As an aside the martial arts system I was working on was tick based and used an Action point pool to simulate fatigue.

So different attacks or defences have different execution times and AP costs.

Speed + ET determine the first action to trigger and as you spend points from your AP pool you can do less.

You recover AP back to your pool through certain defensive moves (and your Fitness stat).

You pick Stances (Reverse, Neutral, forward, Cat, Prone) which alter your basic attack and defense for different types of strike.

So in actual play the fastest guy acts first say they opt to right jab. ET is 1. If the oponent was in a Neutral Stance then the chance to hit is unaltered. if The defender has a parry ET 1 they could execute if they were within their speed bonus in initive points.
In any case the attacks spend your AP pool and when its diminished you can no longer attack. Big attacks, flying kicks , reverse sweeps, haymakers, etc etc cost more.
Defensive moves like covering up or retreat gain you more APs. Some defensive moves like blocks & parries actually cost you APs but can cause damage and let you execute follow ups liek grabs and locks.

Damage comes off your APs and if they are exhausted your HP or under some special attack situations direct from HP.  HP don't recover in a fight and certain thresholds reduce your ability to regain APs. (basically a quartile death spiral).

So in effect no rounds. your ability to act depends on your AP pool, damage and attacking both deminish your AP pool. Slower moves do more damage, some powerful moves cost more APs. You recover APs by retreating covering up or when you have your opponet in locks and holds where you can exert damage and gain APs back.

Its fun. but you can see why I moved it to cards because its really slow without them. In the end I dropped it because combat took ages anyway.
It might still have life as some sort of fighting pit CCG game.

There were more options like strings of attacks where you saved APs and modified bonuses if you played things in sets so .. jab, jab, cross, hook, uppercut or hook, cross grab, knee etc etc the result before influenced the next attack and ETs and APs reduced. Again this was easier with cards as you could lay a set out in front of each player.

Quote from: Pete Nash;620344Agreed that some forms are closer than others, but I'm afraid that any sort of limitation precludes it from being real fighting - especially when considering sports like boxing which was the original example. Secondly, those participants are not deliberately attempting to maim or kill one another - for one thing the 'sport' would be closed down ASAP, for another, killer competitors simply wouldn't find other participants willing to enter the ring - as recorded from the earliest days of Pankration.

In a real fight for your life, you'd be biting, gouging and finger/limb breaking as needed to survive.  Whereas a more gentlemanly or socially restricted fight would play out far differently and probably last much longer depending on comparative skill.  The big difficulty here is modelling the situation of the fight.

Want an anecdote? One of my close friends from back home was a Royal Marine Commando in the Falklands. Whilst clearing a path through a minefield to reach an Argentinian position he and his four man squad were spotted, so they went hell or glory for the trench. Only him and his best mate made it through the gun fire, jumped into the trench, expended their magazines, drew knifes and fought off the rest of the Argentinians back to back till the rest of the unit arrived.  Not only did he receive several stab wounds and had his knee broken, but his arms and legs still bear the scars of where his opponents were biting him - bites which left permanent damage through battle dress. His best friend didn't survive.

So with all due respect, that is what real fighting is. VT is still just sport, brutal sport admittedly, but sport just the same.

You are trying to define "real fight" as "only to the DEATH!", which is not representative of reality.  Not now, and not at any point in the past.
Even men armed with guns, their own lives threatened in a war, were for the most part not trying to kill each other.  (See Dave Grossman, On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in war and Society. New York: Back Bay Books, 1996, or alternatively, look at SLA Marshall's famous study).

Regarding maiming, it happens often with certain fighters.  Shinya Aoki breaks limbs when he doesn't like his opponent.  People have feared Masakazu Imanari and his potentially career-ending ankle locks for years.  
These are intentional actions, not accidents, and that is just MMA.  It has not been "shut down, ASAP".
(Videos available, though they are kind of ... gross.  Maybe NSFW.)
 
Knives are irrelevant, as the thread title asks about unarmed combat.

You keep using the phrase "just a sport", as if it somehow inherently precludes a level of seriousness. It does not.  Pankration was a sport, but it was still "a real fight" (actually, I'd argue it wasn't a real-fight, as the rules forced them to keep fighting after they would have stopped naturally).  Gladiator combat was a sport.  Sports can kill.

Lastly, it is a mistake to assume what is effective with a ruleset somehow become ineffective without one.  A jab will work the same regardless, as will chokes, and many other techniques.  If you expect a dramatically different result between a typical bar patron and pro fighter, just because you can give wedgies and try to poke them in the eyes, you will be disappointed

Likewise, two expert fighters are still going to engage in a very similar manner.  A 30 minute fight is not going to become a 30 second fight.



(And back to the OP:  This tangent reminds of another thing you need for a "realistic unarmed combat" ... a "drive" level that determines when the fight ends.  RPG's like to take every combat to the last breath, which is not "realistic").

Once again I really wish we had a martial arts subforum. Nice to see the divide between combat sport, traditionalists and modern self defense guys is alive and well. I certainly have my opinions, and we could argue it all day long, but it would take us pretty far away from the immediate concerns of getting martial arts right in an rpg. I think one important thing for martial arts enthusiasts to keep in mind, when people say they want martial arts done right in a game, they don't neccessarily mean they want the most realistic system from the point of view of an expert. I think they just want something that looks and feels right based on their sense of martial arts.

Hmmm, you're right. My take on true fighting is to incapacitate an opponent as quickly and as energy efficiently as possible. On the side I teach and study historical martial traditions and specialise in training accomplished practitioners proper psychology, so my insights are biased towards their original military application. My apologies.

The reason I used the word sport is that it does preclude certain psychological states. I never said it couldn't be serious or competitive. However even in the pankration, competitors fearing death or maiming would indeed utilise the forbidden moves of biting and gouging to ensure their opponent let up - which the superior positioned fighter wouldn't have done if those techniques weren't effective.

Anyway, I was trying to show that unarmed fights have different contexts according to their objective - and that rules need to cater to all cases; whether you are a Commando killing a guard from ambush (death), a drunk in a bar (teach a lesson) or a boxer having a sparring match (having fun). In each case the intensity and duration of the fight can vary wildly, due to initial setup, divergent skill levels, fitness, psychological state of mind and so on.

I suppose I should clarify what I mean by context. Unless you are running a campaign specifically focused on say, warring martial arts schools in fantasy China for instance (which of course you might be), most unarmed combat during a RPG will probably occur under unfavourable circumstances.

The last thing you want to do in a back alley fight or whilst on reconnaissance is to perform a take down and engage in an extended wrestling match, since the enemy might have allies or the scuffle will draw unwanted attention. So the very nature of how you'd fight would necessarily change to permit quick withdrawal. On the other hand, if you're thrown into a pit with a giant cobra, then wrestling it just below the head whilst gouging its eyes out is precisely the best thing to do!

What I did with RuneQuest combat was to keep all the complexity of stances, attitudes, weird and wacky styles abstracted as a single skill roll since (as I'd like to think that SJBenoist would agree with), it doesn't really matter what you are doing, but how good you are at doing it.

Where RQ shines on the combat front (armed or unarmed) is deciding what the tactical effect of a superior move (better level of success) will be. So you can Grip, Disarm, Stun, Trip, Choose Location, etc, etc which then changes the circumstances for the opponent, even if you didn't inflict any damage. This makes the fight far more dynamic, allowing a lot of techniques to flow back and forth, but without a lot of tedious Hit Point attrition.  

However, this method often seems arse backwards to players who normally conceptualise the fight as pre-planned manoeuvres - whereas in real life you instinctively take advantage of what happens when your opponent reacts or doesn't react to what you are doing, inflicting a suitable technique depending on what has opened up.

Quote from: Pete Nash;620509Hmmm, you're right. My take on true fighting is to incapacitate an opponent as quickly and as energy efficiently as possible. On the side I teach and study historical martial traditions and specialise in training accomplished practitioners proper psychology, so my insights are biased towards their original military application. My apologies.

The reason I used the word sport is that it does preclude certain psychological states. I never said it couldn't be serious or competitive. However even in the pankration, competitors fearing death or maiming would indeed utilise the forbidden moves of biting and gouging to ensure their opponent let up - which the superior positioned fighter wouldn't have done if those techniques weren't effective.

I hear you. I come from a sport martial arts background so I tend to be biased toward that.

Quote from: Pete Nash;620509Where RQ shines on the combat front (armed or unarmed) is deciding what the tactical effect of a superior move (better level of success) will be. So you can Grip, Disarm, Stun, Trip, Choose Location, etc, etc which then changes the circumstances for the opponent, even if you didn't inflict any damage. This makes the fight far more dynamic, allowing a lot of techniques to flow back and forth, but without a lot of tedious Hit Point attrition.  

However, this method often seems arse backwards to players who normally conceptualise the fight as pre-planned manoeuvres - whereas in real life you instinctively take advantage of what happens when your opponent reacts or doesn't react to what you are doing, inflicting a suitable technique depending on what has opened up.

I can see something like this working. I think for a role playing game the key is getting in the color but also making the color matter. If you just have ten different ways to inflict 1d4 damage, people will get bored and wont feel like their character is doing martial arts. Having it turn on effects like stun and trip can be a great way to do this.

Quote from: Pete Nash;620509Anyway, I was trying to show that unarmed fights have different contexts according to their objective - and that rules need to cater to all cases; whether you are a Commando killing a guard from ambush (death), a drunk in a bar (teach a lesson) or a boxer having a sparring match (having fun). In each case the intensity and duration of the fight can vary wildly, due to initial setup, divergent skill levels, fitness, psychological state of mind and so on.

This is true, which I guess leaves a third thing a game needs to cover to make it "realistic".

I'm not sure how to label it ... an attribute for "murderous intent" modified by motivation, maybe?

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;620501Nice to see the divide between combat sport, traditionalists and modern self defense guys is alive and well.

Yep, plenty of ways for us to interpret "but I have an alternative experience" as "your experience is invalid".

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;620501I think they just want something that looks and feels right based on their sense of martial arts.

This is spot on, and why I think the OP should start from the effect they want to achieve, and work it backwards into a system that delivers. "Realism" be damned.

Quote from: smiorgan;620540This is spot on, and why I think the OP should start from the effect they want to achieve, and work it backwards into a system that delivers.

He did.

Desired feel 1.
Desired feel 2.

Prototype system to test.

(Although I'm thinking of changing R-P-S for R-P-S-L-S, Rock-Paper-Scissors-Lizard-Spock. 5 options, each of which beats 2 others and is beaten by 2 others. All I need are Stance options, and corresponding bonuses if you win.)

A little more complex version of the previous system.

Quick recap: Each HTH attack (unarmed or melee weapons) is an engagement. Each character makes a Combat Challenge, the highest wins and does damage (no matter who initiated the engagement).

Your method of attack in an engagement is described by a Stance. There are 5 Stances, each of which is superior to 2 others and is vulnerable to 2 others.

Both characters pick a Stance. The character with the superior Stance gains a bonus for that Stance (below). On ties, both opponents gain the bonus.

The Stances:

Aggressive: Hard hitting, striking for damage.
Defensive: Doing your best to hold off your opponent.
Strategic: Setting up your opponent for a devastating move.
Disabling: Attacking to incapacitate your opponent.
Subduing: Beating your opponent into submission.

(> = is superior to, < = is vulnerable to)
Aggressive: > Disabling, > Subduing ; < Defensive, < Strategic
Defensive: > Aggressive, > Subduing; < Strategic, < Disabling
Strategic: > Defensive, > Aggressive ; < Disabling, < Subduing
Disabling: > Defensive, > Strategic ; < Aggressive, < Subduing
Subduing: > Strategic, > Disabling ; < Aggressive, < Defensive

Aggressive: +3 to Combat Challenge.
Defensive: +3 to Combat Challenge, but you can't cause damage.
Strategic: +5 to Combat Challenge during next engagement with this opponent (no matter what Stance is chosen then).
Disabling: +3 to Combat Challenge when attempting a special attack: grapple, throw, trip, disarm, knockout, or Combat Interaction skill.
Subduing: +3 to Combat Challenge, but you only cause non-lethal damage.

Note: Even if your Stance doesn't "win", you are still committed to that Stance. Defensive can't do damage, Disabling still attempts a special attacks, Subduing still causes non-lethal damage. However, you might still win the engagement, despite the bonus, if your Combat total is higher than your opponent's. The Stance bonus influences the outcome, but doesn't determine it.

Quote from: Simlasa;620253What 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?

"Combat Heroes" ?

http://www.projectaon.org/en/Main/Books

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620543He did.

Yes, and jolly good!

People get RPS, so it's a good choice. The way stances provide different combat moves (if I've read that correctly) is also good and fitting with perception. Very Iron Monkey, etc.

Aside--the first game I remember playing with RPS combat was DungeonQuest (original language Drakborgen, I think?)

http://fuckyeahbritisholdschoolgaming.tumblr.com/post/10352971343/dungeonquest-games-workshop-english-language

I love simplification. Love it.

I've taken the same "R-P-S" approach and modified it to be more transparent, while still emulating the feel I desired.

Each attack is resolved as a Combat Challenge (Attack Rating vs. Defense Rating, Result read as damage).

The Rule: When you are attacked in hand-to-hand combat, you can choose one of the following three actions (as a free action):

Attack: Attack them as they're attacking you. You get to make a Combat Challenge, and possibly do damage. (People can kill each other.) This can include either a standard or special attack (disarm, etc.)

Defend: You get to roll for defense, decreasing the chance you'll take damage.

Counter: You can attempt a trick, taunt, intimidate, maneuver, or overbear. Passive defense applies.

The virtue of this approach is that the strategy is 100% integrated into the mechanics as they already exist. There's no HtH minigame, no OOC strategy choices. The character reacts like they would, and there's consequences for that. That's what real strategy is built off of.

Additionally, this includes all the options I wanted (even from the 5-option method), allows for some cinematic outcomes the other didn't (mutual kills), and still provides the same strategic, planning-ahead play I wanted.

There's no difference between HtH attacks and any other attack, save for one rule.

Easy to use, transparent, subtle, strategic.

I like it!

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;619941What it says on the tin.

Does any game have a clean, easily run system that gives the flavor of hand-to-hand combat, without bogging down into endless complexity?

Post your systems, and justifications.

EDIT: I'm not talking about blow by blow realism, but a system that — in play — captures the feel of a martial arts or boxing or wrestling bout.

For example, each shot in pool sinks a ball, but must also set up your next shot. It's a game of skill.

Likewise, an attack in a MA, boxing, or fencing match isn't about just that attack, it's about setting up the next one, or carrying out a strategy that plays to your strengths as a fighter and minimizes your opponent's strengths.

It seems to me you say you want a system that doesn't get bogged down in complexity,  then describe a system with state tracking minutia that seems like it would necessarily get bogged down in complexity.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;622917It seems to me you say you want a system that doesn't get bogged down in complexity,  then describe a system with state tracking minutia that seems like it would necessarily get bogged down in complexity.

It certainly could be — and has been — done that way, but I don't think it must be done that way.

The solution I came up with for my own game looks to be very playable, and no more complicated than regular combat was. It integrates with the extant rules and only required one (fairly simple) rule change, so there's that.