From my limited understanding, to replicate the choreography of a typical action movie (much less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time) would require hundreds of turns in a combat encounter scene. This would, obviously, not be fun to play unless it was mostly described rather than played.
I feel that the strength of RPGs lies in their inherently freeform nature and ability to tell collaborative stories. While video games may accomplish virtually every situation that could occur in a tabletop game with a superior interface and reaction time, every video game is ultimately a static, lifeless construct limited by what code the developers wrote for it.
So why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such? Do people write apps specifically to speed up combat? Is there some other solution to portraying interesting combat encounters?
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797So why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such?
I reject your premise.
Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and Daniel Bayn's
Wu Shu both do a fine job of managing action movie style set piece battles. Games designed consciously or otherwise as tabletop wargames are going to be less good at this, yes.
Quotemuch less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time
Oh, Jesus Christ (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/029/097/PBF071-Weeaboo.gif).
4e D&D replicates super hero or action movie trope combat very well - by taking 2 hours to play through a 2 minute movie scene.
As previous posters have mentioned, you really need a system built from the ground up around this style of play for it to work. The vast majority of RPGs have their combat mechanic roots in fundamentally mundane tabletop wargaming. It's one of the reasons why movement, except for kiting, isn't really something most systems handle very well (thus the need for specific chase mechanics).
I call bullshit.
Do you need game mechanics to represent each and every beat and pulse of combat, every weight shift, each punch and counterpunch, every feint and dodge in order to have an exciting fight scene in an RPG?
I think not. We used our imaginations, described the action movie stunts our characters were performing and rolled the dice to see if we succeeded.Dead simple, and I have yet to meet an RPG in which it can't be done. The fewer the combat mechanics the more easily the feel of an action movie can be achieved.
Yes, it is. We've had Feng Shui and HKAT for years.
Actually alot of RPG combats are emulating cinema combat. Its just abstracted and left to the player to embellish rather than bog down in a dicefest.
D&D for example had a 1 minute long combat round and explained that alot was happening in that time. The attack roll was for that one big moment in the round or the overall flow. So there could be a series of strikes, parries and whatnod going on. Even 5e's 6 second rounds are like that overall.
Other games have different flows.
Using D&D and one of the big fights in Puella Magi Madoka Magica as an example. Said fight lasts all of 3 minutes. That is 3 combat rounds in pre-3e D&D or about 30 in 5e for example. Both are over in the same amount of in-game time. Both can cover the same amount of action. Both can be as cinematic as you want (5e is moreso in some ways). But one is taking maybee 3 minutes to resolve. The other is going to take upwards of half an hour to resolve. A battle between two characters.
What are you getting back from trying to play out that level of minutia?
Quote from: Omega;909836Actually alot of RPG combats are emulating cinema combat. Its just abstracted and left to the player to embellish rather than bog down in a dicefest.
Exactly this.
Quote from: JeremyR;909839Exactly this.
I think 4e did a good job of replicating cinematic combat encounters, especially because many of the abilities allowed movement + attack among other things. If it took 2 hours, well thats probably due to shitry made characters or parties (IMO of course)
But you can move and attack in other editions of D&D too? :confused:
Quote from: Diffan;909850I think 4e did a good job of replicating cinematic combat encounters, especially because many of the abilities allowed movement + attack among other things. If it took 2 hours, well thats probably due to shitry made characters or parties (IMO of course)
Well, also my group are level 28.
Of course they do, Omega. 4e is mostly on par with other editions. 3e I suppose lagging since moving more than 5' hinders a full attack.
Honestly, as long as you are using a system that abstracts combat (or is one that doesn't hinder your ability to declare such the case), most game combats can be cinematic combats.
There are issues, and the rules can help or hinder them. Movement can be an issue. Some games do better and some worse at glossing over the fact that one player/opponent takes their actions and everyone else freezes until it is their turn. Same with jumping about (in some systems it will give you an advantage, in some a hindrance). Rules for interacting with the environment can also come up. Switching from Puella Magi Madoka Magica to more of a Jackie Chan style cinematic, if you want to a have a combat system where you throw your opponent through conveniently located fruit stands and beat them over the head with improvised weapons like ladders, it can be fun to include those rules. But then the DM has to place fruit stands in the battlefield (or say that one was there all along, and people noticed that fact once someone utilized that function).
Overall, however, I think the OP and everyone is really in agreement. Most of cinematic combat is "mostly described" or abstracted. That's fine, since creating specific rules can bog down combat. If you want it, however, there are games like Feng Shui or HKAT or WoD: Street Fighter or even Hero/GURPS with the Martial Arts rules.
Great answers, one and all.
Quote from: daniel_ream;909798Oh, Jesus Christ (http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/029/097/PBF071-Weeaboo.gif).
Did I mention I hate anime because it's generally aimed at perverts and pedophiles? Watch the battle highlights on YouTube.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909883Great answers, one and all.
Did I mention I hate anime because it's generally aimed at perverts and pedophiles? Watch the battle highlights on YouTube.
Madoka (the series, not the movies, although the first two are basically just the series' replica) is an absolute masterpiece. A brilliant deconstruction (and reconstruction) of the Mahou Shoujo genre in which not even a single frame is unneeded or out of place.
A lot of anime is trash, but targeting Madoka is... peculiar, to say the least.
Well, I think the question of whether "replicating" combat blow by blow and breath by breath, or using a more abstract combat system for an RPG is extremely valid. I think that is what the OP is getting at.
From my own experience, I love RQ6. It's as close to my ideal game as I have found in almost 4 decades of role playing. However, I find the combat is way too detailed and therefore slow and limiting for my GMing style, so I use my own, much more abstract combat mechanics (mostly derived from other d100 games) to speed play and allow me to narrate combat. I admire the detailed combat mechanics of games like RQ and GURPs as well as the GMs who can run them well, but when I try them, I always feel like I am chasing the rules rather than having them serve me and the game. I wish that I could run these detailed mechanics smoothly but I haven't mastered them to that point, and old habits creep in anyway.
On the other hand, D&D (TSR style) combat, in all of it's abstraction, works great for me, especially at lower levels. In fact, combat is probably my favorite aspect of old D&D, despite the fact that D&D's inflating hyper-abstract level-driven Hit Points make the hackles of my neck stand on end. TSR D&D combat, with 1 die roll to hit and 1 for damage, is so smooth and intuitive (and second nature) that I never need to pause the action. I can narrate right through all of the die rolling, keeping all of the players engaged, and make the combat epic and intense without ever looking from a menu of options, or looking up rules.
I am sure others have their preferences, but for me, with decades of practice narrating melee, I just gravitate towards more abstract combat mechanics as more "natural" for my table.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797From my limited understanding, to replicate the choreography of a typical action movie (much less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time) would require hundreds of turns in a combat encounter scene.
Feng Shui 2 and EABAv2 both laugh at that idea:). A fight from the Matrix is explicitly the combat example in EABAv2, and FS2 replicates martial arts and shootours from all Hong Kong action movies.
Also, we do it just because we're wargamers at heart;).
This thread has a really high antithetical rating for me. My perspective is essentially the opposite of where you're coming from.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797From my limited understanding, to replicate the choreography of a typical action movie (much less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time) would require hundreds of turns in a combat encounter scene.
I have played tactical RPGs for decades, and watched many many action films, but I have never heard of Puella Magi Madoka Magica. I'll have to look that up... let's see... YouTube... oh it's anime. No hits for that with the word "action" except "action live preview" which is Japanese women in schoolgirl constumes standing around possibly holding weapons. Hmm. Ok so from what I've seen of anime and your description, I imagine prolonged combat scenes with over-the-top stylized martial arts action. Ok.
Firstly, it seems to me that you can do elaborate action scenes in tabletop RPGs, in a variety of ways depending on what you like in gaming. Some people may choose to use elaborate descriptions while using little or no game mechanics, in which case the descriptions can be as elaborate as players will agree to. Other players wanting action-movie style "epic" combat may be satisfied by just having a pile-o-hitpoints combat system and giving the heroes 200+ hit-points and grinding through lots of NPCs or "boss" NPCs who also have piles of hitpoints, and imagining/describing similar over-the-top action is what that represents. Other players might want more elaborate rules that try to actually represent the things shown on screen. I'm on the extreme end of the scale - I like very detailed tactical rules which use maps, facing, terrain effects, and try to represent everything they can... and that tend to make many movie action scenes play out very differently.
QuoteThis would, obviously, not be fun to play unless it was mostly described rather than played.
Although I generally play more realistic situations, I often like to play over-the-top heroes facing ridiculously hard excessive battle situations... but I like to have the rules be realistic, to see what actually happens when it plays out, and if there is any way to actually win/survive crazy challenges with excessive skill & equipment & clever tactics. I find that _very_ fun. Even if it takes hundreds of turns and days of play, I find that play fun & interesting, as it's one of the main reasons I play - to see how things actually play out. If I just want to imagine crazy action, I can do that by daydreaming.
QuoteI feel that the strength of RPGs lies in their inherently freeform nature and ability to tell collaborative stories.
Hmm. Well that's one strength, though I think the structures can make those stories more interesting, by providing some logical cause & effect systems to work with, which to me makes games more than just coming up with stories. Dealing with situations in a game with solid rules can be more like working with the situation, while dealing with the situation in a collaborative storytelling situation (or in an RPG with weak rules and/or an overly-controlling GM) can be much more like talking the other players into going along with the story you want to tell.
QuoteWhile video games may accomplish virtually every situation that could occur in a tabletop game with a superior interface and reaction time, every video game is ultimately a static, lifeless construct limited by what code the developers wrote for it.
I don't think of the contrast as necessarily being like that. I'm often annoyed by game interfaces, and some things in tabletop RPGs can be faster than in computer games. Also, there are computer games with dynamic worlds, which are the ones I tend to be more interested in.
QuoteSo why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such? Do people write apps specifically to speed up combat? Is there some other solution to portraying interesting combat encounters?
Well who do you mean, doing what?
What I do is use my many years of experience with tactical games to create and run combats that I will find interesting to play out. I've internalized the rules I use so that I can do detailed resolution very quickly. I generally roll 6-8 color-coded dice at once, read them at a glance, and can take into account the skills of the attacker & defender, their equipment and armor, the hit location and methods of attack and defence, the fighters' relative positions and conditions, etc and know the result of an attack very quickly, and describe it to the players in English natural language. I also adjust the map counters appropriately (e.g. the target is knocked back, falls down in these hexes facing that way, and his weapon falls in this other hex). Because the rules take all these things and more into account in ways that make sense, the situation is vivid and meaningful and the players can interact with it in ways that make sense, and that is interesting to us. So we tend to enjoy it all and relish that we have 100 more such actions to have fun with ahead of us, because that's the main reason we're there, just as the main reason I go to an action movie is to see the action and relish the blow-by-blow, which hopefully makes some sense and also involves people choosing what to do to win in ways that make sense (hopefully it's not just a dumb movie where the hero wins because he is the hero and the situation obviously doesn't even have much effect on the outcome). I think that tabletop games (the ones I like) are very well suited to what I like about this, which is a detailed study of cause & effect, choice and risk in combat situations. One can try to write apps, and I do design & program computer games, but there's actually some advantage in using humans.
If you're interested, I would suggest starting the way I did, with The Fantasy Trip. It's a simple system that nonetheless takes many tactical things into account, and makes combat challenging and tense and make sense. Currently I use GURPS with all the rules and house rules, but GURPS has a much higher learning curve. However, there are many players who never even use a map. Many of them probably have completely different perspectives on nearly everything.
Quote from: Omega;909855But you can move and attack in other editions of D&D too? :confused:
Technically yes, but again, to a lot of people if it's not explicitly stated they will assume that you cannot. Also, in 3rd, if you attacked, that ended your turn, unless you had effects that said otherwise. 4e kept that to certain degree, but gave powers that changed that depending on class. 5e explicitly states you can move -as long as you still have movement left- anytime.
Quote from: Luca;909887A brilliant deconstruction (and reconstruction) of the Mahou Shoujo genre in which not even a single frame is unneeded or out of place.
That's like saying "a brilliant deconstruction of the Hasbro toy tie-in cartoons of the mid-1980's genre".
Quote from: Christopher Brady;909899Technically yes, but again, to a lot of people if it's not explicitly stated they will assume that you cannot.
Who are these extremely stupid, clueless, or gullible "lots of" people?
QuoteAlso, in 3rd, if you attacked, that ended your turn, unless you had effects that said otherwise. 4e kept that to certain degree, but gave powers that changed that depending on class. 5e explicitly states you can move -as long as you still have movement left- anytime.
Attacking does not end your turn in 3rd edition. It simply takes up a portion of your available action for your initiative count. If you make a standard attack, you can also make a move action either before or after the attack. If you make a full attack action, you can still take a 5' step, either before or after the full attack. You can also take free or swift actions at any time during your actions. I think what you mean is that attacking ends your movement (barring some additional affect, such as spring attack or shot-on-the-run feats).
Quote from: daniel_ream;909902That's like saying "a brilliant deconstruction of the Hasbro toy tie-in cartoons of the mid-1980's genre".
Guys, do we really need to include an "is anime any good?" debate in the middle of this thread?
Quote from: daniel_ream;909902That's like saying "a brilliant deconstruction of the Hasbro toy tie-in cartoons of the mid-1980's genre".
I don't think it's a deconstruction at all. A deconstruction would be something like the Sailor Scouts suffering failing grades because they can't juggle both their mundane and superhero lives or otherwise dealing with the logistical problems that would realistically plague costumed vigilantes. How do magical girls deal with witnesses? Wouldn't the military be concerned about the monster attacks?
Madoka is pretty much a standard mahou shoujo with some grim darkness bolted on. It's existential horror and not self-aware at all.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;909909Guys, do we really need to include an "is anime any good?" debate in the middle of this thread?
Don't move the goalposts. There's plenty of good anime out there. I'm speaking specifically of the mahou shoujo genre, which has been described (by an Asian Studies professor, no less) as a twenty-five minute advertisement for toy merchandise.
Rather like Hasbro/Sunbow's offerings. Or Larry Ditillio and J. Michael Stracynzki's
Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. One can note that Larry and JMS did the best they could with what they were given to work with while still acknowledging that these shows are forgettable and glorified toy commercials.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;909899Technically yes, but again, to a lot of people if it's not explicitly stated they will assume that you cannot. Also, in 3rd, if you attacked, that ended your turn, unless you had effects that said otherwise. 4e kept that to certain degree, but gave powers that changed that depending on class. 5e explicitly states you can move -as long as you still have movement left- anytime.
But it is stated in BX and AD&D? Dont know about O or 2e as dont have handy but I'll assume they have simmilar corresponding rules.
BX is movement per round is 1/3 normal. Sequence was move then attack. Casters cant move while casting. Once in melee a combatant could only do a fighting withdrawal or retreat move action. AD&D has something simmilar though more elabourate.
Quote from: daniel_ream;909915Rather like Hasbro/Sunbow's offerings. Or Larry Ditillio and J. Michael Stracynzki's Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. One can note that Larry and JMS did the best they could with what they were given to work with while still acknowledging that these shows are forgettable and glorified toy commercials.
Actually, Captain Power, and to a lesser degree Saber Rider, were not toy commercials. They were early attempts to create interactive TV shows. They just got caught up in the "toy commercial" witch hunts. Eventually publishers went the opposite direction with the VCR board games. Even TSR experimented with those in a way.
Back on topic.
One interesting, or appalling thing showed up while I was looking at the time frame between AD&D and 5e and realized that in a way damage and HP in 5e have gotten vastly weaker. Theres more of them in 5e. But the same 3 minutes of combat in 5e means the PC has enough HP to survive 30 rounds. Course its rare to see a 5e combat last 10 rounds even so far with either group Im in.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797So why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such? Do people write apps specifically to speed up combat? Is there some other solution to portraying interesting combat encounters?
I role-play it out, just like how actors do their actions in movies. Real-time stuff. Not turn-based strategy stuff.
Quote from: Omega;909921Actually, Captain Power, and to a lesser degree Saber Rider, were not toy commercials. They were early attempts to create interactive TV shows.
Um, no. The only reason the show existed was to provide support for the toy line. I know Larry DiTillio doesn't like the characterization of the show that way because he wasn't doing hack work (according to him) but that was the only reason for its existence and the reason it was cancelled. By its producer. Mattel. The toy company.
Quote from: daniel_ream;909932Um, no. The only reason the show existed was to provide support for the toy line. I know Larry DiTillio doesn't like the characterization of the show that way because he wasn't doing hack work (according to him) but that was the only reason for its existence and the reason it was cancelled. By its producer. Mattel. The toy company.
I would argue that for He-Man it was quite different. The early renditions of the toys and their 'backstory' was quite different with the show we got. He-Man was supposed to be a simple barbarian king for example. I don't think we ever got a King Randor and Queen Marlena. I could be wrong, but I had an old He-Man fig back in the day, and I remember wondering why the toy's story and cartoon's didn't match up.
The 80's cartoons was driven by toy sales, but that changed in the 90's, when Disney realized that with all the latch-key kids and the late afternoon time slot which allowed them to pretty much get the kid's attentions and expanded on the types of stories they could tell.
And yes, a lot of shows are built on marketing in Japan, but of late, outside of Gundam and some other mecha-shows, they've mostly been adapting manga for single season runs. The merchandising comes after, depending on the popularity. And some of the merchandising isn't actually 'official'.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;909947And yes, a lot of shows are built on marketing in Japan, but of late, outside of Gundam and some other mecha-shows, they've mostly been adapting manga for single season runs. The merchandising comes after, depending on the popularity. And some of the merchandising isn't actually 'official'.
Off topic.
But to add to this. Quite a bit of animation in Japan is essentially Book and Comic commercials. The other large percentage are adaptions of existing books and manga. Then you have the oddballs where the artist of the comic is spearheading the animated series or movie.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797From my limited understanding, to replicate the choreography of a typical action movie (much less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time) would require hundreds of turns in a combat encounter scene. This would, obviously, not be fun to play unless it was mostly described rather than played.
I feel that the strength of RPGs lies in their inherently freeform nature and ability to tell collaborative stories. While video games may accomplish virtually every situation that could occur in a tabletop game with a superior interface and reaction time, every video game is ultimately a static, lifeless construct limited by what code the developers wrote for it.
So why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such? Do people write apps specifically to speed up combat? Is there some other solution to portraying interesting combat encounters?
I have always preferred combat systems which attempt to mechanically simulate blow by blow, attack/defense type play. That is probably one of the reasons why I stuck with Palladium for so long. The pre-2000s version of combat with it's phased actions had just that swing by swing mechanical grit to it.
Of course, the problem with mechanically replicating everything is that you're mechanically replicating everything. There are certain things you're not supposed to imagine happening anymore because they're not in the simulation.
I'm still in love with the action scenes in Final Fantasy: Advent Children. The fight in the tunnel jumping between the motorbikes particularly enamors me. Yet, with the kind of mechanically explicit combat systems I prefer, that sort of combat simply isn't going to happen in a game.
One solution is to use a more abstract combat system. Instead of mechanically replicating each action in combat, summarize effects in some way. That can certainly work if everyone is on the same page.
The problem I've found is that such abstract combat systems aren't very fun to play. They're not mechanically engaging. On top of that, they only work when everyone is firing on all cylinders and is both into the combat at hand and actively involved in description. Sooner or later, someone will not be interested in the combat or someone just won't have the descriptive flair at their disposal. At that point it becomes, "I swing at the orc and do 6 points of damage." To be fair, any combat system can become boring, but, to me, abstract systems (and their frequent attrition mechanics) become dull so much more quickly.
I love games based on mecha anime. When I think of what kind of combat I want to emulate, I think of scenes from Macross Plus, or the finale of Macross Frontier: The Wings of Goodbye. I picture the dogfights in the last episodes of Str.A.In. I recall the final slugfest between Char Aznable and Amuro Ray in Char's Counterattack. And every once in a while, it's just Scott Bernard and his Alpha fighter against some Invid.
That's what I shoot for. I try to use a system which supports my preferences, because if my preferences are being met, then I'll be that much more engaged. I run Mekton without a hexgrid (all editions of Mekton assume miniatures based combat), because, for me, it's a bit easier to encourage cinematic action without a hexgrid and/or miniatures. I try to encourage descriptive fighting rather than just saying, "I roll to dodge." A lot of the time it works. I get the cinematic experience I'm after. I've run some fights which would rival Max and Mirya's dogfight in Do You Remember Love. I've run some that I'd easily put up there as the equal of Athrun's and Kira's rage fueled battle at the midpoint of Gundam Seed, if only we could have filmed them.
Other times, it doesn't work that way. Sometimes we get lazy. Sometimes it's just, "I roll a 21 to hit. The enemy rolled a 17 to dodge. Four rounds hit, starting at location 2 and moving down the chart." Sometimes even that is fine. Sometimes a little mathterbation does the trick. But it's not a sure thing and even that might make things limp.
All this is a long winded way of saying that it's all based on the effort you and others put into it.
Quote from: daniel_ream;909915Don't move the goalposts. There's plenty of good anime out there. I'm speaking specifically of the mahou shoujo genre, which has been described (by an Asian Studies professor, no less) as a twenty-five minute advertisement for toy merchandise.
Rather like Hasbro/Sunbow's offerings. Or Larry Ditillio and J. Michael Stracynzki's Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. One can note that Larry and JMS did the best they could with what they were given to work with while still acknowledging that these shows are forgettable and glorified toy commercials.
That would seem to make the genre ripe for deconstruction.
It's also not really accurate: Yes, a fair number of "magical girl" anime are produced by toy companies. But there's also a significant number that are not, including (AFAICT) the series actually being discussed.
Madoka is actually an award-winning animation series. What you said isn't really akin to "Transformers and G.I. Joe are 25 minute advertisements for toys" it was "all animated series with robots or soldiers are toy commercials" (which is self-evidently not true).
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797From my limited understanding, to replicate the choreography of a typical action movie (much less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time) would require hundreds of turns in a combat encounter scene. This would, obviously, not be fun to play unless it was mostly described rather than played
For those unfamiliar with the series, it features action scenes in which the main characters fire hundreds or thousands of bullets at each other while super-jumping around complex, multi-level environments (usually destroying them in the process) and then intermittently whipping out magic spells.
Here's an example. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4clXg9n-U)
Based on context, I would assume BoxCrayonTales is working from the assumption that all RPG combat systems use a "one attack roll per bullet" method of combat resolution. The response is:
1. They don't.
2. If you want action scenes like this, use a system that doesn't.
You could actually get a fair distance towards
Madoka just using a D&D 4E chassis and defining the various "hail of bullet" attacks and spells as different special abilities. To actually get all the way there, you'd want a system with a simultaneous movement mechanic and maybe even mechanics for environmental destruction. (As a random thought, I might even try a rock-paper-scissors system of strategic simultaneous movement that could dynamically combine to mimic the wide-ranging "combat dancing" seen in the anime. But you could also handle most of that through pure description.)
Quote from: daniel_ream;909915Don't move the goalposts.
I didn't realize that was what I was doing, nor was I targeting you specifically so much as just grabbing one of the comments on the OP's example (of which I know nothing).
Quote from: Gabriel2;909975Of course, the problem with mechanically replicating everything is that you're mechanically replicating everything. There are certain things you're not supposed to imagine happening anymore because they're not in the simulation.
All this is a long winded way of saying that it's all based on the effort you and others put into it.
Good points, to be sure.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;909989The response is:
1. They don't.
2. If you want action scenes like this, use a system that doesn't.
You could actually get a fair distance towards Madoka just using a D&D 4E chassis and defining the various "hail of bullet" attacks and spells as different special abilities. To actually get all the way there, you'd want a system with a simultaneous movement mechanic and maybe even mechanics for environmental destruction. (As a random thought, I might even try a rock-paper-scissors system of strategic simultaneous movement that could dynamically combine to mimic the wide-ranging "combat dancing" seen in the anime. But you could also handle most of that through pure description.)
This. There are so may ways to achieve this, it ultimately is going to boil down to exactly what one is looking for. If you can't find one that exactly meets what you are looking for, take the closest one and modify it (I've done that a bunch of times when I wanted to do something specific).
Quote from: Justin Alexander;909989For those unfamiliar with the series, it features action scenes in which the main characters fire hundreds or thousands of bullets at each other while super-jumping around complex, multi-level environments (usually destroying them in the process) and then intermittently whipping out magic spells.
Based on context, I would assume BoxCrayonTales is working from the assumption that all RPG combat systems use a "one attack roll per bullet" method of combat resolution. The response is:
1. They don't.
2. If you want action scenes like this, use a system that doesn't.
You could actually get a fair distance towards Madoka just using a D&D 4E chassis and defining the various "hail of bullet" attacks and spells as different special abilities. To actually get all the way there, you'd want a system with a simultaneous movement mechanic and maybe even mechanics for environmental destruction. (As a random thought, I might even try a rock-paper-scissors system of strategic simultaneous movement that could dynamically combine to mimic the wide-ranging "combat dancing" seen in the anime. But you could also handle most of that through pure description.)
1: Right. The thing to realize though is that all those guns arent really guns. They are the equivalent of spells. And each big set battle seems to take place in the equivalent of a pocket dimension/astral plane/veil as it were.
2: Exactly. If you assume that say D&Ds combat is "just one attack" or that Madoka's attacks are hundreds of attacks then you are approaching it wrong.
3: In say AD&D treat each "gun sequence" as a psionic power activated. Thats effectively what they are. And all the combat happening in the Etherial or astral plane at the speed of segments. 6 seconds and enough psi points to hold out 30 segments for example. Same with 5e. Except youd treat them as cantrips and the combatants need enough HP to hold out 30 rounds. Treat it as astral/outdoors movement and here too they can cover alot of ground in that time span.
The main kick is the combatants need enough X, and are dealing enough X, to last that long.
Personally after thinking on it I rather like the AD&D astral/etherial psi battle option.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;909989Based on context, I would assume BoxCrayonTales is working from the assumption that all RPG combat systems use a "one attack roll per bullet" method of combat resolution.
Probably, but then his question is "why can't I do X if I use a system not built to do it", and the answer is contained within the question:).
(Not to mention that such systems aren't even particularly realistic when it comes to skilled opponents, which might well go for suppression fire and other tactics that require more shooting).
Also, this thing looks a lot like any Feng Shui 2 fight with guns;).
Quote from: Omega;909855But you can move and attack in other editions of D&D too? :confused:
True, never had a problem with that in AD&D. 3e and Pathfinder on the other hand, well you need a fancy widget to try to do that, along with about 2 dozen other things that we originally took for granted. 4e and 5e did a better job of bringing that back IMO.
Quote from: S'mon;909856Well, also my group are level 28.
That still seems excessive. Our group reached 21st level in one campaign and I'm pretty sure most combats took less than an hour, about par for us in modern-styled games (WotC-Era D&D). To each their own
Quote from: daniel_ream;909798I reject your premise. Marvel Heroic Roleplaying and Daniel Bayn's Wu Shu both do a fine job of managing action movie style set piece battles. Games designed consciously or otherwise as tabletop wargames are going to be less good at this, yes.
I can vouch for Marvel Heroic which works great even as play by post. I usually hack it to be a bit crunchier (for instance, I like stuff and I perceive Signature Assets and Power Sets as being the same thing) and would totally recommend it except for the whole MWP doesn't support their products thing.
We all know what happened to MHR. I have no idea why they've killed their online support for everything else, although "the average person thinks computers are magical wizard boxes and is befuddled by them" is a safe bet. TDM runs their forum on a free forum service and they get ten times the traffic MWP's forum ever did. {shrugs} Someday I'll fire up neocortex.online.
Quote from: daniel_ream;910279We all know what happened to MHR. I have no idea why they've killed their online support for everything else...
I actually had their announcment of their Kickstarter in mind for generic Heroic and Action. The one that was coming "Spring" though in all fairness they didn't specify which year. I'm still tempted to finish that hack I wrote out for Jadepunk though at this point it would feel like I'm writing a retro clone. :D
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797So why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such? Do people write apps specifically to speed up combat? Is there some other solution to portraying interesting combat encounters?
Yes, there is another solution: accepting that different gamers have different tastes and different prejudices. In particular, they may well feel that tabletop games replicate the combat styles they prefer tolerably well, and that combat encounters are interesting to them, however much they might suffer in comparison to this anime series or that.
Hmm that scene is also 8 minutes long and starts with Girl #1 talking to her teddy bear thing about all the people whose hearts she's broken in the past. I'll watch the rest later. I wonder (not enough to watch the film) if it ends with her waking up and/or shifting parallel universes and finding herself in high school? There must be a Japanese RPG for that, or 12, no?
Talking about machineguns as an ineffectual prelude to a magic duel, reminds me of another animated series: 1980's G.I. Joe, where million of laser (?) bolts are fired by both sides seemingly as a ritualistic prelude to fist fighting, where the possible outcomes are "good guy is captured" or "bad guys are defeated". Or there is the alternate vehicular mode, where missiles and lasers fire at aircraft or vehicles, and the vehicles explode but then parachutes convey the (100%) survivors into a fist fight, with the same outcome. It also reminds me of the 1980's TV series The A Team, where again many guns are fired but only vehicles are harmed, leading to fist fights. I dunno what the big deal about gun violence is - it only does property damage - must be the insurance lobby.
More seriously, the gun combat in those genres seems to be chosen because it seems appropriate and the exploding vehicles and buildings look cool and dramatic, but it's like their violence and danger looks overwhelming but can be transcended by being a genre hero, leading to the real conflict, which is also generally something more or less based on faith & character, and/or narrative ideas, with a theme that at least in these stories, those things cause usual cause & effect to be irrelevant.
Meanwhile, I tend to be interested in what the situations would actually be like with realistic cause & effect, and how the action would play out in those cases. Of course, often realism would tend not to have those situations occur in the first place, but still.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;909989Here's an example. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f4clXg9n-U)
:rolleyes: That's 8 minutes and 10 seconds of my life I won't be able to get back.
Quote from: Skarg;910678Hmm that scene is also 8 minutes long and starts with Girl #1 talking to her teddy bear thing about all the people whose hearts she's broken in the past.
Quote from: Bren;910681:rolleyes: That's 8 minutes and 10 seconds of my life I won't be able to get back.
The actual combat lasts about 3 minutes then resolves into a standoff, talking and a series of tricks.
From what I've seen so far alot of the combats are like that, if not even more over the top in a few cases. Looks pretty. And essentially pointless at some point. Which may be the point. The background plot actually makes me think of TORG and the whole scheme to drain people of their probabilities by making them use their awakened powers.
Personally I tend to find these deconstruction series to be too bleak for my liking.
But the point still stands that it can be re-created in an RPG with a little, or a-lot of tweaking and/or interpreting whats going on.
What takes the time is the amount of MEANINGFUL decissions you want to be able to make during the fight (and making it a game in my book).
And these meaningful decissions are what is allowing "constitutionally ordered" contribution to the game, which is quite a boon for many people.
Most other areas in roleplaying games are much less elaborated and thus create operational uncertainty, which is often leading to restraint use, because people are unsure what rhey are catually doing there and how ot will influence the game.
Collaborative story telling on the other hand is something decidedly different I think.
What I have experienced was either you had rules to manage authoring rights - which made it rather like a game of tug instead of "collaborative" - or it was one person trying to enforce his version of "better story" and the others either going along (and thus one person deciding what will happen - i.e. "telling" and the rest going along) or meeting restance and following endless discussions, because there were no rules to manage this fomally.
So you cant have your cake and keep it too.
In the extremes: either throw a dice and the winner can tell whatever fancy he wants to have happen quickly or you throw a dice everytime you want to focus on a detail and introduce an uncertain action attempt amd you have to take your time.
Quote from: Omega;910725The actual combat lasts about 3 minutes then resolves into a standoff, talking and a series of tricks.
From what I've seen so far alot of the combats are like that, if not even more over the top in a few cases.
I'd like to point out that the movie from which the scene is taken (the third one) is an unholy abomination which has nothing whatsoever to do with the poetics of the original series. The combat scenes in the series were different from those shown in the movie... just like everything else. For one, in the series every combat had a specific narrative purpose instead of "hey look at how pretty we can draw stuff when they give us a big budget".
Savage Worlds is scratching my itch for "cinematic" action. I heard Feng Shui does a good job too.
Quote from: Bren;910681:rolleyes: That's 8 minutes and 10 seconds of my life I won't be able to get back.
I also think we all just got put on an FBI watchlist, and not the terrorist kind. :p
Quote from: Bren;910681:rolleyes: That's 8 minutes and 10 seconds of my life I won't be able to get back.
Yikes what in the fuck was that?!
I'll stick to Miyazaki and Kurosawa*. YUCK.
*(not just namedropping, the Wind Rises and Ran are excellent art pieces)
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909883Great answers, one and all.
Did I mention I hate anime because it's generally aimed at perverts and pedophiles? Watch the battle highlights on YouTube.
LIKE SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: Luca;909887Madoka (the series, not the movies, although the first two are basically just the series' replica) is an absolute masterpiece. A brilliant deconstruction (and reconstruction) of the Mahou Shoujo genre in which not even a single frame is unneeded or out of place.
A lot of anime is trash, but targeting Madoka is... peculiar, to say the least.
Damn straight its defiantly a deconstruction but its a deconstruction the way evangelion was.
If you arnt familiar with the genre you wont really under stand why.
Quote from: Skarg;909898snip huge post snip
Take a look at this its from the tv show the movies are not the same thing as the tv show.
[video=youtube;FfZDCnzEP58]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfZDCnzEP58[/youtube]
Quote from: daniel_ream;909915Don't move the goalposts. There's plenty of good anime out there. I'm speaking specifically of the mahou shoujo genre, which has been described (by an Asian Studies professor, no less) as a twenty-five minute advertisement for toy merchandise.
Rather like Hasbro/Sunbow's offerings. Or Larry Ditillio and J. Michael Stracynzki's Captain Power and the Soldiers of the Future. One can note that Larry and JMS did the best they could with what they were given to work with while still acknowledging that these shows are forgettable and glorified toy commercials.
Depends heavily on the show in question this one not really.
Quote from: Gabriel2;909975I have always preferred combat systems which attempt to mechanically simulate blow by blow, attack/defense type play. That is probably one of the reasons why I stuck with Palladium for so long. The pre-2000s version of combat with it's phased actions had just that swing by swing mechanical grit to it.
Of course, the problem with mechanically replicating everything is that you're mechanically replicating everything. There are certain things you're not supposed to imagine happening anymore because they're not in the simulation.
I'm still in love with the action scenes in Final Fantasy: Advent Children. The fight in the tunnel jumping between the motorbikes particularly enamors me. Yet, with the kind of mechanically explicit combat systems I prefer, that sort of combat simply isn't going to happen in a game.
One solution is to use a more abstract combat system. Instead of mechanically replicating each action in combat, summarize effects in some way. That can certainly work if everyone is on the same page.
The problem I've found is that such abstract combat systems aren't very fun to play. They're not mechanically engaging. On top of that, they only work when everyone is firing on all cylinders and is both into the combat at hand and actively involved in description. Sooner or later, someone will not be interested in the combat or someone just won't have the descriptive flair at their disposal. At that point it becomes, "I swing at the orc and do 6 points of damage." To be fair, any combat system can become boring, but, to me, abstract systems (and their frequent attrition mechanics) become dull so much more quickly.
I love games based on mecha anime. When I think of what kind of combat I want to emulate, I think of scenes from Macross Plus, or the finale of Macross Frontier: The Wings of Goodbye. I picture the dogfights in the last episodes of Str.A.In. I recall the final slugfest between Char Aznable and Amuro Ray in Char's Counterattack. And every once in a while, it's just Scott Bernard and his Alpha fighter against some Invid.
That's what I shoot for. I try to use a system which supports my preferences, because if my preferences are being met, then I'll be that much more engaged. I run Mekton without a hexgrid (all editions of Mekton assume miniatures based combat), because, for me, it's a bit easier to encourage cinematic action without a hexgrid and/or miniatures. I try to encourage descriptive fighting rather than just saying, "I roll to dodge." A lot of the time it works. I get the cinematic experience I'm after. I've run some fights which would rival Max and Mirya's dogfight in Do You Remember Love. I've run some that I'd easily put up there as the equal of Athrun's and Kira's rage fueled battle at the midpoint of Gundam Seed, if only we could have filmed them.
Other times, it doesn't work that way. Sometimes we get lazy. Sometimes it's just, "I roll a 21 to hit. The enemy rolled a 17 to dodge. Four rounds hit, starting at location 2 and moving down the chart." Sometimes even that is fine. Sometimes a little mathterbation does the trick. But it's not a sure thing and even that might make things limp.
All this is a long winded way of saying that it's all based on the effort you and others put into it.
For me its the original macross,tears to tiara, and revolutionary girl utena,
In terms of big spectactular fighting moves/moments of awesome, I think you can do that pretty easily with an RPG.
I went with "martial exploits" and "rescue exploits" for Low Fantasy Gaming, for example (free PDF in my sig). I purposefully had "big action scene move" in mind when I wrote those mechanics.
Even when reading a novel, the fighting scenes bore me to death. It's still the dialogues, drama and world building that keep me interested.
I know Riddle of Steel/Game of Iron Throne is handling combat in more interesting way. Not as a wargame from the God-s view, but focusing key moments in general fight.
When I GM, I let the players describe the results of their actions. So, let's say that a character successfully hits another one with an axe. I tell the player "You hit and did a moderate amount of damage. Describe it." Some of them like to get pretty detailed about the visuals. If we're playing Savage Worlds, that gives me a chance to give bennies. That way they feel like their character is making the combat moves they are visualizing and lets them have the spotlight for a moment.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;909909Guys, do we really need to include an "is anime any good?" debate in the middle of this thread?
Yes. It is the way of the Geek.
Quote from: Diffan;910197That still seems excessive. Our group reached 21st level in one campaign and I'm pretty sure most combats took less than an hour, about par for us in modern-styled games (WotC-Era D&D). To each their own
Combat time is a mysterious variable. I've played supposedly fast systems with experienced players where fights took hours but then our Champions fights, a system reputed for glacial combat, rarely took more than a half hour or hour for massive set piece fights. If everyone is enjoying it I don't sweat the length anymore. It takes how long it takes.
Quote from: Nexus;911759Combat time is a mysterious variable. I've played supposedly fast systems with experienced players where fights took hours but then our Champions fights, a system reputed for glacial combat, rarely took more than a half hour or hour for massive set piece fights. If everyone is enjoying it I don't sweat the length anymore. It takes how long it takes.
I also never trust anyone's estimate of how long combats typically take them to resolve unless they are literally timing them and collating the data. Informal testing indicates that people playing at the same table end up with radically different estimates of the same combats, and these rarely correspond to the actual length.
(I've been recording all my RPG sessions since 2011. And I've had cause, from time to time, to run analysis on this type of data.)
I always look at the watch after each fight. It helps me to know how long fights in a new system last, how long until the presumed end of the session, and whether I've devoted to combat too much time this session, meaning some of my players are going to become restless.
So yeah, I'm literally timing the combats, and have been for close to 10 years now.
Seems to me the more important value is how much do you enjoy the time spent in combat. If combat is fun and enjoyable, then time spent in combat isn't a bad thing. The time I want to reduce is the time spent with PCs repeating inter-player squabbles that aren't leading anywhere, and excessive time spent discussing what to do with elaborate plans and disagreements.
Quote from: Skarg;912115The time I want to reduce is the time spent with PCs repeating inter-player squabbles that aren't leading anywhere, and excessive time spent discussing what to do with elaborate plans and disagreements.
I fixed this by making my players play Smallville. ;)
Depends on the type of action movie, I'd think. Certainly this is pretty rare in most versions of D&D, where often doing anything other than "I do a melee attack" can be suboptimal as a choice. But even there, in DCC a mid-level warrior is totally an action-movie badass.
Quote from: RPGPundit;912618Depends on the type of action movie, I'd think. Certainly this is pretty rare in most versions of D&D, where often doing anything other than "I do a melee attack" can be suboptimal as a choice.
Not really.
Positioning and movement play a factor in D&D combat. Even back to BX there were the equivalent of opportunity attacks, fighting retreats and such. And tactics goes a long way too. Find cover, bottleneck crowds to restricted avenues, and so on. These also show in movie combat fairly often if the director actually knows how to stage a good fight rather than everyone runs at eachother swinging like the most base of base players.
Quote from: RPGPundit;912618Depends on the type of action movie, I'd think. Certainly this is pretty rare in most versions of D&D, where often doing anything other than "I do a melee attack" can be suboptimal as a choice. But even there, in DCC a mid-level warrior is totally an action-movie badass.
Agreed with all of this, except that even a 1st level Warrior with suboptimal stats is an action movie hero, IME.
Quote from: AsenRG;912634Agreed with all of this, except that even a 1st level Warrior with suboptimal stats is an action movie hero, IME.
If by action hero you mean "Dies like animals." :D
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;909797From my limited understanding, to replicate the choreography of a typical action movie (much less anything like the Puella Magi Madoka Magica movies which have the best action sequences of all time) would require hundreds of turns in a combat encounter scene. This would, obviously, not be fun to play unless it was mostly described rather than played.
I feel that the strength of RPGs lies in their inherently freeform nature and ability to tell collaborative stories. While video games may accomplish virtually every situation that could occur in a tabletop game with a superior interface and reaction time, every video game is ultimately a static, lifeless construct limited by what code the developers wrote for it.
So why do people insist on replicating combat, cinematic or gritty, when tabletop games are clearly not suited to such? Do people write apps specifically to speed up combat? Is there some other solution to portraying interesting combat encounters?
TO answer your last question first, yes if when you think of RPGs you are just thinking of the d20, roll each hit detail every modifier type of mechanic. A mechanic I've been playing with for a while (I believe it is called a dice pool) is you roll several D6, each 6 is a success, each 1 a failure. You get modifier (plusses) you can use to raise dice. This system allows yo uto keep it all very abstract as you are not stacking modifiers to reach a high target number. Rather you count success and apply them as you wish. Here is an example for cinematic action.
I'm a badass and I get to roll say eight D6, with modifies I get 5 successes (SC). I use 1 SC to block the blow from mook bad guy #1, I use 2 SC to jump up and swing across the room on the chandelier, I want to save a SC for an attack at the end of my jump so I convince my GM to let me risk my landing by making a Dexterity roll to not fall down, if I don't I get can apply that 1 left over SC. Think of the success as a pool of shit you can do and instead of having to have a rule framework that lists out strike-parry-leap etc. you apply the successes as makes sense in the action. All you need to have is a rough table of how hard (i.e. how many successes) certain things take.
The example I described is two rolls, a bunch of D6 for the first roll, and another for the Dexterity roll, and you could even drop that. But that first roll lets you do up to 5 success worth of things.
One caveat, get rid of the exploding dice concept, that is the concept where if you roll say a 6 you get to an extra roll. The exploding dice concept does greatly complicate the mechanics for a benefit that can be acquired other ways IMHO.
THe games that use such mechanics are new to me (Atomic Highway showed me the way ;) ) but I'm sure they are not new and others can provide the names of those games.
Quote from: RPGPundit;912618Depends on the type of action movie, I'd think. Certainly this is pretty rare in most versions of D&D, where often doing anything other than "I do a melee attack" can be suboptimal as a choice. But even there, in DCC a mid-level warrior is totally an action-movie badass.
I'd have to disagree. Doing a melee attack is the most sub-optimal choice in D&D, at least the old games we played. ;) Straight up fighting the monsters fair and square? No way. We were all about ambush, trip wires, scouting, oil flasks, trickery, bribery (especially food and wine) anything and everything to surprise or avoid the fight. Our most powerful weapon was the trip-wire, followed by the caltrop. Of course YMMV :)
Quote from: Xanther;913298THe games that use such mechanics are new to me (Atomic Highway showed me the way ;) ) but I'm sure they are not new and others can provide the names of those games.
The first die pool game I played was WEG's D6 system which added up the pips in the dice pool. Ghostbusters (1986), the first D6 game, was said to be the first dice pool game. I think the first game I saw that used counting successes instead of addition was WEG's Hercules & Xena Roleplaying Game (1999).
Quote from: Bren;913306I think the first game I saw that used counting successes instead of addition was WEG's Hercules & Xena Roleplaying Game (1999).
May have been the first game you saw, but White Wolf was doing it in 1990.
Quote from: daniel_ream;913312May have been the first game you saw, but White Wolf was doing it in 1990.
And Shadowrun was doing it in 1989.
Quote from: Gabriel2;913349And Shadowrun was doing it in 1989.
And technically Tunnels & Trolls was doing it in... yeesh? 75? Keep forgetting how old that game is. Its a very different sort of dice pooling though. ahem. :cool:
I'm coming in very late but I've always felt the flavor of combat was dependent on the description. Most game systems elude to the fact that a single "attack" is actually several seconds of heated exchange. How the players and gm describe this determines how it is percieved. Hollywood style combat? Sure, a simple hit and damage could be described as an incredible flurry of maneuvering, blocks and feint followed by a solid hit if you like.
Lumbering orc rolls and hits for 5 hp. The if rolls and hits for 5 hp. Monk rolls and hits for 5 hp. Three completely different cinematic attacks.
Exactly. One player or DM will be very elabourate on the action and the other might be very minimalist. Some just really do not understand how combat worked and was timed in older editions of D&D
What's "counting successes"?
Quote from: Skarg;913585What's "counting successes"?
Depends on the system. Some its essentially How many times to beat a target number vs how many times the opponent did.
Like I have 6 combat dice. d6s. I need a 5 or better to get a success. So maybee I allocate 4 dice to attack and reserve 2 for defense which I just need a 3 or better.
Or some games where the number of successes determines the strength of the result. The d26 system for the new Metamorphosis Alpha works like that. Like 1 success is a basic hit. 2 is a stronger hit, four is a hit and possible stun, and so on.
Quote from: Skarg;913585What's "counting successes"?
Its the Devil, stay away from it;)
Quote from: Skarg;913585What's "counting successes"?
Omega's answer was nicer.* I'd have said, arithmetic for the innumerate.
* Probably explained more too.
Oh, that. Kind of like the games that have you roll dice with symbols on them. Ya, ok, thanks for the explanation and warning.
Quote from: Skarg;913669Oh, that. Kind of like the games that have you roll dice with symbols on them. Ya, ok, thanks for the explanation and warning.
Yeah that's one example of games that count successes. Hercules & Xena did that.
Quote from: Skarg;913669Oh, that. Kind of like the games that have you roll dice with symbols on them. Ya, ok, thanks for the explanation and warning.
Right. I tend to think of games like that as "success" games and not at dice pool games since when I think of dice pools I think of a batch of dice you need to allocate to tasks in a round. Obviously others see pool to mean. "roll all dice and count successes."
From my MA review.
QuoteActions are performed by rolling the appropriate number of dice based on your talent levels, 0-5, and counting the successes. You need at least 1 success. More though can add more oomph to the action for better results. Successes are determined vs a target number. Easy tasks need a 3 or better, Average tasks need a 4 or better and Hard tasks need a 5 or better roll.
If you score more than 3 successes you gain an enhancement. These range from simple bonuses at 1 EH, such as +1d on your next action that is similar, up to 3EH and things like inflicting a permanent disabling condition on your opponent.
If all your rolls come up 1s then you Botch and something bad happens related to what you were doing.
Quote from: Omega;913747Right. I tend to think of games like that as "success" games and not at dice pool games since when I think of dice pools I think of a batch of dice you need to allocate to tasks in a round. Obviously others see pool to mean. "roll all dice and count successes."
But you don't really allocate the die, do you? Don't you allocate the success?
Quote from: Bren;913759But you don't really allocate the die, do you? Don't you allocate the success?
You dont allocate the successes. You count them. You allocate the dice for chances at a success.
Best example of a dice pool I can think of is a board game called Monsterpocalypse. You have a dice pool and each round you need to allocate dice to attack, defense, etc at the start of the round. Then you roll and hope to get enough successes to do what you wanted. Like do you want a better chance for your Ultraman-esque giant to throw Cthulhu into a building? Or do you want a better chance to dodge that Martian War Machines ray that its been lining up to zap you with?
Whereas in say MA I have 5 dice for attack. A success is on a 3 or better. I roll all 5 and count every success.
Theres other approaches too. Ironclaw and most White Wolf games for example have their own spins on it.
Dice pool literally just means "you roll more than one die at a time to determine success". Cortex+, L5R, D6, D6 Legend, White Wolf oW0D are all dice pool games.
Quote from: Omega;913775You dont allocate the successes. You count them. You allocate the dice for chances at a success.
Ah, gotcha. Some versions of WEG D6 do that too. As do some Martial Arts skills. I think Hercules+Xena did too, but can't really be arsed to walk downstairs, open up the box, and peruse the rules. I don't really see that as radically different, more along the lines of the difference between systems that require you to spend Hero Points* before you roll, vs. ones that allow you to spend Hero Points after you roll.
As far as White Wolf goes, I'm fairly ignorant. So I appreciate the correction.
* Or whatever you or the designer choose to call bennies in a system that has them.
Quote from: daniel_ream;913820Dice pool literally just means "you roll more than one die at a time to determine success". Cortex+, L5R, D6, D6 Legend, White Wolf oW0D are all dice pool games.
Yes that is one meaning. But to be honest, what Omega describes sounds a lot more like a pool than does simply rolling dice to get non-linear probabilties. GURPS, BoL, and Honor+Intrigue (and I guess 2D20) all roll "more than one die at a time to determine success" but I really wouldn't call them any of them a dice pool system since the number of D6s that one rolls is more or less fixed. A dice pool seems like it requires varying number of dice being rolled. And maybe some way of splitting the pool so that rolling multiple dice doesn't simply reduce to add more numbers or count more possible successes.
And the exact meaning of "dice pool" is not a hill I care to fight over, much less die on.
Quote from: daniel_ream;913820Dice pool literally just means "you roll more than one die at a time to determine success". Cortex+, L5R, D6, D6 Legend, White Wolf oW0D are all dice pool games.
The number of dice you roll must also be variable, which is usually based on a character's stats. (GURPS isn't a dice pool system just because you're rolling 3d6.)
Quote from: daniel_ream;913820Dice pool literally just means "you roll more than one die at a time to determine success". Cortex+, L5R, D6, D6 Legend, White Wolf oW0D are all dice pool games.
I'd also add that each die must be evaluated individually for it to be a "pool", at least as I understand the term. Rolling 5d6 isn't a "pool" because you add them all together to get a sum and a roll of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is no different from a roll of 3, 3, 3, 3, 3.
Quote from: nDervish;913958I'd also add that each die must be evaluated individually for it to be a "pool", at least as I understand the term. Rolling 5d6 isn't a "pool" because you add them all together to get a sum and a roll of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 is no different from a roll of 3, 3, 3, 3, 3.
That makes it sound more like a hand of cards that a set of dice.
Which all highlights my point that various publishers are using the term "dice pool" for sometimes very different meanings.
So in some games its "allocate dice to tasks and count successes" and in others its "roll all dice and count successes" MonPoc is the first sort, System 26 is the second sort.
Theres also I believe "allocate dice to tasks and add the results together" and "roll all dice and add them together" etc.
Quote from: Bren;913964That makes it sound more like a hand of cards that a set of dice.
I would also consider "poker dice" to not be a "pool" because building your hand ("pair of tens, king high") is still evaluating all of the dice together rather than each die individually.
And, yes, I recognize that "3 successes" can also be considered "evaluating all the dice together", but each die is evaluated in isolation to determine whether it's a success or not. Although the phrasing of the distinction is imperfect, what I'm trying to get to is something which doesn't consider every system in which more than one die is used to be a "pool".
Quote from: Omega;913969So in some games its "allocate dice to tasks and count successes" and in others its "roll all dice and count successes"
My primary exposure to dice pool systems has been Shadowrun 1/2ed, which is a bit of column A and a bit of column B. Your Firearms 5 skill gives you 5 dice every time you shoot, and then you have a Combat Pool of 6 additional dice which can be allocated to improve individual shots or held for defensive rolls. And then, however many dice you roll, you count successes.
Ubiquity is my system of choice at the moment. Clean dice pool system there. Roll modified dice total equal to ability, count evens as successes and apply. My second experience with the dice pool mechanic, Star Wars FFG being the first. I was hesitant but have come to really like it.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;913941The number of dice you roll must also be variable, which is usually based on a character's stats. (GURPS isn't a dice pool system just because you're rolling 3d6.)
Hmm. Sounds like it's more about the nature of the choice you have about the dice. For example, would you call the following system (TFT with house rules) a "dice pool" game?
* Usually roll 3d6 (add the numbers rolled to get a total) vs modified ability levels to succeed (roll equal or under to succeed).
* Hard or easy tasks may either require more or fewer dice be rolled (and/or have +/- ability modifiers).
* Some actions increase the dice enemies need to roll when trying to hit you.
* Some talents increase the dice enemies need to roll when trying to hit you.
* House rule: Characters with enough skill can opt to "fight defensively" to have to roll more dice to attack, but the person they're fighting also then has to roll the same number of dice to hit them.
So the number of dice is variable by choice of the players, and some figures have more control over that than others, but it's not about having a pile of dice to allocate, per se.
Quote from: Justin Alexander;913941The number of dice you roll must also be variable, which is usually based on a character's stats.
Ah, yes. I'd agree that's a necessary part of the definition.
I'm inclined to say that you also need a unified dice mechanic; Champions, for instance, isn't generally considered a "dice pool" game despite its damage mechanics.
Quote from: nDervish;913958I'd also add that each die must be evaluated individually for it to be a "pool", at least as I understand the term. Rolling 5d6 isn't a "pool" because you add them all together to get a sum
Except that's how Ghostbusters, Star Wars and the other D6 pre-Legend games work and they've always been described as "dice pool" games.
Quote from: daniel_ream;914075Ah, yes. I'd agree that's a necessary part of the definition.
That only lasts untill someone thinks they can make one more buck off of branding their game as using a "dice pool" when its not really. Or grew up so misinformed and are now making their own "dice pool" games.
"6e D&D! WOTCs latest in trendy Dice Pool game! Because it has lots of dice and like...like you ROLL them! So totally a dice pool game. Honest! Give us your money."
Back kinda on topic.
One complaint I have with 5e is that if you go with the default HP per level insteaf of rolling. You end up with far more HP than otherwise as the default is allways .5 over average. Using that system an 5e fighter without any CON bonuses will finish at level 20 with 134 HP.
Quote from: Omega;914224One complaint I have with 5e is that if you go with the default HP per level insteaf of rolling. You end up with far more HP than otherwise as the default is allways .5 over average. Using that system an 5e fighter without any CON bonuses will finish at level 20 with 134 HP.
Weird. I'd have set the default to .5 under the average so that on average, it would be more advantageous to roll than to take the default.
Hey if you want to roll you can, but we set things up so that usually its a disadvantage for you to take the extra risk. :confused:
Quote from: Bren;914226Weird. I'd have set the default to .5 under the average so that on average, it would be more advantageous to roll than to take the default.
Hey if you want to roll you can, but we set things up so that usually its a disadvantage for you to take the extra risk. :confused:
I noticed that when I read the SRD today. I wonder why they set it up that way too. I was out of the loop, as far as fora go, during the 4e period. Was there a lot of vocalizing from Players about between session housekeeping being too involved or something? I am trying to think of a reason they would simply set it up that way.
Quote from: Harlock;914227I noticed that when I read the SRD today. I wonder why they set it up that way too. I was out of the loop, as far as fora go, during the 4e period. Was there a lot of vocalizing from Players about between session housekeeping being too involved or something? I am trying to think of a reason they would simply set it up that way.
Millenials?
Quote from: Bren;914229Millenials?
Oh, man. I really hope not. If that's the case I am going to go full grognard.
Quote from: Harlock;914227I noticed that when I read the SRD today. I wonder why they set it up that way too. I was out of the loop, as far as fora go, during the 4e period. Was there a lot of vocalizing from Players about between session housekeeping being too involved or something? I am trying to think of a reason they would simply set it up that way.
Its not so much that theres a standard default that the problem. Its that it is set above average.
Jannet, with her fighter at level 10 had 53 hp with a 15 CON. Going by the set HP system shed have had even without a CON bonus HP of 74 and
with CON bonus shed have 94.
Quote from: Omega;914239Jannet, with her fighter at level 10 had 53 hp with a 15 CON. Going by the set HP system shed have had even without a CON bonus HP of 74 and with CON bonus shed have 94.
The hit point inflation provides practice with 2-digit arithmetic. Maybe I will be able to find cashiers who can figure the correct change.
Trying to find a silver lining here.
Quote from: Bren;913306The first die pool game I played was WEG's D6 system which added up the pips in the dice pool. Ghostbusters (1986), the first D6 game, was said to be the first dice pool game. I think the first game I saw that used counting successes instead of addition was WEG's Hercules & Xena Roleplaying Game (1999).
Definitively not adding up the pips approach. Don't consider that mechanically different than Traveler or TFT except number of dice. Mechanically slow, and has the same problem of getting degree of success from a d20, it basically is a "beat the target number by" approach.
Quote from: Bren;913759But you don't really allocate the die, do you? Don't you allocate the success?
Yes in what I am thinking of to reply to the OP on how to get cinematic action easily out of a tabletop RPG.
Omega talks about another approach where you allocate dice.
Of course they are not mutually exclusive. You may have certain dice you can apply to anything, attack, defend, move, magic, personal grooming, etc. and others that have to be allocated.
In fact whether you have to allocate dice to a specific purpose or not can be a cinematic game mechanic. For example the lowly SHIELD agent, although he has a fair number of dice needs to allocate, the supervillian does not. It's purely a mechanic (and a very simple one) but in application it could simulate the genre convention well, how the supers seem to be able to just react and be more effective even though they are may not be much more powerful than normal humans.
Quote from: Bren;913964That makes it sound more like a hand of cards that a set of dice.
I like that analogy. As I like the resource management (the resource being your successes) aspect. I think that is entirely the point as well. Let me expand...
I think of actions, and game mechanics, in weapon modeling terms. There are two aspects, Accuracy and Effectiveness.
The d20, add 2D6, and basically all target number based approaches are Accuracy focused. That is the variability and level progression are based around the "to hit." Effectiveness, or degree of success, does not often vary or vary by much, and rarely as part of the power progression. Rather, you typically get extra attacks, so more "to hit" rolls. All well and good but to the OP this means more rolls and hard to not have a separate roll for each type of action as the chance of success or "to hit" varies under this modeling.
The count success approach I'm talking about is the opposite. It focuses on Effectiveness at the expense of Accuracy. Your effectiveness increases by getting more dice. You can add-on a system where you get a points to add to the die, maybe a leveling gift or skill, etc. but the core is the number of dice. Your "to hit" chance (Accuracy) is pretty static, say 1 in 6 if you need a 6 to hit. Or everyone "hits" everything on the same number it just matters how many "hits" you need to do something. Focusing on the Effectiveness, and abstracting more the Accuracy portion is better suited to a more free-form cinematic approach IMHO.
(Frankly I like these kinds of dice pools as they remind me of old wargame days, where a units power was measured in number of dice and almost everything took only one hit)
Quote from: Bren;914256The hit point inflation provides practice with 2-digit arithmetic. Maybe I will be able to find cashiers who can figure the correct change.
Trying to find a silver lining here.
heh! Thats actually why I delve into these calculations. I suck so utterly abysmally at math. And things like this are good practice. And is really illuminating to the mechanics behind the game. Some of which I obviously disagree with.
And for those who were wondering. Jans been rolling horribly for HP and I've been rolling absurdly well. Its usually the other way around.
I think the big thing for me if you want your combat to be detailed and crunchy is you have to introduce facing to the rules. There's no getting around it, in "cinematic" combat a big part of why the characters are always racing here and there is they're trying to get on their enemy's flank. This is especially true in combat in Samurai movies/anime which is why I like to turn to those for inspiration. I feel like the 3.5 ruleset is really already halfway there, to give it a "cinematic" feeling you just
A) need to give out bonus feats like they're candy so everybody has more than one set routine they can do in combat
B) use the combat facing rules from Unearthed Arcana so that tactical positioning actually becomes important and not just in the "flank w/ur m8 and gang-beat" way.
C) Don't punish players for trying to do cool stuff. You shouldn't need a feat to kick dust in someone's face, or flip your sword over and smash stuff with the pommel, or to choke up on your glaive, or to palm a knife out of your sleeve, or w/e.
D) Called Shots. Called shots are your friend! Why would you ever not Call a Shot?
Quote from: Omega;914239Its not so much that theres a standard default that the problem. Its that it is set above average.
Jannet, with her fighter at level 10 had 53 hp with a 15 CON. Going by the set HP system shed have had even without a CON bonus HP of 74 and with CON bonus shed have 94.
I get that it's .5 above average. As I said, I noticed as I read the SRD. I just wondered why there's no rolling. But I figured it out. Thanks!
Quote from: Harlock;914373I get that it's .5 above average. As I said, I noticed as I read the SRD. I just wondered why there's no rolling. But I figured it out. Thanks!
Its an optional method. Its also used for monster HP and damage. They give the DM an average number they can use instead of rolling.
Quote from: Harime Nui;914354D) Called Shots. Called shots are your friend! Why would you ever not Call a Shot?
Because, in most RPGs, called shots take serious penalties to hit and, if the called shot fails, you miss completely.
With sneak attack dice you only need to hit them once if it's between the eyes :D*
*not counting draculas
Quote from: Harime Nui;914448With sneak attack dice you only need to hit them once if it's between the eyes :D*
Not all action movie combat involves a sneak attack. In fact most action movie combat is anything but a sneak attack.
In third edition sneak attack is just extra damage you get when you catch your opponent flat-footed. For example, in the first round of combat, any creature that has yet to act in the initiative order is considered flat-footed, allowing your Rogue to gank tough opponents with a slick move, even if they know they're in a fight. Example:
[video=youtube;eEneQFEFgMQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEneQFEFgMQ[/youtube]
Note that the guy who gets his brains lacquered in that video is supposed to be like this big-time badass gunhand the evil Rancher hired for muscle. In game terms he's probably like 6th level or something. See the big disconnect for me between "cinematic combat" in RPGs is that traditionally D&D (in pretty much all versions though maybe not OD&D idk) has tried to stop you from doing this. In a movie, even a huge badass can just die from one blow to the head or heart or whatever but in D&D that's basically actually impossible. In Gygax's (now-famous?) explanation of how Hitpoints work, the story will always contort itself so that somehow a character remains alive if they have the HP to do so. So if he was really a 6th level fighter (third edition) and all that gun was doing was 1d8+3d6 (11-26 dmg) it would could only have grazed him, and actually that dude was completely right to be smug. Hence: "Called shot: head," "that's a -8 penalty," "he's flat-footed and wearing no armor right? So I have to beat AC 10?" "Er, yeah."
Quote from: Harime Nui;914354D) Called Shots. Called shots are your friend! Why would you ever not Call a Shot?
Because it is the reverse of how real combat works, perhaps? In combat, one doesn't exclusively focus on one spot, you hit the location that opportunity presents.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;914681Because it is the reverse of how real combat works, perhaps? In combat, one doesn't exclusively focus on one spot, you hit the location that opportunity presents.
Or even just spray and pray.
Quote from: Harime Nui;914508...
Note that the guy who gets his brains lacquered in that video is supposed to be like this big-time badass gunhand the evil Rancher hired for muscle. In game terms he's probably like 6th level or something. See the big disconnect for me between "cinematic combat" in RPGs is that traditionally D&D (in pretty much all versions though maybe not OD&D idk) has tried to stop you from doing this. In a movie, even a huge badass can just die from one blow to the head or heart or whatever but in D&D that's basically actually impossible. In Gygax's (now-famous?) explanation of how Hitpoints work, the story will always contort itself so that somehow a character remains alive if they have the HP to do so. So if he was really a 6th level fighter (third edition) and all that gun was doing was 1d8+3d6 (11-26 dmg) it would could only have grazed him, and actually that dude was completely right to be smug. Hence: "Called shot: head," "that's a -8 penalty," "he's flat-footed and wearing no armor right? So I have to beat AC 10?" "Er, yeah."
Reason #1 (of many) that I very rarely choose to play D&D, and prefer games that do explicitly model what's happening in combat, and provide chances that weapons actually hit targets and kill them. e.g. TFT, GURPS, Aftermath, Phoenix Command... There are other ways of staying alive besides being able to absorb damage.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;914681Because it is the reverse of how real combat works, perhaps? In combat, one doesn't exclusively focus on one spot, you hit the location that opportunity presents.
I don't even know what to say to this because it's both irrelevant (we're talking about modeling fiction) and not even true (a good boxer creates openings, gets his opponent protecting the wrong spot, he doesn't just take what he can get).
Which is not the same thing. Regardless, they still will not pass up hitting X because they are looking to hit Y.
And I have no idea how the comment "Why would you ever not Call a Shot?" is relevant to modeling fiction--are people only ever calling shots in fiction?
Quote from: Xanther;913299I'd have to disagree. Doing a melee attack is the most sub-optimal choice in D&D, at least the old games we played. ;) Straight up fighting the monsters fair and square? No way. We were all about ambush, trip wires, scouting, oil flasks, trickery, bribery (especially food and wine) anything and everything to surprise or avoid the fight. Our most powerful weapon was the trip-wire, followed by the caltrop. Of course YMMV :)
I don't disagree, but when you're actually in melee, and you're a fighter, in most pre-3e D&D, saying "I attack with my weapon" is usually the best choice. This is a little less so in 3e, but there it's just replaced with "I use my best feat".
Quote from: RPGPundit;915318I don't disagree, but when you're actually in melee, and you're a fighter, in most pre-3e D&D, saying "I attack with my weapon" is usually the best choice. This is a little less so in 3e, but there it's just replaced with "I use my best feat".
True as long as one remembers that in 3.x most feats where under powered when compared to a spell reachable at similar level.
Quote from: kosmos1214;915419True as long as one remembers that in 3.x most feats where under powered when compared to a spell reachable at similar level.
Yes, that was another problem with 3e.
In 3e. How many feats do you have by level 10? Level 20?
Quote from: Omega;915621In 3e. How many feats do you have by level 10? Level 20?
What class? Never mind, several break the chain of 1 per 4 levels.
All other classes tend to get (Add one more if Human) about 5, typically.
The Fighter gets 16 (one more if Human), but 11 of those are from a specific list, designed for combat.
The Wizard gets 9, but 4 are from a specific three categories (namely metamagical, spell mastery or item creation)
The Rogue can add up to 3 more for about 8, if they take one in place of their 'Special Ability'.
That doesn't conform to 3e as I know it. Characters get 1 at 1st, and then 1 every 3. So 4 by 10, and 7 by 20. Add one more for human. Fighters get 11 more over 20 levels, wizards 5 more.
I really don't see how any of this relates to Pundit's point.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;915637What class? Never mind, several break the chain of 1 per 4 levels.
Interesting. Thanks.
So 5e follows a vaugly simmilar pattern. All classes except the Fighter and Rogue get 5. The fighter gets 7 and the Rogue gets 6. Though of course Feats are optional both as even existing, or being desirable to get every tick. Option Human gets one more. But might not be allowed. Kefra so far has been dropping all her ticks into stat points. Jan picked up one feat and has been going stats thereafter I believe.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;915643I really don't see how any of this relates to Pundit's point.
It might not. I was just curious the loadout 3e got.
But according to your tally. 3e characters get access to a fair number of ticks that they dont have to decide whether to spend on stat points or feats.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;915643That doesn't conform to 3e as I know it. Characters get 1 at 1st, and then 1 every 3. So 4 by 10, and 7 by 20. Add one more for human. Fighters get 11 more over 20 levels, wizards 5 more.
I really don't see how any of this relates to Pundit's point.
Every three? Sorry, remembered incorrectly. But I was responding to Omega.
As for Pundit's point, the real biggest issue was Monte Cook and his incorrect belief that D&D Magic was the whole point of the game (If that's the case, why not go the whole Ars Magica route and turn non-magic users into supporting characters, but the PC's get to be the Wizards and Clerics only, who can do it all anyway) and his misunderstand as to who Magic: the Gathering worked and the term 'Trap Card'. Which he then turned most feats into his understanding of making them bad decisions to choose, hence why the Fighter sucks as a class in general in 3.x
Quote from: Christopher Brady;915647As for Pundit's point, the real biggest issue was Monte Cook and his incorrect belief that D&D Magic was the whole point of the game (If that's the case, why not go the whole Ars Magica route and turn non-magic users into supporting characters, but the PC's get to be the Wizards and Clerics only, who can do it all anyway) and his misunderstand as to who Magic: the Gathering worked and the term 'Trap Card'. Which he then turned most feats into his understanding of making them bad decisions to choose, hence why the Fighter sucks as a class in general in 3.x
That sounds about right.