Quote from: Panjumanju;620030There has never been an accurate representation of martial arts in a roleplaying game.

The biggest pitfalls:
* You shouldn't have to know the martial art in order to be able to emulate it in a roleplaying game.
* Issues of weight distribution, footwork and position - which are probably the heart of any martial art, are some of the hardest mechanics to emulate in a roleplaying game.

Agreed.

Problem is compounded because
- the RPGs that try to do this have complex mechanics, that are not easy to pick up.
- the players who want to play martial artists usually don't know the given martial art.

That's not one, but two degrees of separation. Doesn't mean you can't make a good fighting RPG, but it's hard to make it good and simple.

I spent years thinking of a way to use George Silver's grounds and governors mechanically. I gave up. I suppose I could do it, but communicating in a way that the players would not only get the system, but also get the philosophy behind it would be very hard, and probably a waste of time--players don't care.

Groups should find a combat system that works for them and gives them the exciting kick they need, realism be damned. Designers should be true to themselves but abandon pretensions of making "the most realistic system ever". I'm looking at you, Mr Norwood.

Let's get philosophical.

An actual fight is hideously complex, as some have noted. Position, momentum, balance, training, weight, muscle mass, technique... all of this and more.

To take it all into account takes an equally hideous set of rules. Rules which slow play down to a crawl.

Something that is fast and visceral becomes slow and cerebral. The more realistic the mechanics of the game, the less the fight evokes the feel of being in a real fight.

Too much realism makes the game unrealistic.

I want mechanics that feel real. When you do something in the game, it should feel like real life without being exactly identical to real life.

A gunfight. Bullets slamming into the cover you are crouching behind, screwing up your courage to dash across open ground while your mates engage in covering fire.

A duel. Thrust and parry, back and forth, a bared blade threatening to bleed you at any moment, desperately protecting yourself while searching for an opening to strike.

A car chase. Riding the engine hard, steering around corner, almost skidding out of control, shifting lanes with manic determination, threading around the other cars in the road, just missing them, gradually closing in on your prey.

The details don't matter. Matching reality point-for-point is pointless. What matters is the sense of the situation, the feel of the thing.

Why? Because too much reality is bad for the game. It's unrealistic.

Is this even possible? If so, where do I begin?

Quote from: estar;619945GURPS Martial Arts does a pretty good job. It looks complex but it is because of the toolkit nature. When you setup a character with a particular style the selected options can fit on a one or two page cheat sheet. The system has the virtue of having a one to one relationship between the mechanics the real-time art being simulated.

I will second this. Most of the fiddly features that would slow down play can be pre-calculated and recorded. The actual action at the table goes fast without a bunch of chart consultation.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620100Too much realism makes the game unrealistic.

I want mechanics that feel real. When you do something in the game, it should feel like real life without being exactly identical to real life.

?

I agree with this. In a real fight you make your decisions in split seconds, you don't really have time to weigh options and process things like you do in a turn based rpg (you can fight smart, but it is more about thinking quickly and instinctively). Its fast, confusing, and exhausting. It involves a lot of complex pieces but doesn't feel or look complex like a crunchy battlesystem.

Okay the best combat in any game was the Gorean onlione duel game.
it was all free form with no rules and each action was judged by all the people that read each move and a conclusion drawn. Victory is all down to player skill.


The next best, and its really close to being as good, is Amber. I have had figths in Amber that run totally "I parry in quarte, feints a low cut then twisting the weight on my leding foot execute a spining round kick ... " etc Now it helps that the parties concerned were experienced fencers, and had done some martial arts ... Victory is all down to warfare at the end of the day but player skill can move it to Strength, Stamina or even Psyche.

The best non open ended non narative style is probably Top Secret. Basically a different combat table for each style with a defense and an attack x referenced for an outcome. With 1 second combat rounds it felt pretty tight.

I started writing a martial art tournament game so you could play the classic martial arts tournament games but I realised no one woudl play it in my group so I stopped. This was back when I had just read Badger Hexbreaker in 88 so it was a long time back. I revisited 2 years ago when i found it in a box and tried to convert it to a card based game but still wasn;t convinced it was worth more than a single play . So many good computer games do this much better.

Quote from: jibbajibba;620110Okay the best combat in any game was the Gorean onlione duel game.
it was all free form with no rules and each action was judged by all the people that read each move and a conclusion drawn. Victory is all down to player skill.

So it was victory to the superior writer?  How does that have anything to do with combat resolution?  To me this seems like more of crowd based judging the winner of a "your mama" contest.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620100Is this even possible? If so, where do I begin?

You know the outcome you want to achieve. Either you get lucky and find the system that works for you, or you make your own.

This is a subject dear to my heart, so I blogged about it (as a distraction to this bloody sciatica).

http://www.departmentv.net/2013/01/rpg-combat-newer-easier-method.html

It's a bit long and unfinished, but hopefully the first bit explains why I liked that approach.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;620114So it was victory to the superior writer?  How does that have anything to do with combat resolution?  To me this seems like more of crowd based judging the winner of a "your mama" contest.

No the writing wasn't great. It was down to the best tactics and understanding of the combat. The format of the responses was pretty narrow so no room for floid prose.
You need to read some to get an understanding. I'll try and see if there is anything out there - i last looked about 8 years ago though so....

Here's the feel: simple strategy. A simple choice the character makes that affects the combat rolls for the round.

Limited choices, no more than 3. Each should be evocative, it should be easy to visualize what is happening. ("You attack aggressively, driving him back." "You approach warily, your arms raised, keeping an eye out for his punches." "You circle him, trying to get around to his weak side.")

Each option (I'll call them "Stances" for now) produces modifiers to rolls (so raw skill still has a part to play).
Both characters involved in a duel chose which Stance to use, blind. Ideally, there should be a Rock-Paper-Scissors quality, where 1 beats 2, 2 beats 3, but 3 beats 1.

The question is what kind of Stances, and what effects they could have.

Right now the three Stances I'm thinking of would be:

Aggressive, Defensive, Mobile (maneuvering for position). Those seem to cover easily describable options, and reflect understandable approaches to hand-to-hand combat.

I've thought of two different ways of reflecting this. One is that each just receives a bonus:

Aggressive: Bonus to Attack, penalty to Defense.
Defensive: Bonus to Defense, penalty to Position.
Mobile: Bonus to Position, penalty to Attack.

No idea how "Position" is reflected in the context of the combat system.

The other is a straight matching:

Defensive > Aggressive > Mobile > Defensive

In other words, defending yourself strongly makes you less vulnerable to an attacker. Attacking strongly allows you to hit someone trying to slip past you. Maneuvering allows you to slip past defenses. The winner gets a bonus to the opposed combat check.

I'm not satisfied with either approach, really. I prefer the first, if Position meant something in mechanical terms.

I have t do some more thinking, obviously.

IMO, for a "realistic" feel, you want a matrix that intersects and creates modifiers.

Very generic examples would be "Aggressive", "Circling", "Counter-strike", "Defensive", and so on.  What these are, and their specifics, depends on what level of resolution the game is shooting for.  (IOW, are you going to be using a limited number of fighting system competing with each other, or will you have various systems competing against each other?)

These choices will cross-index and give you modifiers to execution rolls, and include a variable amount of time between execution rolls (IOW, the approach the fighters take determines a variable round length, rather than a fixed constant).  

The degree of success on the execution roll would determine damage.

That's probably about as close as you are going to get without going to a system that would be a mini-game of it's own.  

(Of course, there aren't any realistic damage, fatigue, or attribute systems for unarmed combat, so ... there is still that :idunno: )

Quote from: SJBenoist;620246These choices will cross-index and give you modifiers to execution rolls, and include a variable amount of time between execution rolls (IOW, the approach the fighters take determines a variable round length, rather than a fixed constant).

This sounds a bit like an expanded version of 'rock, paper, scissors'... maybe using hands of cards that could be thrown down and compared.
I mean that in a good way.

Quote from: Simlasa;620249This sounds a bit like an expanded version of 'rock, paper, scissors'... maybe using hands of cards that could be thrown down and compared.
I mean that in a good way.

this was kind of how Top secret worked only with 20 or so options in each case and different tables for each 'style' (boxing, wrestling, martial arts).

Also how the game I was working on was goign and why I thought it might port to a card game or to a card sub-game you played when a fight occured. the limit to your hand was an abstract way of showing your limited choices and tryign to express the need to act fast rather than pooring over each move for 30  minutes. But like I said didn't think it had legs.

Quote from: Simlasa;620249This sounds a bit like an expanded version of 'rock, paper, scissors'... maybe using hands of cards that could be thrown down and compared.
I mean that in a good way.

The bit I deleted was exactly like that:

"Defensive > Aggressive > Mobile > Defensive

"Choosing: You can play R-P-S (Defense is Rock, Attack is Scissors, Mobile is Paper) or have 3 cards. Each player chooses a card, then flips them over. Whoever wins gets the bonus.

"Other than the (potentially silly) playing of R-P-S, I think this comes close to what I'm thinking of."

R-P-S is an easy way to do this, but it does seem a little silly. Three cards seems just as easy, but it does require printing/acquiring the cards.

The other issue is that it's flat. There's no inherent affects from each approach, so other than a guessing game, there's no reason to pick any one over the other.

I'd like it if each approach had a specific, different benefit so winning with it did something different for you.

Aggressive: Bonus to attack.
Defensive: Bonus to defend.
Mobile: no idea.

The benefit of cards, in this case, is that the card you pick could have the bonus listed right on it. "If you win the engagement, you gin a +3 to your attack."

That's pretty cool. Now all I need is a third benefit.

Mobile could be setting up your next attack. If you win the matching, you get a +3 on the next engagement.

That engagement, you match again, and if you win with (say) attack, you get a +6 to attack (instead of the +3). If you Defend, and win with that, you get a +6 to defend (instead of the +3). And if you lose, you still get a +3, countering their bonus.

That has potential.

What was that old system of fantasy gamebooks that worked like Ace of Aces where each player had a book with pictures of his opponent... they each chose a move... then turned to the appropriate page and got a new picture of the resulting stance?

That's a lot like how Burning Wheel works.

You pick three maneuvers for the turn, secretly, and then you both reveal your maneuvers and compare and resolve actions.

So I might pick, "close", "feint" and "strike" while my opponent picks, "guard" "strike" "Open"

Then we would compare and resolve each step. So first move I close in and he guards, next move I feint and he strikes (probably bad for me) and the third move I strike and he tries to distance himself.

A little bit of planning and a little bit of uncertainty with some gambling thrown in.

It could be better but in practice it's pretty fun.