Assuming the attack lands, one has to look at the weapon time, its speed at impact, and the area over which the attack lands (a function of the weapon and location of attack), and figure out how much force it's applying per unit area.
- That force must then be compared to the resistance of the victim. Damage and other effects will be proportional.

Clearly, I haven't provided any numbers here, but it seems to me like this is a good algorithm by which to determine the deadliness of an attack. That is assuming, of course, that you want detailed combat. Personally, I think Sillouette's system works beautifully for combat.

[Mithras]

Shit. Now that's detailed.

Sounds realistic, too. In the end, how much of it comes into play in the typical fight? How many barbarian's actually died from neat gladius holes in their belly? I reckon it was far messier than that. I'm much happier with a basic damage that roughly equates to skill, but is perhaps added to or multiplied by the weapon style being used.

[Max]

Wumpus - you might like this book called "Guns! Guns! Guns! 3rd Edition", or 3G3. It's mostly about guns, but also has a section on designing hand-to-hand weapons and muscle-powered projectile weapons based on ballistic formulae. I've never put any of it to practice, but who knows... it has a lot in common with your post. :)

[Desperado]

I like realistic combat . . . as long as it's entertaining. Such as scenes of war with the germanic tribes in <b>Gladiator</b>. Purely chaotic realistic combat but with style and presence. It must have been hell to choreograph but made quite the acomplishment :) Then again I've always been called an Idealist, so maybe I'm wanting too much. Perhaps RPG presence and realism (in combat at least) is too much to ask for. But I say as long as the mechanics provide the players and GM with the means, they'll use it to find a way. I never did the math in DnD; I glanced at the numbers (including the roll) that would go into the calculation. I'm visual so even basic math takes longer for me. But it worked, and <i>15 minute combats were always just about 15 to 20 minute combats.</i> I think the simplest solution is storytelling, form over function . . . but only because I'm too lazy (and I'm not too terribly interested in more-than-quick mechanics) to make it over the mountain, I'll make my way around the side. ;)

[darkvisionmedia]

Would someone mind posting HITS as an ASCII txt file for those of us who don't have Word?

thanks!

-chris

[Andrew Martin]

darkvisionmedia wrote:
> Would someone mind posting HITS as an ASCII txt file for those of us who don't have Word?

Here it is in full:

Just for kicks, I named the system (take that, Jared Sorenson). Without further ado,

-----HITS (Havlock Inspired Tactical System)-----

Copyright © 2002 by Chris Clouser. All rights reserved.

With special thanks to Mithras and Deathlok for excellent advice.

HITS is designed as an alternative combat system for combat using medieval, hand-held weapons. Thus far, it is a draft system. Naming of statistics and concepts may leave something to be desired, and more appropriate names may need to be used. However, work with me here…

1. Character

Characters are represented by a number of statistics, each ranging in value from 1 (lowest) to 12 (highest).

Fundamental Statistics:
Toughness (Tgh): physical endurance
Wits (Wit): mental alertness, ability to respond to new situations
Control (Ctl): ability to overcome difficulty, inner reserves
Unarmed Defense (UD): basic defensive ability using no weapons and no armor
Unarmed Attack (UA): basic offensive ability using no weapons and no armor

Combat Statistics:
Attack (Atk): your skill with the weapon currently in hand
Defense (Def): your skill with the defensive hardware you possess (including armor, shields, etc.) and/or with the weapon you wield
Stance (Sta):
Recovery Speed (Rec): how quickly you can shift from stance to stance, and how quickly you can recover from a particular maneuver.

Combat statistics are represented slightly differently from Fundamental stats. Atk and Def will be represented as X + Sta and X – Sta, respectively, where X is the value of the ability, and Sta represents the aggressiveness or defensiveness (the “threat level”) of the stance you assume.

Example: Augrik the Mad, who has an Attack ability of 7 in Longsword, would wield a longsword at 7 + Sta. He is slightly less capable on the defense, having only a 5 in Defense (Longsword), which means his Def rating is 5 – Sta.

Stance:
Stance is a unique idea in this situation. It is an abstraction that does not represent only your actual stance, but also how aggressive you choose to be, how willing you are to accept risk in order to hit your target, and similar concepts. A related term would be “positioning,” as in how you position yourself overall in each instant of combat. It is represented by 1d12, but that 1d12 is not rolled as in conventional games—rather, the player has the option to set the die to whatever number he or she likes (obviously, you rarely choose stances in combat randomly, so rolling the die would be inappropriate). On that d12, a “stance” of 1 would be the least aggressive/most defensive stance, while a setting of 12 indicates an extremely aggressive, minimally defensive stance.

After setting Stance, if you calculate the values for Atk and Def, you see that an aggressive stance adds to your Attack value, but leaves you more vulnerable to injury.

Recovery:
Finally, Recovery is represented similarly to Fundamental statistics, being a simple number rating from 1 (lowest recovery speed) to 12 (highest recovery speed). Recovery, however, may fluctuate based on injury, fatigue, weight of equipment, and so forth, so for bookkeeping purposes, it is useful to use a d12 as a simple counter or timer, so you can immediately consult the die to see what your current recovery rating is. In future examples, I will distinguish between base Recovery rating and current Recovery rating.

Recovery’s primary use is to determine how quickly a character can move through the various levels of aggressiveness in Stance. The Recovery rating indicates the number of levels of Stance you can change in a given instance—i.e., every time you shift Stance, you can only shift a number of stances up to your Recovery rating.

Example: Augrik the Mad has a Recovery of 7. That means that he can only shift seven increments in either direction from his current stance. So if he adopts a very aggressive stance of 10 for an attack, he would only be able to move back to a level 3 stance before his opponent got to take a swing. If his Recovery was lower (say, 4) he could only get into a middle-ground stance of 6 before his opponent’s attack came in.

Recovery may be modified by many things—injury, equipment, and fatigue will tend to reduce Recovery speed, making it harder to move from stance to stance (and, by extension, to recover from your choice of maneuver). If magic were a part of the setting, magical spells could increase Recovery speed until a character could shift from full defense to full offense in an eyeblink.

2. Skills

Skills in the context of this system will focus strictly on combat skills, specifically fighting skills. They are represented by two numbers, the first representing Attack ability, the second representing Defense ability. Typically, they will match for a well trained person, but this is not a requirement. People with an aggressive bent will advance attack faster, and people with a defensive mindset may focus on defense. Note: Advancing a single facet by itself is faster than advancing both, so players have a choice to make here.

3. Combat

All resolution of attacks and defenses is conducted by rolling 1d20 and adding (or subtracting) the appropriate Combat Statistic (e.g., an Attack would consist of rolling 1d20 and adding your Atk rating—modified for stance, of course!)

Combat is measured in “bouts,” which consist of a complete exchange of blows and counterblows. Opponents alternate blows, with an initial test to determine who possesses the initiative in the situation.

Brief Overview:

1. Initiative roll. Winner can either move first, or force opponent to move first.
2. The person to move first (hereafter called Number 1) shifts stances (see Recovery rules, above) and makes an Attack roll.
3. The person who is being attacked first (hereafter called Number 2) shifts stances, if desired, and makes a Defense roll.
4. Damage (if any) is applied from Number 1’s attack on Number 2.
5. Repeat the above process, switching the role of attacker and defender.

Detailed Breakdown:

1. Initiative

Initiative is calculated by rolling 1d20 + Wits. The winner may either choose to move first, or let the other fighter move first (for instance, if they want to see if the enemy might overextend himself on the first move, trying for a hyperaggressive attack).

2. First Attack

The person who performs the first Attack of the Bout may shift stances, abiding by the restrictions of the Recovery rating, immediately prior to making the Attack roll. They then roll 1d20 and add their modified attack rating. This will be compared to the Defense roll of their target.

3. First Defense

The person who receives the first Attack of the Bout may shift stance to receive the attack, and make a Defense roll using the modified Def value. This is compared to the Attack roll.

4. Apply First Damage

If the Attack roll exceeds the first Defense roll, then the attacker has scored a hit, and applies damage per the weapon used, less any armor amount worn by the defender. If the Defense roll exceeds the Attack roll, the defender has successfully blocked, dodged, or otherwise avoided the incoming attack.

5. Counterattack

The role of attacker and defender switches, and the process above repeats itself. This can continue indefinitely, alternating between combatants, or you may reroll initiative between each bout. I recommend, personally, not rerolling initiative unless something occurs that fundamentally changes the situation (e.g. the combatants separate, there is a newcomer in the fight, etc.).

Special/Optional Combat Rules:

Weapons with Reach:

Reach is important in combat. Long weapons can effectively hold an enemy at bay, while small weapons are critical for effective close-quarters combat. HITS does allow for reach based weaponry. The reach rules only come into effect when the reach of the weapons wielded is different. For weapons with identical reach, we can ignore these rules for simplicity’s sake.

Weapons have three reach values: 0, 1, and 2. Zero applies to small weapons, 1 to standard-length weapons, and 2 to polearms and very long weapons.

When facing an opponent with a weapon that is longer reach than yours, subtract the reach of your weapon from that of your opponent. This value indicates the number of attacks you must execute in one blow before you can get inside the weapon’s reach and strike a blow—essentially, these are the attacks you use to bat the enemy’s weapon aside and move in. These attacks need not inflict injury, but must exceed the opponent’s basic defense. Once inside the weapon’s reach, you get a free attack (your opponent may not shift stances to defend). After that, to stay inside your opponent’s guard you must shift your stance to keep up with the opponent—if he or she moves defensively, you must move an equal amount aggressively.

Example 1: Augrik is facing Benathir. Augrik has a longsword (Reach 1), and Benathir a halberd (Reach 2). The difference in reach is 1, so Augrik has to commit one attack just to knocking Benathir’s weapon aside. Augrik’s skill of 7 is divided into 2 parts - +3 to close the gap, and +4 to strike. Benathir’s basic defense is 10, so that’s all Augrik needs to beat to bat the halberd aside. He succeeds, slips inside Benathir’s guard, and takes a swing. Unfortunately, his free attack misses, and Benathir immediately backs up (moves to a more defensive stance). Augrik’s next change in stance must compensate for Benathir’s shift, or Augrik moves back outside the reach of Benathir’s weapon.

In situations where your weapon outreaches your opponent’s, there’s a chance they can move aggressively inside your guard as you attack. If you shift into an aggressive stance and attack with a reach weapon, and you miss, your opponent has the opportunity to move inside your guard. They must make a Wits roll against you’re Basic Defense, and then move aggressively at least as far as you moved on your attack. If they do this, they have moved inside your guard.

Example 2: Benathir lunges in with his halberd, shifting from Stance 4 to Stance 8. However, he misses his attack roll. Augrik’s player quickly makes a Wits check against Benathir’s Basic Defense of 10. Augrik succeeds, and his player shifts his stance aggressively by 4 steps (matching Benathir’s move). Augrik is now inside Benathir’s stance for his next attack.

Multiple Actions:

You may make up to Attack / 2 (round down) different attacks in one blow, but you must divide your Attack value up over the attacks. You may not shift stances between multiple attacks. Your opponent defends against each attack individually, using their full defensive value.

Example: Augrik has an Atk of 7 in Longsword. He can therefore make 3 attacks in one blow (7 / 2 = 3), but he must divide the 7 up over each attack. He elects to put 3 into the first attack, and 2 into each of the others. When he makes the attacks, his player rolls 1d20 + 3, followed by 1d20 + 2, and another 1d20 + 2.

Multiple Opponents:

You may face a number of opponents equal to your Wits, fighting each one of them in turn. If the number of opponents exceeds your Wits rating, you must designate those that you wish to “ignore,” which means you are making no special, active attempt to defend against them. Thus, these opponents, when attacking you, need only overcome your Basic Defense in order to score a hit (it’s not wise to ignore people with weapons!).

In terms of number of opponents to face at any given instant, the maximum number of people who can surround a fighter is 5. However, that does not mean that someone with Wits 5 or more will never need to ignore an opponent. Weapons with reach, such as polearms, can strike from beyond the group; so can ranged weapons. Additionally, should the character fell one enemy, a waiting enemy can jump into the gap and strike immediately, before the character can stop “ignoring” them.

Example: Augrik’s Wits rating is 4. This means he can face up to 4 opponents and still have the mental alertness to pay attention to all of them, which means that he can still actively defend against each of their attacks. However, if he faced 5 opponents, he would have to ignore one of them each bout, and hope that the enemy either never had a chance to strike or simply cannot beat Augrik’s Basic Defense.

Equipment-based modifiers:

Equipment may modify your Recovery time, especially if it is heavy. Heavy weapons and armor will reduce your Recovery speed, making it harder to shift from stance to stance during combat. Weapon modifiers will be forthcoming in future editions of HITS.

Example: Augrik sometimes uses a two-handed sword, which imposes a -2 penalty to Recovery Speed. When using that sword, Augrik’s Recovery Speed is reduced by 2 points.

Toughness, Injury, Death, and Recovery:

Each character has a Toughness value. This value dictates how long the character can stay alive, and how much pain and misery he or she can endure. The Toughness rating acts as a Wound threshold, that is, a character will receive one Wound every time they suffer damage equal to their Toughness rating.

Additionally, a character will drop out of combat (unless they exert Control over themselves) at a number of Wounds equal to their Toughness. Finally, a character will die if they suffer a number of Wounds equal to twice their Toughness.

Example: Our friend Augrik has a Toughness of 6, which means he suffers a Wound every 6 points of damage he takes, he collapses at 6 Wounds, and he dies at 12 Wounds.

Every Wound a character suffers also reduces their Recovery Speed by 1 point. Finally, if they have been fighting for more than 3 x Toughness bouts, fatigue begins to set in. Every bout beyond 3 x Toughness reduces Recovery Speed by 1 point.

Rage/Fear:

If a character is consistently (that is, in a row) hit a number of times equal to their Wits, they risk either becoming enraged, or falling back on the defensive. If they are in a defensive posture (any Stance between 1 and 5), they must fall back as far to the defensive as possible (dictated by their Recovery). If they are in an aggressive posture (any stance between 7 and 12) they must move as far to the aggressive end of the scale as they can. If they are in stance 6, they may choose the direction to move. A character can avoid this involuntary shift of Stance by exerting Control.

Example: Augrik’s Wits rating is 4. He is in an aggressive stance (Stance 8) and has been injured 4 times in a row. He feels the rage coming on, but he fails to exert Control (see below) and thus flies into a screaming rage, and his player has to shift the Stance die as far to the aggressive end as Augrik’s Recovery value allows. His Recovery is 7, meaning he can move all the way to the maximum aggressiveness of 12. He’s pissed off, and if he hits someone, they’re surely gonna feel it, but he’s also very vulnerable to hits.

Control:

Control is a lot like Willpower. It is used in situations where the character must force his or her body to obey in the face of confusion, pain, anger, and injury.

Control, like other tests, is resolved by rolling 1d20 and adding the Control rating. The target number for Control rolls varies.

For resisting the effect of injuries, the target is 10 + the number of Wounds.
For resisting anger/fear in the face of an opponent (i.e. to avoid going on the defensive, or going berserk), the target is 10 + amount of Stance shift.


Example: Augrik is trying to resist going berserk, after being injured. He was at Stance 8, and would be required to shift all the way to 12. Since that would be a shift of 4 steps, his target number for the Control roll is 10 + 4 = 14. He rolls 1d20, and adds his Control rating of 5, and only scores an 11. He fails to exert Control, and goes berserk.

[darkvisionmedia]

Originally posted by Andrew Martin

Here it is in full:
[/B]

great!
thanks a bunch.

off to read it now... hopefully i'll have something to add to this thread...

// chris