While I did a bit of sports martial arts in my youth (Moo Duk Wan), I'd never claim any sort of knowledge of unarmed fighting aside from knocking that kid's tooth out with my lunchbox in 2nd grade. I think that the sanest way to approach martial arts in RPGs is to take a cinematic emulation approach, since most RL fights are actually pretty boring to watch.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;622924While I did a bit of sports martial arts in my youth (Moo Duk Wan), I'd never claim any sort of knowledge of unarmed fighting aside from knocking that kid's tooth out with my lunchbox in 2nd grade. I think that the sanest way to approach martial arts in RPGs is to take a cinematic emulation approach, since most RL fights are actually pretty boring to watch.

Yes, though not nearly as boring as watching a bunch of self-styled martial-arts "experts" discussing the subject.  Rarely is the bullshit level higher.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;623185Yes, though not nearly as boring as watching a bunch of self-styled martial-arts "experts" discussing the subject.  Rarely is the bullshit level higher.

RPGPundit

Off to youtube to watch Jet Li, Jackie Chan and Kurosawa film clips to get inspiration!

Quote from: RPGPundit;623185Yes, though not nearly as boring as watching a bunch of self-styled martial-arts "experts" discussing the subject.  Rarely is the bullshit level higher.

RPGPundit

I see what you did there.

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;623296I see what you did there.

JG

I wasn't specifically trying to imply this thread, though there was a bit of that here, yeah. I just mean in general, though.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;623562I wasn't specifically trying to imply this thread, though there was a bit of that here, yeah. I just mean in general, though.

RPGPundit

You get the same thing with gun threads - pages and pages of guys arguing over which calibers, etc, are better or which ones are useless - all based on anecdotes. They also have the same problem that even the real-life experts can't agree about anything.


As for my pick for unarmed combat, N&SS probably does come closest, though I feel it is a bit inadequate.

I have two main issues with the way many games model unarmed combat (which are also problems I have with the way they do armed combat). The first is not modeling fatigue at all. The second is when games present "options" (punch vs kick vs whatever, or dodge vs parry vs whatever), but the options have no trade-offs so it is all about which option has the best mechanics.

For example, if a game is going to mechanically differentiate between kicks and punches, I want rules that support why a guy would use both - there needs to be at least some kind of trade-off. What I don't want is: punch = 1d3 damage, kick = 1d4 or whatever.

Similarly, there's a reason sometimes you want to parry (or block) an incoming attack and sometimes you dodge an attack completely. Again, trade-offs are needed if your system bothers to differentiate between the two; not just whichever one is better.

Don't get me wrong - I'm fine with a melee system that abstracts all attacks into a single attack bonus / damage roll, or the same for defenses. I just hate it when it adds "options" that aren't really options because one is always mechanically superior to the other.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620554A 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.

Hm, I came up with something very similar, but using the Chinese elements (Earth, Water, Fire, Metal, and Wood) to represent an overall "style". I'm tinkering with making it a card-based system.

I rather thought Gurps Martial Arts (3E) did a passable job. It may not have been perfect, but it worked for martial arts themed games without too much complexity or silliness of design.

Quote from: RPGPundit;623562I wasn't specifically trying to imply this thread, though there was a bit of that here, yeah. I just mean in general, though.

RPGPundit

I laughed. Being told not to take yourself so seriously is a good necessary thing

Quote from: Silverlion;623663I rather thought Gurps Martial Arts (3E) did a passable job. It may not have been perfect, but it worked for martial arts themed games without too much complexity or silliness of design.

Yeah, I thought it was fairly good too.

RPGPundit

Now if you missed the Driftwood publishing run of The Riddle of Steel in 2001-2003 I am not surprised. It was put together in co-operation with ARMA (the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts) and while based on an earlier Polish RPG and with a strong hint of swords play and a narrative mass combat system, it is the best at capturing the real feel of combat I have encountered.

The downside is that "real combat" can be rather brief and messy... but in the case of unarmed combat as in real life there is a lot more room for seasoned opponents to dance before the final blow... also the last Companion in the run featured both martial art schools and cinematic rules to bring out that 70's Hong Kong Kung Fu vibe...

Now if I could only find something in print!!!

Quote from: James Gillen;620063HERO System.

But then, I say that with everything.  

JG

I've got to agree with you. While I'm not much of a HERO fan these days, the Ultimate Martial Artist 5th edition is fantastic.

Gurps Martial Arts did about as good a job as you can. I don't think you can really accurately model any kind of combat in an RPR, and that's not particularly a bad thing. I think it's more about making it feel right as opposed to being super accurate.

I have boxed for years at the amateur level, a year and a half of Kickboxing and BJJ, as well as practicing JKD for the past 9 years. I have never played an rpg that really could get into the nitty gritty of say an amateur boxing match. There is just to much going on to model correctly and still have it be any fun.

If I had to pick one gross oversight though, it would fatigue. So many games neglect fatigue entirely and to my mind it's the easiest big factor in a fight to model. Though thinking about it I can kind of see an argument for classic D&D style hit points accounting for that to a degree.

Quote from: Arkansan;822442If I had to pick one gross oversight though, it would fatigue. So many games neglect fatigue entirely and to my mind it's the easiest big factor in a fight to model. Though thinking about it I can kind of see an argument for classic D&D style hit points accounting for that to a degree.

I had a houserule I sometimes employed in D&D for exerting yourself in combat. Worked a bit like power attack except you could lose HP and add it to damage. It was meant to model fatigue in a fight without making it so you had to track it each round. That felt a lot like my experience competing where you can easily fatigue yourself if you don't conserve your energy and use power sparingly.

One thing I've noticed though about people with real world martial arts experience and PRGs. What we want and what players with no martial arts XP want is often very different. You can make a realistic martial arts system that might win over actual martial artists (though when you get them in a room together they never seem to agree on what mechanics are realistic) but it rarely ends up being something people who are basing what they want off movies and comics want.

Now my approach to martial arts in games is to throw out the idea of applying my real world knowledge to it, instead just going more for a feel that I think will resonate with players.

What you were doing sounds very similar to a house rule I have used for a long time in my home games. HP becomes Fatigue and your CON score becomes actual HP. Players can expend Fatigue for adding bonuses to rolls and certain maneuvers as well as losing them to hits. Kind of adds a whole new economy to fighting and models out the fact that the first one to tire out is at a serious disadvantage and more likely to get hit flush.