This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs  (Read 17014 times)

mAcular Chaotic

  • All Evils of this World
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2263
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #30 on: February 10, 2019, 04:18:27 PM »
Gamist doesn't have to oppose genre simulation. The rules just have to push the gaming in a way that emulates a genre.

Like you could easily think of a Wild West type of gamey-game that has the rules set up so you end up doing "fast draw" style shootouts.
Battle doesn't need a purpose; the battle is its own purpose. You don't ask why a plague spreads or a field burns. Don't ask why I fight.

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #31 on: February 11, 2019, 06:11:29 AM »
Boy, I hope this doesn't become a GNS thread.

I kinda think that if we're talking about these modes of play, we're talking priorities. So, if you build a system and you've got this fun mechanic but it's kinda unrealistic, you got to decide what you prefer. So, yeah, you can definitely combine various modes in your games/game design, for example if you can add a narrative element into your rules without conflict to your otherwise gamist goals. But you will probably repeatedly come to situations where you need to prioritize. And I think that's where the true colors emerge.
Just my 2 cents.
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #32 on: February 11, 2019, 06:48:28 AM »
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074292
Boy, I hope this doesn't become a GNS thread.

I kinda think that if we're talking about these modes of play, we're talking priorities. So, if you build a system and you've got this fun mechanic but it's kinda unrealistic, you got to decide what you prefer. So, yeah, you can definitely combine various modes in your games/game design, for example if you can add a narrative element into your rules without conflict to your otherwise gamist goals. But you will probably repeatedly come to situations where you need to prioritize. And I think that's where the true colors emerge.
Just my 2 cents.


Not necessarily. You can be interested in cinematic stuff without making it the single overidingbpriority in every design decision (especially if you are operating under an assumption that most players don't play with a single overriding priority). I don't think most players really are focused on G, N or S.

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #33 on: February 11, 2019, 09:49:03 AM »
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1074293
Not necessarily. You can be interested in cinematic stuff without making it the single overidingbpriority in every design decision (especially if you are operating under an assumption that most players don't play with a single overriding priority). I don't think most players really are focused on G, N or S.


Not disagreeing - most RPGs combine elements that cater to more than one style. I would call Shadowrun simulationist-gamist, for example.
But we can also look at which style gets preferential treatment, when in doubt. And I think that's where the order in "simulationist-gamist" comes in. Shadowrun doesn't do much to simplify ranged combat for the sake of ease of play, for example.
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.

Bedrockbrendan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12695
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #34 on: February 11, 2019, 09:58:06 AM »
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074307
Not disagreeing - most RPGs combine elements that cater to more than one style. I would call Shadowrun simulationist-gamist, for example.
But we can also look at which style gets preferential treatment, when in doubt. And I think that's where the order in "simulationist-gamist" comes in. Shadowrun doesn't do much to simplify ranged combat for the sake of ease of play, for example.

I think my issue with the triple division is it glosses over so many other important aspects of gaming (or packages them into those categories, when I think there is actually tremendous spill over).

capvideo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • http://www.godsmonsters.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #35 on: February 11, 2019, 02:10:07 PM »
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074220
This does not lift my confusion. You have been presented a repeat, observable pattern in cinematic combats: not every outnumbering force member attacks every round but a random number between 1 and all of them does.


I think this is part of the problem of our miscommunication. It is not a random number. It is exactly the number that the director/writer wants. That is not a pattern that's easy to emulate in a game. And the answer to why we wouldn't becomes obvious at that point: it's not a game any more.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074220
Sure. In the case of "One v Many" with round-robin attacks, generally every character in threat range will attack each round. Especially player characters. Imagine a PC not attacking deliberately and then another PC dying. Hard feelings are bound to ensue. That's why you need a mechanism to keep a random number of "outnumberers" from attacking. Not just a random number but probably a random and each round changing subset of them.


I understand that it's completely unnatural not to attack when you could, and when it makes sense to do so. What I'm not understanding is what this mechanism would look like. That's the kind of example I'd like to see.

1. GM: You are attacked by a giant killer robot.
2. Fred: I attack the giant killer robot with my shield and magic helmet.
3. Barney: I watch Fred attack the giant killer robot. I'd rather wait until Fred is defeated, that way I can be defeated myself. I've seen this happen in movies, and it's cool.
4. ???
5. Profit!

(3) is mostly a joke, although I've certainly seen GMs think players ought to act that way. The question is, why would they? They can act that way now if they want, but of course they don't want to, thus this thread; and as you said, there are going to be hard feelings if they do. So I want to see your example that rewrites (3) in a way that is actually fun or at least interesting, and puts in (4). Then we can get to Profit!

I'm assuming for the moment, but you can correct that assumption if I'm wrong, that your mechanic isn't simply roll a random number from one to the number of player characters; that would not just force some players to not attack, but would also force other players to attack. Somehow this mechanism needs to make the game fun not just for the players to sit it out, or split to have their characters do something else, but also for the players who do not.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074220
1. The pattern is not faithfully enough replicated.
2. We shouldn't replicate the pattern to begin with because will do bad thing X to our games.


Right, and that's the problem. As I see it, the more faithfully you replicate Hollywood cinematics, the less agency the players have over their characters. That's the bad thing that will happen. In Hollywood cinematics, we're mostly expected to ignore that the characters are just puppets held on chains by a single individual. The cinematics you think are cool seem to me to be exactly those places where this is hardest to ignore. And in a game, it seems to me impossible to ignore. So that's why I need to see you give some example of a mechanic that you think will actually do what you want. It's also why when actual examples are not forthcoming, you get the reaction you say you often get. Because the only way to get what you want is to take control from the players and give it to the GM. So far, the terms you've used to describe what you want are emulating actual scenes, fashioning a particular outcome, and choreographing the moves of the player characters.

To relieve your confusion: I am in fact saying that in order to get the Hollywood cinematics you want, it looks to me as though you need to have a script. I'm asking for some sort of real example to show me that I am wrong. It could be mechanics, it could be a fake play example like above, or something else. But so far, the more you've described what you want, the more it seems that the only way to get it is to have a script, possibly generated randomly just-in-time, that the players must have their characters follow.

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #36 on: February 11, 2019, 04:49:25 PM »
Quote from: capvideo;1074354
I think this is part of the problem of our miscommunication. It is not a random number. It is exactly the number that the director/writer wants. That is not a pattern that's easy to emulate in a game. And the answer to why we wouldn't becomes obvious at that point: it's not a game any more.

From an emulation standpoint only what's visible on screen exists. It's a black box. It's opaque. There is no director or script writer. Just the scenes.
That's where my confuson comes from.

Quote from: capvideo;1074354

I understand that it's completely unnatural not to attack when you could, and when it makes sense to do so. What I'm not understanding is what this mechanism would look like. That's the kind of example I'd like to see.


1. GM: You are attacked by a giant killer robot.
2. Fred: I attack the giant killer robot with my shield and magic helmet.
3. Barney: I join Fred!
4. GM: Barney, you have the higher initiative and can roll to attack. Fred, you need to make test,
5. Fred: I fail!
6. GM: I'm sorry but as you stand in the robot's flank your character looks for the right moment to catch the giant robot unaware. But being intimidated by it's huge af size you hesitate until the round's over. Now to you Barney...

Quote from: capvideo;1074354

Somehow this mechanism needs to make the game fun not just for the players to sit it out, or split to have their characters do something else, but also for the players who do not.


The fun part is in the flow of battle that evolves and the dynamic, cinematic imagery evoked. I think I said it before but I guess I need to stress it again: I have been in battles where our party attacked the final orc or whatever from all sides. And I wish there had been a rule in place that had kept me from attacking. I am fully aware that there will plenty of players balking at the idea of not being able to roll for attack. That's alright. But for some of us this is not a bug, it's a feature. (And as an aside, it makes it easier for PCs to cut their swath through crowdsfon Mooks while the BBEG has better survivability against the party.)

The desires of people like me, who want cinematic combat, even if it means being sidelined for a turn and the desires of more gamist players who'll think it is retarded to keep them from attacking cannot necessarily be reconciled.
It's specifically not for people who prefer how D&D is resolved.

Quote from: capvideo;1074354

Right, and that's the problem. As I see it, the more faithfully you replicate Hollywood cinematics, the less agency the players have over their characters.

Well, it's not agency that is restricted. The player can still try to attack. They just have to face a specific obstacle in doing so.

Quote from: capvideo;1074354

And in a game, it seems to me impossible to ignore.

And that's alright. But I do hope you understand how passionately I feel about it from the other side. The idea of "it's no fun if a random pattern of players gets sidelined for a turn" is anathema to my idea of fun. As a player I want to be possibly sidelined, if that evokes mental imagery of the fight that isn't nonsense, from a cinematic viewpoint.
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #37 on: February 11, 2019, 04:56:50 PM »
Quote from: capvideo;1074354
The cinematics you think are cool seem to me to be exactly those places where this is hardest to ignore. And in a game, it seems to me impossible to ignore.

I think the Conan Orgy battle is done well enough to look plausible, there are lots of reasons in-universe for it developing the way it does. By contrast I remember thinking Aragorn vs the Ringwraiths on Weathertop looked very lame, it looked just like the GM setting up an obvious TPK encounter, then fudging like crazy to avoid that result.

Re mechanics - how about "1d6 opponents may attack an unsupported single opponent each round"? Or if you insist on mapping 6 second combat rounds to Hollywood action, it could be "1d6 initially, +/- 1d3 per round, minimum 1".

With enough tweaking you can get a result that resembles the numbers in a Hollywood fight scene. I doubt this will feel any more exciting at table, though. Like I said on ENW, if you want it to actually play out in an exciting manner you need a cinematic-emulation combat system like 4e - but be prepared to have a huge focus on lengthy combats.

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #38 on: February 11, 2019, 05:22:14 PM »
Quote from: S'mon;1074412
I think the Conan Orgy battle is done well enough to look plausible, there are lots of reasons in-universe for it developing the way it does. By contrast I remember thinking Aragorn vs the Ringwraiths on Weathertop looked very lame, it looked just like the GM setting up an obvious TPK encounter, then fudging like crazy to avoid that result.

Well, I guess there's plenty of intimidation factor about Aragorn. The battle of Amon Henm btw, is much worse, where only a cut of the scene saves Aragorn from being swamped and brutally murdered by orcs.

Quote from: S'mon;1074412

Re mechanics - how about "1d6 opponents may attack an unsupported single opponent each round"? Or if you insist on mapping 6 second combat rounds to Hollywood action, it could be "1d6 initially, +/- 1d3 per round, minimum 1".

But then you need to randomly determine which of those can attack as well. That's a bit inconvenient. Plus, it's better if each player themselves has it in their own hands if they spot an opportunity for an attack or not, don't you think?
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #39 on: February 11, 2019, 05:44:12 PM »
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074421
But then you need to randomly determine which of those can attack as well. That's a bit inconvenient. Plus, it's better if each player themselves has it in their own hands if they spot an opportunity for an attack or not, don't you think?

I was thinking for PCs you'd go in their initiative order, until all the slots vs that opponent for the round are full.

You could give Will tests to attack, but I don't see how that is any different from making Attack rolls - indeed I'll often narrate a failed attack roll as "you don't get an opening".

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #40 on: February 12, 2019, 01:16:34 PM »
Quote from: S'mon;1074428
I was thinking for PCs you'd go in their initiative order, until all the slots vs that opponent for the round are full.

That's an idea that never occured to me. It's actually pretty viable. The price is of course that you need initiative determination each round (which I am at minimizing). And the distribution is different: more swingy from 1 to max attackers. Whether that's more desirable (simulation- and/or game-wise) needs some contemplation.

Quote from: S'mon;1074428
You could give Will tests to attack, but I don't see how that is any different from making Attack rolls - indeed I'll often narrate a failed attack roll as "you don't get an opening".


Well, a two-step process represents two different stages - whether you actually commit to going forward and manage to enter weapon range at the first stage and how the actual attack plays out at the second stage.
It's also noteworthy that if the defender can only defend against one attacker each round, the closing-in roll of the attacker actually takes sort of the place of a parry roll of the defender in other systems; it's two chances for the intention to attack to fall short.
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.

capvideo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • http://www.godsmonsters.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #41 on: February 12, 2019, 04:10:53 PM »
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1074410

1. GM: You are attacked by a giant killer robot.
2. Fred: I attack the giant killer robot with my shield and magic helmet.
3. Barney: I join Fred!
4. GM: Barney, you have the higher initiative and can roll to attack. Fred, you need to make test,
5. Fred: I fail!
6. GM: I'm sorry but as you stand in the robot's flank your character looks for the right moment to catch the giant robot unaware. But being intimidated by it's huge af size you hesitate until the round's over. Now to you Barney...


Interesting. So let me see if I understand this from a mechanism standpoint.

1. The first person always gets in.
2. Everyone else must make some sort of a random check, probably a die roll in most games, to see if they can successfully attempt to join in the attack.
3. If the check is failed, the character is unavailable for other actions.
4. (guessing from your other comments) Each player gets to check every round to change their character's status as onlooker or participant.

Have I understood it correctly?

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #42 on: February 13, 2019, 04:14:38 AM »
Well, that's pretty much the solution I have come up with but as S'mon sugggested above, other models are possible. Technically, the other attackers, the supporters, do count as being in melee though - for the purpose of shooting at them, the whole scene being dynamic and in motion and all. That supporter status doesn't change round-by-round (except in some interplay with the attack sequences mechanic of 1-on-1 fights, but that's a future thread). What does change though is if a supporter gets to roll to attack or not. If you don't, it means your character doesn't make that half-step (or 2-step or whatever) forward into his weapon's range - either the PC himself chooses not to or it's because the character's blocked.

As mentioned above, the defender usually gets only 1 parry per round, so it remains a 2-step failure process overall, common enough to plenty non-D&D RPGs.
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.

capvideo

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
    • http://www.godsmonsters.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #43 on: February 13, 2019, 12:01:03 PM »
1. The first person always gets in, and is the main attacker for the rest of the fight.
2. Everyone else, if they choose to try to join the fight, is support for the main attacker.
3. Supporters must make a check each round to see if they can successfully attempt an attack.
4. If the check is failed, the character is also unavailable for other actions.

Alexander Kalinowski

  • Dark God
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 624
    • http://www.knightsoftheblacklily.com/
Cinematic Combat: One-versus-Many in Film and RPGs
« Reply #44 on: February 13, 2019, 04:09:36 PM »
Quote from: capvideo;1074781
1. The first person always gets in, and is the main attacker for the rest of the fight.

As mentioned before it's possible that a supporter forms the new combat pair with the lone fighter, under some somewhat specific conditions that tie into the attack sequences part of the system.

Quote from: capvideo;1074781
If the check is failed, the character is also unavailable for other actions.

Correct. He is fully intending to attack but either doesn't follow through after all or is kept from doing so due to external circumstances.
Author of the Knights of the Black Lily RPG, a game of sexy black fantasy.
Setting: Ilethra, a fantasy continent ruled over by exclusively spiteful and bored gods who play with mortals for their sport.
System: Faithful fantasy genre simulation. Bell-curved d100 as a core mechanic. Action economy based on interruptability. Cinematic attack sequences in melee. Fortune Points tied to scenario endgame stakes. Challenge-driven Game Design.
The dark gods await.