Quote from: IceBlinkLuck;569556Who are you and what have you done to the real Black Vulmea?

:rotfl:

Just having a little fun, Ice.

I think most people know where my preferences lie . . . given that I never, ever shut up about them.

I will say, in all seriousness, that gamers interested in cape-and-sword games should give Jolly Roger Games' Swashbuckler! and Basic Action Games Honor + Intrigue a look; I think both satisfy the criteria CK set forth in the original post for swordplay. I should add that I'm only personally familiar with the first edition of Swashbuckler! - the second edition is about half-again as long as the first, and I don't know what's in those added pages.

Preferred for Swashbuckling?  Of the systems that have specific rules titled swashbuckling, I like Lejendary Adventure and Honor + Intrigue.  They both use the system elements to provide a way to handle thematic swashbuckling actions.  

I use a house rule for Original D&D and AD&D 1 ability score rolls too, with checks and opposed checks set at the ability score's base value, 2/3 and 1/3.  The checks are also used for maneuvers or combined maneuvers that may open other possible actions.  I use ability scores in this way for all types of things other than swashbuckling.  I also try to integrate save throws for paralysis (freezing, startling, choking, etcetera) and other save throws used in a similar manner to portray the effects combat and other extreme events have upon participants.  I add all these to the usual to hit rolls, with creative use of to hit values too.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;569591I will say, in all seriousness, that gamers interested in cape-and-sword games should give Jolly Roger Games' Swashbuckler! and Basic Action Games Honor + Intrigue a look; I think both satisfy the criteria CK set forth in the original post for swordplay.

You beat me to it by a sec. ha  Ya, Honor + Intrigue.  It uses the Barbarians of Lemuria system. Oh yes, I'll add another voice for Flashing Blades.  It is a cool complete game for this focus.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569582That's how Lace & Steel does it, yes.  It doesn't really help because all it does is give you more choices; in the actual exchange you're drawing simultaneously and blind.  There's also some odd mechanics like being able to steal cards from the other player's hand.

Interesting.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569582The ways one can regain Poise during a duel are a bit silly ("Tuck In Your Shirt", for instance) but the idea that you're not slicing your opponent to death slowly but wearing him down makes a lot more sense and represents fictional duels better than most alternatives.

The "looking good" part is where the Hollywood parody comes in, but the core idea itself seems sound, if you rebrand Poise and the regain methods.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569582It would not work as a general combat system, though, because there's really  no way to represent a superior fencer being able to break through an amateur's defense in only one or two blows.  Perhaps asymmetric hand size would work.

Lots of minigames are awesome, especially starship combat rules, the problem is linking them back to character skill somehow from the RPG system.  I'll look into those games, though, thanks.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569582You may want to choose different examples, then, because both of those duels were choreographed not to simulate real combat but to, as I said, illuminate the relationships between the characters.

Nope, I'm good thanks.  As I said, the relationship between Cunningham and Rob is immaterial, mechanics-wise.  It's the point that a skilled, mobile, agile combatant with a light blade, can completely dominate a larger, stronger, combatant with a heavier blade that "does more damage" - until you mess up and the broadsword cleaves you in two.  

What links the two videos? (hint, it isn't the relationship between the combatants) Skill and tactics can be more important then raw Strength and Damage.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569582It's fine to insist on simulationism over narrativism in your RPG, but then don't use narrative examples to show what you want your mechanics to generate.

I expected someone to get sand in their vagina over the "no narrative mechanics part" and start crying about it, I didn't expect the resident WSJ guy to be the one however.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569599What links the two videos? (hint, it isn't the relationship between the combatants) Skill and tactics can be more important then raw Strength and Damage.

I think you're badly misreading that scene, but there's little point in arguing  about it.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569602I think you're badly misreading that scene, but there's little point in arguing  about it.

I'm not saying there isn't relevant characterization there, and both scenes are being used narratively to tell us about the characters, hell what scene in a movie isn't when you get right down to it.

However, it's not as if the fights themselves are so wildly over the top unrealistic that there isn't anything mechanical we could try to emulate in a combat system.  Or do you disagree there?

And, Daniel, I will grant you the point that a game like The Riddle of Steel, with the narrative Passion mechanics would more accurately model the scene as is, from the Rob Roy movie, however, I'm looking for the swordsmanship from the scenes extricated from the drama behind why they are fighting (which is completely different in the two scenes I linked).

Quote from: CRKrueger;569605However, it's not as if the fights themselves are so wildly over the top unrealistic that there isn't anything mechanical we could try to emulate in a combat system.

I think that depends entirely on how much historical martial arts experience one has, to be honest.  I don't expect movie fight scenes to resemble real combat any more than I expect movie computers to behave like real computers. Gell-Mann amnesia for the win, there.

And I don't think it's useful to say "well, ignore the dramatic subtext of the scene and just model what you see" because a lot of the time what you see in a fight scene doesn't make any sense if it's modeled consistently.  It's the Batman vs. guns problem again.

Here, I'll troll the hell out of the whole board and say that this is also why I don't put much stock on immersion as a play goal - for the same reason that it's impossible to make a truly historical movie, I don't think it's possible to actually immerse oneself in a fictional character from an alien culture.

So rather than say "I want a combat system that does this movie scene BUT NO NARRATIVISM" I think you'd be better off saying "I want a combat system where a fast light unarmored guy will nearly always beat a slow strong unarmored guy, except in rare corner cases where the big strong guy can exploit some kind of weakness".  That removes the dramatic subtext and the arguments about realism from the issue.

You're still going to have the modelling-a-flock-of-birds problem, though.

Quote from: daniel_ream;569613I think you'd be better off saying "I want a combat system where a fast light unarmored guy will nearly always beat a slow strong unarmored guy, except in rare corner cases where the big strong guy can exploit some kind of weakness".  That removes the dramatic subtext and the arguments about realism from the issue.

Ok, fair point.(although I didn't say just "no narrativism", I also said no 0D&D )

Quote from: daniel_ream;569613You're still going to have the modelling-a-flock-of-birds problem, though.

Yeah that's always the problem, how do you get enough detail so it makes a mechanical difference whether you are a duellist of the Spanish School or follow one of the Italian Masters, include tactics and skills, and still have a game where combat doesn't take 2 hours to resolve.

Sorry, that was an obscure reference.  It's late in my time zone.

"Modelling a flock of birds" is a demo problem from complexity theory.  Attempts to model bird flocking behaviour resulted in huge, ugly, special-case loaded computer models that sorta-kinda-worked, but just as often would produce completely wrong behaviour (like all the birds glomming into a ball in the corner of the screen).

One of the starting points in complexity theory was the discovery that this very complex behaviour of birds flying in a flock could be modeled with three simple rules applied to each bird:

1. Keep a minimum distance from other birds and objects.
2. Move in the same general direction as the birds nearest you.
3. Minimize the distance between yourself and the birds nearest you.

Out of these simple and somewhat counter-intuitive rules you get realistic and very complex flocking behaviour that works the way real flocks of birds do, moving smoothly around obstacles, turning corners, etc.

Bringing this back to RPGs, trying to derive a set of mechanics to model a specific complicated behaviour - like a sword fight - is likely to give you mechanics that sorta-kinda-work, but then just as often give you weird results.  The trick is to find those simple rules from which the complex behaviour naturally flows.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569625[...] how do you get enough detail so it makes a mechanical difference whether you are a duellist of the Spanish School or follow one of the Italian Masters, include tactics and skills, and still have a game where combat doesn't take 2 hours to resolve.

Of all the systems I've seen, card based solutions seem to work the best.  Some way of combining Poise/hit points with hand size appeals to me, as the fight results in one player slowly running out of cards until he has nothing he can use to block that final blow.  Card mix, hand size and refresh are key and I don't think anyone's cut that Gordian knot yet.

I'm inclined to leave all that Bonnetti's Defense and Agrippa stuff to cosmetic flavour.  Specializing in a specific school might change your card mix to include more Parries or Stop Thrusts (or maybe let you use a Parry as a Stop Thrust), but just as MMA in the real world, the differences between the styles tend to wash out to a short list of what actually works in a life-or-death fight.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569625..I also said no 0D&D...

Actually, you said “[rather than]…pure description of 0D&D "to-hit/damage”.  What I was talking about before was using the ability scores, save throws and creative use of to hit rolls for things other than the chance to hit. There are a lot of ways to apply the 6 ability scores, 5 save throws, armor class and level of an original D&D or AD&D character.  That is 13 values right there, without including all the derived values to hit from armor class and level.  To model various maneuvers I have always used combinations of all of these values, and the result isn't at all a narrative approach.  It also creates layered swashbuckling maneuvers for a player that is interested in the character performing them, while a player inspired by another background may perform maneuvers of a completely different type.  Specific rules can be very limiting to player options.  However, a number of values that can be applied in numerous ways opens up options and makes the game more creative for the game master, since the combination of the values has a game aspect of its own.


GURPS Swashbucklers has a perfectly fine specific rule approach to this background.  There is the old En Garde game too, which is similar to playing Boot Hill first edition.  As far as the recent ones, I reiterate the Honor + Intrigue suggestion.  It adds further rules to the Barbarians of Lemuria system specific to swashbuckling maneuvers.  The added rules might make those that like Barbarians step back, but it may make those that were plus-minus on Barbarians step forward.  Honor + Intrigue isn't bogged down by the background.

I think that the biggest problem is with simulating the relative frailty of the human body with regards to chopping it up.

In both those examples, the loser was untouched until the final blow that killed him.  If you're using a hp model, then you're going to want to be doing the fight at relatively low levels so that a couple hits will disable, or have some kind of mechanic for higher damage output.

In the scope of the 13th Warrior duel (using D&D, but don't lump me in with that Gygax Fanboy) - Herger is referred to as a Skald, but rather than making him a Bard, I'd go with Fighter/Rogue; another alternative, if this is a no-magic environment, would be to swap the bardiac music and spell class features for Rogue sneak attacks and make him a Bard, which works better, I think.  He's an experienced fighter, so we'll say he's 8th level. (~30hp, +7/+2 ATK, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Power Attack)

His opponent, Angus(? I think.. can't remember) is a younger guy, much less experienced, but strong.  I'd give him 4th level fighter with a high str. (~30 hp, +8 ATK, Power Attack, Cleave, WF/WS: Sword)

So the duel begins, and Herger's player informs the DM that he's going to be fighting defensively but using Bluff to seem to be hurt anytime the shield is struck (it's a hp system, so in theory he doesn't need blood to have lost hp...)  He makes a few good bluff rolls, then declares that he's going to seem to be at exactly 0.  He's performing a feint maneuver, and drops his shield in the process.  Angus moves in for the Coup, and Herger makes a sneak attack, calling shot to attempt to induce a critical (I'm playing in some house rules here, but you asked how I'd do it.)  Since Angus is flat footed against the attack, Hergor rolls enough to threaten a crit (I use 10 higher than the number required to hit, but at a -3 for declaring you're doing it), and does his 2d8+2d6+4 damage.

And there my example falls apart, because the damage output for relatively unchanged D&D means that he would need to roll within 2 points of max to kill him.  I actually would prefer a VP/WP system for something like this, since it would provide a more accurate display of chopping them up vs feeling tired.

Quote from: CRKrueger;569605However, it's not as if the fights themselves are so wildly over the top unrealistic that there isn't anything mechanical we could try to emulate in a combat system.  Or do you disagree there?

I had problems with the Rob Roy fight.

Some are minor, like someone needing to tell Cunningham that his sword had a point and that he just might want to use it instead of nothing but shallow slashes. But we can put that down to ego as it's clear that Cunningham was more interested in making Roy look bad than he was winning. Clearly he was a fool.


A more serious problem is the ending when a winded man suffering from blood loss manages to hang onto a naked blade (using his off hand)- and Cunningham who has a fine and solid grip on the hilt is unable to pull it directly out of Roy's hand as Roy slowly reaches for his dropped sword? We can put this down to surprise (or in HERO terms, a successful Presence Attack by Roy). But it still caused me problems as I personally didn't buy into there being a huge strength difference between the two actors.


Thus picking a system to model this fight is harder than it should be.

HERO System would work, and with the application of Psy Limits for Cunningham (Overconfidence, plus 'must humiliate his foe') you can model Cunningham's poor tactics. A final Presence Attack leaves him open for the killing blow.

Age of Heroes offers no mechanics requiring Cunningham to be stupid, and thus the GM would have to play him stupid on his own.  It would also leave Roy with an uphill task in hanging onto Cunningham's blade like that (but still within possibility, especally if he had the Ignore Serious Wounds Hero Ability). However the player would likely come away thinking the GM had given him the fight.


The 13th warrior battle is very easy to do in Age of Heroes or HERO, if one assumes the shields are dueling shields and thus made to be broken. Otherwise shields just don't break apart like that so easily in either game.


Age of Heroes is in general quite acceptable for duels although it was intended for group fights and not really one-on-one battles. And is excellent for showing a range of battles even between near equals, running from very short, to very long. Thus we seen engagements like this, and like this.

HERO works for duels, but I don't consider it to be good fit. The lack of automatic active defenses works against it leaving players the choice of using their actions for defense (and if successful getting going first next time and forcing the defense choice on their opponent) or leaving themselves open. If there's a Speed difference (someone gets more actions)- they are too heavily favored IMO. HERO works best with superpowers and gunfights in my view.

Quote from: Panzerkraken;569653I think that the biggest problem is with simulating the relative frailty of the human body with regards to chopping it up.

In both those examples, the loser was untouched until the final blow that killed him.  If you're using a hp model, then you're going to want to be doing the fight at relatively low levels so that a couple hits will disable, or have some kind of mechanic for higher damage output.

In the scope of the 13th Warrior duel (using D&D, but don't lump me in with that Gygax Fanboy) - Herger is referred to as a Skald, but rather than making him a Bard, I'd go with Fighter/Rogue; another alternative, if this is a no-magic environment, would be to swap the bardiac music and spell class features for Rogue sneak attacks and make him a Bard, which works better, I think.  He's an experienced fighter, so we'll say he's 8th level. (~30hp, +7/+2 ATK, Combat Expertise, Dodge, Power Attack)

His opponent, Angus(? I think.. can't remember) is a younger guy, much less experienced, but strong.  I'd give him 4th level fighter with a high str. (~30 hp, +8 ATK, Power Attack, Cleave, WF/WS: Sword)

So the duel begins, and Herger's player informs the DM that he's going to be fighting defensively but using Bluff to seem to be hurt anytime the shield is struck (it's a hp system, so in theory he doesn't need blood to have lost hp...)  He makes a few good bluff rolls, then declares that he's going to seem to be at exactly 0.  He's performing a feint maneuver, and drops his shield in the process.  Angus moves in for the Coup, and Herger makes a sneak attack, calling shot to attempt to induce a critical (I'm playing in some house rules here, but you asked how I'd do it.)  Since Angus is flat footed against the attack, Hergor rolls enough to threaten a crit (I use 10 higher than the number required to hit, but at a -3 for declaring you're doing it), and does his 2d8+2d6+4 damage.

And there my example falls apart, because the damage output for relatively unchanged D&D means that he would need to roll within 2 points of max to kill him.  I actually would prefer a VP/WP system for something like this, since it would provide a more accurate display of chopping them up vs feeling tired.

This is the part that GURPS handles quite well. Vitality does not scale with martial skill so an average man has 10 hp or so and a really skilled fencer might still have 10 hp. An average damage cutting or impaling attack to a normal man is almost enough to incapacitate him,  so the system works quite well as one where only a single blow is landed.