Quote from: Trond;1078133For some reason, I think this is remarkably easy to do with the Stormbringer 5 (or tweaked BRP) rules. For cinematic effects, use the major wound table whenever appropriate, make sure the villains are low in skill (but don't let the players know), while the fighter PCs are around 90% or above in weapon skills. Villains miss rounds simply because of the whiff factor, but occasionally they do get in a hit. We played a R.E.Howard-style swords and sorcery game doing this. It was awesome.

Alexander, did you look into this? I feel I have done what the OP is asking for. I also think that this thread is a bit too deeply steeped in D&D-isms, which do not necessarily fit the outcome you want, since in the past I felt that our AD&D 2nd ed games were among the least cinematic (though maybe some other editions would work). Use a system that encourages easy and descriptive gameplay. I have found that BRP is so straightforward that it works, and you can easily use the major wounds table to add flavor. Rolemaster might also work if you have a quick way to look up tables (I have done this in the past too, but I am familiar with the flaws of RM and simplified the rules, it is probably too confusing for a newbie).  Also, if PCs are outnumbered make sure the skills of the PCs are much higher than the opponents (in RM don't even bother with starting at lower levels), but make sure they feel the situation is dangerous. On top of that, add your own descriptions to flesh out everything that happens, rather than just talking about the rolls. Any rule that does not add to the fun and the cinematic effect? Drop it like a hot potato.

Trond,

I don't doubt that your approach works. Ultimately, it's not so different from what I am doing. However, I think I would like to see even greater accuracy. Have a look at this fight - it's not classic fantasy but science fantasy... it should still work:

[video=youtube;Fed9rBMOpJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fed9rBMOpJ4[/youtube]



Note how Darth Maul manages to repeatedly break up the double-teaming, even if only for a round. This is why I have been maintaining throughout this thread that even highly skilled fighters need to occasionally pause when ganging up against a lone enemy. Also here:

[video=youtube;Oz80SgmrPvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz80SgmrPvU[/youtube]

It's not just mooks that don't even get to attack, occasionally. I am aiming at this effect where some attackers can't attack in a given round, it makes the lone fighter feel more like he's dancing through his opponents' ranks. That both looks and feels cinematic to me - at the expense of occasionally not being able to attack in a round.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081676Some "requirements" of mine have nothing to do with it other than my requirement that if someone compares two things and is being dismissive of one of those two things, then that person should at least have some personal experience with the thing they're being dismissive of. Actually, they should have sufficient familiarity with both objects (in this case the two things being the approach I am pursuing and d6 Star Wars). Something like 10+ combats run prior in both systems would have been nice, for starters, especially when it concerns something like the feeling of a system - which comes down to experiencing it in actual play.

I don't think you are going to find very many people who are willing to devote the time and effort to learn your new system and run 10+ combats using that system simply so that they can provide some initial feedback on your proposed new system.

Put yourself in their shoes for a minute. Are you going to go get a copy of Star Wars D6 (or download the free D6 Space version), learn that system, and then run 10+ combats with it just so you can compare what you are creating to the D6 system?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081741Trond,

I don't doubt that your approach works. Ultimately, it's not so different from what I am doing. However, I think I would like to see even greater accuracy. Have a look at this fight - it's not classic fantasy but science fantasy... it should still work:

[video=youtube;Fed9rBMOpJ4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fed9rBMOpJ4[/youtube]



Note how Darth Maul manages to repeatedly break up the double-teaming, even if only for a round. This is why I have been maintaining throughout this thread that even highly skilled fighters need to occasionally pause when ganging up against a lone enemy. Also here:

[video=youtube;Oz80SgmrPvU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oz80SgmrPvU[/youtube]

It's not just mooks that don't even get to attack, occasionally. I am aiming at this effect where some attackers can't attack in a given round, it makes the lone fighter feel more like he's dancing through his opponents' ranks. That both looks and feels cinematic to me - at the expense of occasionally not being able to attack in a round.

Not so sure about this. One problem here is that you're basing it off of movies, while the way RPGs usually go, with verbal communication, the feel is more like reading a book. Perhaps go for the best action sequences you can find in books, and see if you can get something out of that.

Bren, I agree that it would be unreasonable to expect anyone to try my game rules (which are still in a BETA state at that and the next update will speed them up, make them more precise and clearer ad well) - that's why I made the thread about a general comparison of movie fights and fights in existing games... and about different alternatives on how to fix any significant differences. I don't think merely providing additional information will be enough to fix the existing differences as they are bound to get ignored. I think the rules need to enforce the non-attacking part to convey the right imagery.

That being said, I would hopefully refrain from making any such comments as S'mon's if I have never even played a game once. "Hey, Vincent Baker, even though I have never played it and even read the rules myself, your Apocalypse World may look like post-apocalypse role-playing but it doesn't feel like it... why don't you make it more like Palladium's After the Bomb RPG, which I last played 30 years ago? It's really feels post-apocalypse."

That wouldn't sound right.

Quote from: Trond;1081803Not so sure about this. One problem here is that you're basing it off of movies, while the way RPGs usually go, with verbal communication, the feel is more like reading a book. Perhaps go for the best action sequences you can find in books, and see if you can get something out of that.

I have been re-reading LotR and reading partially Game of Thrones (and the Conan stories) because of that, plus a few smaller properties. I also looked at Savage Sword of Conan comics. It does not have the same amount of information on what's really happening as cinematic combat (unless it's badly edited cinematic combat). Plus, I think we're all more influenced in our imagination and narration of what we have have seen on the screen. Matt Mercer certainly is.

I think what's really rubbing people the wrong way is the thought of players having to sit out a round. I don't think there would be much of a fuss if only NPCs had to occasionally spend a turn not being able to do anything other than waiting for an opportunity to strike. It's less dramatic than it sounds though if a lone NPC that your party gangs up on doesn't get to roll for parry against any additional PC attackers. So, if your PC has a 60% chance of launching an attack and a 66.6% of hitting with that attack, the 60% chance for the PC attacker is the functional equivalent of the defender having a 40% parry chance.

I recommend that only Elite-/Boss-level NPCs get to have a trait that allows them to parry more of the outnumbering force's attacks. In that case, yes, you have 3 points of failure (launch attack, attack roll, parry) instead of 2. I can live with that as it makes these special NPCs seem tough as nails and swarming them isn't quite as effective as in other RPGs. I like that.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1081849I think what's really rubbing people the wrong way is the thought of players having to sit out a round. I don't think there would be much of a fuss if only NPCs had to occasionally spend a turn not being able to do anything other than waiting for an opportunity to strike.

We don't know your players, but I've certainly GMed for players where randomly not being allowed to make an attack roll would be a concern so it seems reasonable that the same thing might apply to your players or to any prospective players you are looking to attract. Personally that isn't the major issue for me.

As I've said, I don't interpret a failed attack roll the same way you do. And in addition, I've used systems like Runequest and Honor + Intrigue where a character sitting out is already a possible combat result. H+I for example, has defensive maneuvers that can result in an attacker missing or even not getting to attack and maneuvers for the attacker that can result in the attacker missing an attack roll that round.

As far as the NPCs, I don't need a roll to prevent them from getting to make an attack roll since that is already covered by other aspects of how I GM. Morale rules and rolls cover fear and hesitation for the NPCs. Blocking is covered by positional movement, which is something I prefer to include in play. Both of the first two things as well as waiting for a better opening are covered by my interpretation and description of what an NPC missing an attack roll actually means. So for me, adding in another roll to determine opportunity separate from the attack roll doesn't add anything I'm missing.