TheRPGSite

What it says on the tin.

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

Post your systems, and justifications.

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

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

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

In real-world fighting there are several elements like that, of which I know nothing. I don't need to duplicate them.

I'm looking for a system that evokes them, making it feel like a real fight, without getting bogged down in mechanics.

Realistic hand-to-hand combat? No RPG ever.

However, a few games are pretty good at cinematic martial arts. My favourite is Thrash, which is a homebrew based largely upon the Streetfighter RPG from White wolf in the 90s. Final Stand is pretty good too.

GURPS Martial Arts does a pretty good job. It looks complex but it is because of the toolkit nature. When you setup a character with a particular style the selected options can fit on a one or two page cheat sheet. The system has the virtue of having a one to one relationship between the mechanics the real-time art being simulated.

Unisystem.

You have to pick the right supplements though:
Enter the Zombie (AFMBE)
Mystery Codex (witchcraft)
Angel or Buffy (cinematic)

The three systems are different. AFAIK all unisystem supplements work with all core rules.

Edit: read your edit. Unisystem isn't most realistic, either.

The best MA / melee system I've played is very simple, and a homebrew. PCs have a combat skill, and weapon skill. Combat is an opposed roll made at the start of combat, whoever wins has control of combat and is on the offensive. They then choose to attack, or carry over control. If they carry control over to next round and win combat again they get a hefty damage bonus.

It's not a system for micro managing attack/defence moves, but I have not found better.

I do also rate Lace and Steel, but it's OOP and covers sword fights. Could be adapted.

I'm going to catch a ton of flak for this, but here goes.

Ninjas and Superspies.

Stay with me for a second here.

The Palladium house system has a lot of problems, but in my experience most of these problems have more to do with it being horribly organized, dreadfully laid out and all too often contradictory. All in the same book, which is every Palladium core rulebook ever.

However, hand-to-hand combat is brain-dead simple. Roll initiative. Perform your actions; each attack can be countered by a parry or dodge. A punch that lands can be rolled with, subtracting from damage.

Martial arts are modeled as level-based progression. For example, Jujitsu at 1st level gices you +3 to roll with punch, +2 to parry and dodge, and critical strike (double damage) on attacks from behind. At 2nd level, you get +1 to attack rolls and +1 to disarm attempts. At 3rd level you get +1 on attempts and double damage from body flip/throw attacks, and +2 on balance tests. And so on.

The end result is that each martial arts feels different; that experience is paramount to performance; that different martial arts might have different strong and weak points (e.g. Hwarang-Do is highly acrobactic and gives you a lot of bonuses for leaps, balance and other physical skill tests, as well as being balanced between offensive and defensive modifiers; Phoenix Eye Kung Fu partly eschews defensive maneuvers and favors an all-out aggressive approach; and so on, and so forth; etc.), even before you get into the frankly magical Mystic Martial Arts stuff.

The one problem is that these modifiers are laid out in a level-by-level, incremental fashion. I was actually working on slotting each martial arts on a table, so you'd know right off the bat each bonus and maneuver for, say, an 8th-level practitioner of Zanji Shinjinken-Ryo -- you know, like Palladium did with PFRPG 1e and never again (yet another "WTF, Kevin Siembieda?" moment) -- when my HD crashed. Alas, I never found the time to start over.

I can't speak for realism, especially since the game -- while meticulously researched, Erick Wujcik style -- seems very explicitly intent on aping both martial arts flicks and spy movies of the 1970s and 1980s. It's pretty much Every Jean-Claude Van Damme Movie Ever: The RPG. While maybe not strictly adhering to the criteria you set out in the OP, I really feel this book deserves a look by everyone who's interested in a martial arts RPG. The world information and technology is horribly dated but there's an awesome game underneath all of it. I am also passionate about the minimalist setting information; it's very much a toolkit for the enterprising GM to make of it what he or she will. But I digress; this is beyond the scope of the OP.

Quote from: TristramEvans;619942Realistic hand-to-hand combat? No RPG ever.

In the sense of a combat system that would actually simulate the kind of moves, thoughts, positioning, reflexes etc going on in hand-to-hand and martial arts type combats as accurately as humanly possible through numbers, ratings, dice rolls and the like, that'd be my answer as well.

Quote from: Benoist;619972In the sense of a combat system that would actually simulate the kind of moves, thoughts, positioning, reflexes etc going on in hand-to-hand and martial arts type combats as accurately as humanly possible through numbers, ratings, dice rolls and the like, that'd be my answer as well.

I have done MA for years and just keep second guessing myself anytime I try to sit down and make a martial arts rpg. I don't think it is worth thinking too much about. Martial arts people are about as divided as rolelplayers are on things, so you would never be able to put together a single system that feels realistic to all of them. I think you would need to pick a category (full contact sport fighting, traditional eastern ma, modern self defense, etc) and write the game toward it.

Quote from: Benoist;619972In the sense of a combat system that would actually simulate the kind of moves, thoughts, positioning, reflexes etc going on in hand-to-hand and martial arts type combats as accurately as humanly possible through numbers, ratings, dice rolls and the like, that'd be my answer as well.

It seems kind of strange, but I'm not looking for a system that can model "parry in sixte" or "stop thrust, followed by riposte".

I'm looking for something which feels like that. "I do X, it provokes them to do Y, then I finish them off with Z."

"Attack+Damage, repeat until opponent's dead" is much more straightforward. It's easy to imagine and implement. Something more would be more complicated, but might be more involving.

Butcher mentioned something that could work. Each HTH attack is contested, the opponent always has the chance to parry, avoid, or roll with the punch.

Couple this with options that allow the character to do more than a straight attack — such as trick, manuever, overbear, intimidate, and taunt (the five from my home system) — and make sure they offer enough benefits that players will choose them. Use these, it makes the eventual attack that much more effective.

"I push him off balance (overbear), then strike."

That could work.

None of them.

Not least because none I've seen ever bother to address the psychological side of things, both willingness to actually hurt someone else and risk being hurt in order to do so. That by better ringcraft/experience the savvy, but not as technically competent fighter can dismantle and defeat the inexperienced, yet technically more competent fighter (old fighters might not be as fast or fit as they were in their youth, but they can be seriously tricky to deal with for this reason).

There's all sort of other complicated, yet rapidly assessed and applied things that matter, such as timing and appreciation of distance often matter more than speed. The value of momentum, which is why aggression can be a potent thing in getting the initiative and keeping it.

Much of the mechanics and permutations of the thing are more complicated than they first appear. For example, there's roughly four types of defense: block (passively receive the attack on your guard), parry (actively turn the attack aside), intercept (proactively attack the limb making the attack to stop if before it's executed) and dodge (remove yourself from the path of the blow).

If you start attempting to model each of these with mechanics, the system rapidly fills up with crap that makes interacting with it a boring pain in the arse, and nothing like the thing it's actually modelling.

Quote from: Kiero;619985None of them.

Not least because none I've seen ever bother to address the psychological side of things, both willingness to actually hurt someone else and risk being hurt in order to do so.

My grandfather used to say there are two types of fighters: one there to "win", and one there to Kill. the one intent on killing will always win against one trying to win.

Quote from: TristramEvans;619990My grandfather used to say there are two types of fighters: one there to "win", and one there to Kill. the one intent on killing will always win against one trying to win.

Indeed, they speak of differing levels of restraint, conscious or otherwise.

The closest to bothering with that in any system I'm aware of was Unknown Armies, which made killing something that rarely happened, except by accident, when "normal" people were concerned.

To continue on the path The Butcher started...

N&S has offensive and defensive moves that set up for later attacks and defenses - like leap dodge, circular parry, leap attack, and some of the special moves - like Shao lin kung fu (If I'm remembering correctly) has a special move that does no damage, but forces the opponent back so many feet. There are attack and defense options that throw opponents off balance, and so on.

There has never been an accurate representation of martial arts in a roleplaying game.

The biggest pitfalls:
* You shouldn't have to know the martial art in order to be able to emulate it in a roleplaying game.
* Issues of weight distribution, footwork and position - which are probably the heart of any martial art, are some of the hardest mechanics to emulate in a roleplaying game.
* There is more in-fighting in the martial arts community than there is in the roleplaying game community....to the death. This stuff seriously still happens.

Just look up Count Dante, and how he and his Black Dragon Fighting Society raided a rival kung fu school, plucked out a man's eye and killed another one with a sword, in 1970s America.

Edition wars has nothing on rival kung fu schools.

//Panjumanju

I always thought that combat Burning Wheel "felt" right in play. Same, to a lesser extent, the Riddle of Steel and Streetfighter.

Getting a sense of uncertainty coupled with planning and reaction is really hard to do in a you-go I-go system.

One way to bring it in a little bit is to enforce the declaration phase, a step that I've seen too many groups throw out without really understanding the effects (myself included). Burning wheel basically works by making the declaration phase way more prominent and robust.

HERO System.

But then, I say that with everything.  :D

JG

Quote from: Panjumanju;620030There has never been an accurate representation of martial arts in a roleplaying game.

The biggest pitfalls:
* You shouldn't have to know the martial art in order to be able to emulate it in a roleplaying game.
* Issues of weight distribution, footwork and position - which are probably the heart of any martial art, are some of the hardest mechanics to emulate in a roleplaying game.

Agreed.

Problem is compounded because
- the RPGs that try to do this have complex mechanics, that are not easy to pick up.
- the players who want to play martial artists usually don't know the given martial art.

That's not one, but two degrees of separation. Doesn't mean you can't make a good fighting RPG, but it's hard to make it good and simple.

I spent years thinking of a way to use George Silver's grounds and governors mechanically. I gave up. I suppose I could do it, but communicating in a way that the players would not only get the system, but also get the philosophy behind it would be very hard, and probably a waste of time--players don't care.

Groups should find a combat system that works for them and gives them the exciting kick they need, realism be damned. Designers should be true to themselves but abandon pretensions of making "the most realistic system ever". I'm looking at you, Mr Norwood.

Let's get philosophical.

An actual fight is hideously complex, as some have noted. Position, momentum, balance, training, weight, muscle mass, technique... all of this and more.

To take it all into account takes an equally hideous set of rules. Rules which slow play down to a crawl.

Something that is fast and visceral becomes slow and cerebral. The more realistic the mechanics of the game, the less the fight evokes the feel of being in a real fight.

Too much realism makes the game unrealistic.

I want mechanics that feel real. When you do something in the game, it should feel like real life without being exactly identical to real life.

A gunfight. Bullets slamming into the cover you are crouching behind, screwing up your courage to dash across open ground while your mates engage in covering fire.

A duel. Thrust and parry, back and forth, a bared blade threatening to bleed you at any moment, desperately protecting yourself while searching for an opening to strike.

A car chase. Riding the engine hard, steering around corner, almost skidding out of control, shifting lanes with manic determination, threading around the other cars in the road, just missing them, gradually closing in on your prey.

The details don't matter. Matching reality point-for-point is pointless. What matters is the sense of the situation, the feel of the thing.

Why? Because too much reality is bad for the game. It's unrealistic.

Is this even possible? If so, where do I begin?

Quote from: estar;619945GURPS Martial Arts does a pretty good job. It looks complex but it is because of the toolkit nature. When you setup a character with a particular style the selected options can fit on a one or two page cheat sheet. The system has the virtue of having a one to one relationship between the mechanics the real-time art being simulated.

I will second this. Most of the fiddly features that would slow down play can be pre-calculated and recorded. The actual action at the table goes fast without a bunch of chart consultation.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620100Too much realism makes the game unrealistic.

I want mechanics that feel real. When you do something in the game, it should feel like real life without being exactly identical to real life.

?

I agree with this. In a real fight you make your decisions in split seconds, you don't really have time to weigh options and process things like you do in a turn based rpg (you can fight smart, but it is more about thinking quickly and instinctively). Its fast, confusing, and exhausting. It involves a lot of complex pieces but doesn't feel or look complex like a crunchy battlesystem.

Okay the best combat in any game was the Gorean onlione duel game.
it was all free form with no rules and each action was judged by all the people that read each move and a conclusion drawn. Victory is all down to player skill.


The next best, and its really close to being as good, is Amber. I have had figths in Amber that run totally "I parry in quarte, feints a low cut then twisting the weight on my leding foot execute a spining round kick ... " etc Now it helps that the parties concerned were experienced fencers, and had done some martial arts ... Victory is all down to warfare at the end of the day but player skill can move it to Strength, Stamina or even Psyche.

The best non open ended non narative style is probably Top Secret. Basically a different combat table for each style with a defense and an attack x referenced for an outcome. With 1 second combat rounds it felt pretty tight.

I started writing a martial art tournament game so you could play the classic martial arts tournament games but I realised no one woudl play it in my group so I stopped. This was back when I had just read Badger Hexbreaker in 88 so it was a long time back. I revisited 2 years ago when i found it in a box and tried to convert it to a card based game but still wasn;t convinced it was worth more than a single play . So many good computer games do this much better.

Quote from: jibbajibba;620110Okay the best combat in any game was the Gorean onlione duel game.
it was all free form with no rules and each action was judged by all the people that read each move and a conclusion drawn. Victory is all down to player skill.

So it was victory to the superior writer?  How does that have anything to do with combat resolution?  To me this seems like more of crowd based judging the winner of a "your mama" contest.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620100Is this even possible? If so, where do I begin?

You know the outcome you want to achieve. Either you get lucky and find the system that works for you, or you make your own.

This is a subject dear to my heart, so I blogged about it (as a distraction to this bloody sciatica).

http://www.departmentv.net/2013/01/rpg-combat-newer-easier-method.html

It's a bit long and unfinished, but hopefully the first bit explains why I liked that approach.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;620114So it was victory to the superior writer?  How does that have anything to do with combat resolution?  To me this seems like more of crowd based judging the winner of a "your mama" contest.

No the writing wasn't great. It was down to the best tactics and understanding of the combat. The format of the responses was pretty narrow so no room for floid prose.
You need to read some to get an understanding. I'll try and see if there is anything out there - i last looked about 8 years ago though so....

Here's the feel: simple strategy. A simple choice the character makes that affects the combat rolls for the round.

Limited choices, no more than 3. Each should be evocative, it should be easy to visualize what is happening. ("You attack aggressively, driving him back." "You approach warily, your arms raised, keeping an eye out for his punches." "You circle him, trying to get around to his weak side.")

Each option (I'll call them "Stances" for now) produces modifiers to rolls (so raw skill still has a part to play).
Both characters involved in a duel chose which Stance to use, blind. Ideally, there should be a Rock-Paper-Scissors quality, where 1 beats 2, 2 beats 3, but 3 beats 1.

The question is what kind of Stances, and what effects they could have.

Right now the three Stances I'm thinking of would be:

Aggressive, Defensive, Mobile (maneuvering for position). Those seem to cover easily describable options, and reflect understandable approaches to hand-to-hand combat.

I've thought of two different ways of reflecting this. One is that each just receives a bonus:

Aggressive: Bonus to Attack, penalty to Defense.
Defensive: Bonus to Defense, penalty to Position.
Mobile: Bonus to Position, penalty to Attack.

No idea how "Position" is reflected in the context of the combat system.

The other is a straight matching:

Defensive > Aggressive > Mobile > Defensive

In other words, defending yourself strongly makes you less vulnerable to an attacker. Attacking strongly allows you to hit someone trying to slip past you. Maneuvering allows you to slip past defenses. The winner gets a bonus to the opposed combat check.

I'm not satisfied with either approach, really. I prefer the first, if Position meant something in mechanical terms.

I have t do some more thinking, obviously.

IMO, for a "realistic" feel, you want a matrix that intersects and creates modifiers.

Very generic examples would be "Aggressive", "Circling", "Counter-strike", "Defensive", and so on.  What these are, and their specifics, depends on what level of resolution the game is shooting for.  (IOW, are you going to be using a limited number of fighting system competing with each other, or will you have various systems competing against each other?)

These choices will cross-index and give you modifiers to execution rolls, and include a variable amount of time between execution rolls (IOW, the approach the fighters take determines a variable round length, rather than a fixed constant).  

The degree of success on the execution roll would determine damage.

That's probably about as close as you are going to get without going to a system that would be a mini-game of it's own.  

(Of course, there aren't any realistic damage, fatigue, or attribute systems for unarmed combat, so ... there is still that :idunno: )

Quote from: SJBenoist;620246These choices will cross-index and give you modifiers to execution rolls, and include a variable amount of time between execution rolls (IOW, the approach the fighters take determines a variable round length, rather than a fixed constant).

This sounds a bit like an expanded version of 'rock, paper, scissors'... maybe using hands of cards that could be thrown down and compared.
I mean that in a good way.

Quote from: Simlasa;620249This sounds a bit like an expanded version of 'rock, paper, scissors'... maybe using hands of cards that could be thrown down and compared.
I mean that in a good way.

this was kind of how Top secret worked only with 20 or so options in each case and different tables for each 'style' (boxing, wrestling, martial arts).

Also how the game I was working on was goign and why I thought it might port to a card game or to a card sub-game you played when a fight occured. the limit to your hand was an abstract way of showing your limited choices and tryign to express the need to act fast rather than pooring over each move for 30  minutes. But like I said didn't think it had legs.

Quote from: Simlasa;620249This sounds a bit like an expanded version of 'rock, paper, scissors'... maybe using hands of cards that could be thrown down and compared.
I mean that in a good way.

The bit I deleted was exactly like that:

"Defensive > Aggressive > Mobile > Defensive

"Choosing: You can play R-P-S (Defense is Rock, Attack is Scissors, Mobile is Paper) or have 3 cards. Each player chooses a card, then flips them over. Whoever wins gets the bonus.

"Other than the (potentially silly) playing of R-P-S, I think this comes close to what I'm thinking of."

R-P-S is an easy way to do this, but it does seem a little silly. Three cards seems just as easy, but it does require printing/acquiring the cards.

The other issue is that it's flat. There's no inherent affects from each approach, so other than a guessing game, there's no reason to pick any one over the other.

I'd like it if each approach had a specific, different benefit so winning with it did something different for you.

Aggressive: Bonus to attack.
Defensive: Bonus to defend.
Mobile: no idea.

The benefit of cards, in this case, is that the card you pick could have the bonus listed right on it. "If you win the engagement, you gin a +3 to your attack."

That's pretty cool. Now all I need is a third benefit.

Mobile could be setting up your next attack. If you win the matching, you get a +3 on the next engagement.

That engagement, you match again, and if you win with (say) attack, you get a +6 to attack (instead of the +3). If you Defend, and win with that, you get a +6 to defend (instead of the +3). And if you lose, you still get a +3, countering their bonus.

That has potential.

What was that old system of fantasy gamebooks that worked like Ace of Aces where each player had a book with pictures of his opponent... they each chose a move... then turned to the appropriate page and got a new picture of the resulting stance?

That's a lot like how Burning Wheel works.

You pick three maneuvers for the turn, secretly, and then you both reveal your maneuvers and compare and resolve actions.

So I might pick, "close", "feint" and "strike" while my opponent picks, "guard" "strike" "Open"

Then we would compare and resolve each step. So first move I close in and he guards, next move I feint and he strikes (probably bad for me) and the third move I strike and he tries to distance himself.

A little bit of planning and a little bit of uncertainty with some gambling thrown in.

It could be better but in practice it's pretty fun.

Quote from: Piestrio;620254That's a lot like how Burning Wheel works.

I always felt that Burning Wheel needed real cards to lay down to facilitate the scripted combat (believe you got some in the lovely Mouse Guard box set?)

I don't like Burning Wheel combat at all. I feel it commits the sins the OP is trying to avoid and gets bogged down in tables and cross-reference. That said I haven't given it much time.

Quote from: smiorgan;620261I always felt that Burning Wheel needed real cards to lay down to facilitate the scripted combat (believe you got some in the lovely Mouse Guard box set?)

I don't like Burning Wheel combat at all. I feel it commits the sins the OP is trying to avoid and gets bogged down in tables and cross-reference. That said I haven't given it much time.

It does get fiddly, yes, and doesn't handle multiple combatants well at all and mouse guard goes too far in the "abstraction" direction that's all the rage nowadays.

The basic idea is very solid though.

The variable round length is probably the single biggest thing missing.

A typical boxing match won't have a victor in less than 3-5 rounds, of 3 minutes each, while most wrestling matches last the full 6 minutes.  About half of MMA matches go the distance (15 minutes), and Vale Tudeo matches can last 20, 30, even 60 minutes, and they don't have any "breaks" in the fighting!

Most RPG's are designed to have combat over extremely quickly compared to real unarmed fights.



Also, what feels realistic will depend on how much you know about unarmed combat.  For me, for example, nothing is going to feel even slightly like a real fight without accounting for fatigue.  No such thing as too much Cardio in a fight.

Quote from: SJBenoist;620287Also, what feels realistic will depend on how much you know about unarmed combat.  For me, for example, nothing is going to feel even slightly like a real fight without accounting for fatigue.  No such thing as too much Cardio in a fight.

Truth. When I run GURPS I'm very aggressive about fatigue which I feel adds a very cool dimension to combat.

Although granted more on the per-day resource management scale.

Quote from: SJBenoist;620287A typical boxing match won't have a victor in less than 3-5 rounds, of 3 minutes each, while most wrestling matches last the full 6 minutes.  About half of MMA matches go the distance (15 minutes), and Vale Tudeo matches can last 20, 30, even 60 minutes, and they don't have any "breaks" in the fighting!

All of which are limited by conventions and rules maximising safety, meaning all the normal show stoppers are forbidden. There's a world of difference between a 'sport' and real world fighting.

Real fights tend to be one sided; launched with surprise or overwhelming odds, have little or no psychological preparation for the target, and if not intended to kill or maim, run down pretty quickly to - as you rightly point out - lack of cardio fitness.

EDIT - Which of course only has a point if you are not trying to model sport combats...

Quote from: Pete Nash;620318All of which are limited by conventions and rules maximising safety, meaning all the normal show stoppers are forbidden. There's a world of difference between a 'sport' and real world fighting.

Real fights tend to be one sided; launched with surprise or overwhelming odds, have little or no psychological preparation for the target, and if not intended to kill or maim, run down pretty quickly to - as you rightly point out - lack of cardio fitness.

EDIT - Which of course only has a point if you are not trying to model sport combats...

Agree with this, although the operative words are surprise or overwhelming odds. This is a social factor relating to why violence happens in the first place and how people respond pre-emptively to threat.

Also, the main reasons for giving a "round" a measurable length of time are to keep track of other things happening (countdown, magic spells). For at least some of these you can just measure duration in rounds.

I also strongly support the nomination of Ninjas & Superspies.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Pete Nash;620318All of which are limited by conventions and rules maximising safety, meaning all the normal show stoppers are forbidden. There's a world of difference between a 'sport' and real world fighting.

Real fights tend to be one sided; launched with surprise or overwhelming odds, have little or no psychological preparation for the target, and if not intended to kill or maim, run down pretty quickly to - as you rightly point out - lack of cardio fitness.

EDIT - Which of course only has a point if you are not trying to model sport combats...

Apologies, but this is flat wrong, as VT was real fighting.


Vale Tudo was originally practiced thusly:

1. No eye gouge
2. No Fish-hook
3. No Time Limit
4. No Weight Limits
4. Fight until one person quits or is unconscious.

Time Limits show up for TV, and are typically 30 minutes to an hour, depending on the era.
Later, you see various rules show-up to increase the watchability of the "sport", as it is very boring.
Somewhat ironically, as MMA has risen in popularity, VT has found itself declared illegal in most places, and is mostly underground even in Brazil where it once had it's own regular TV show.

I can provide a great many hours of footage if you would like to see what this looks like, and you will be able to time the fights yourself.  The commentary is almost exclusively Portuguese, as Brazil was the only country really doing this for many years.

Here is what happens in a real fight:  A few strikes are exchanged, and the fight quickly goes to the ground.  Two guys lay there for quite a long time, doing their best to harm each other.  
They tend to be very,very long when both opponents were trained BJJ fighters.

There are exceptions to this, such as when one man is untrained, especially in grappling, he can usually be beaten quickly via choke or submission or when somebody gets caught flush with hard shot.  Most of it, however, is slow and boring.  

(Here is an english vid from World Vale Tudo Championship 3.  The video covers about 14 minutes of fighting, but the fight actually lasts 30 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhbFkSKc8uo

(Edit for another English Vid [WVTC2].  ~30 minutes, but more exciting example of VT than the above)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx2NgQ5VBXg

Links for verification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_tudo

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/1/2663021/mma-origins-vale-tudo-and-the-original-mma-rivalry




Also, you can check the first handful of UFC's, as they originally used VT rules.  You'll see strikers get destroyed quickly by grapplers, and grapplers engage in several minute contests.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620208Each option (I'll call them "Stances" for now) produces modifiers to rolls (so raw skill still has a part to play).
Both characters involved in a duel chose which Stance to use, blind. Ideally, there should be a Rock-Paper-Scissors quality, where 1 beats 2, 2 beats 3, but 3 beats 1.

The question is what kind of Stances, and what effects they could have.

Right now the three Stances I'm thinking of would be:

Aggressive, Defensive, Mobile (maneuvering for position). Those seem to cover easily describable options, and reflect understandable approaches to hand-to-hand combat.

I've thought of two different ways of reflecting this. One is that each just receives a bonus:

Aggressive: Bonus to Attack, penalty to Defense.
Defensive: Bonus to Defense, penalty to Position.
Mobile: Bonus to Position, penalty to Attack.

No idea how "Position" is reflected in the context of the combat system.

The other is a straight matching:

Defensive > Aggressive > Mobile > Defensive

In other words, defending yourself strongly makes you less vulnerable to an attacker. Attacking strongly allows you to hit someone trying to slip past you. Maneuvering allows you to slip past defenses. The winner gets a bonus to the opposed combat check.

I'm not satisfied with either approach, really. I prefer the first, if Position meant something in mechanical terms.

I have t do some more thinking, obviously.

Yeah, because "Position" or maneuvering isn't as obvious in game terms as attack or defense.  I'm familiar with the concept from TORG, but there it's among a list of skill options you can try in combat.

JG

I'm clearly in the minority here, but I don't really see what's so complicated about approximating martial arts.

The way I do it is give bonuses to hit for particular types of attacks based on style. Thai kickboxing might have a base +4 on kick attacks for example, western fisticuffs might have the same for punches, and some martial arts might have special maneuvers but cost more. Damage is partially a factor of how high over your target you roll anyway, so higher damage is built in for higher rolls.

Feinting, parrying, ripostes, all of that is covered by normal melee rules anyway.

What am I missing?

Quote from: James Gillen;620334Yeah, because "Position" or maneuvering isn't as obvious in game terms as attack or defense.  I'm familiar with the concept from TORG, but there it's among a list of skill options you can try in combat.

Here's what I'm looking at playtesting:

In HTH, one combatant attacking another is an "engagement". This is an opposed check, the person who rolls the highest (attacker or defender) does damage. In basic combat, this is all that happens.

In advanced combat, each engagement has a 2-step process: fighters choose their Stance, then roll their attack. Highest roll does damage.

Each combatant decides on a Stance, R-P-S style:

Aggressive: Hard hitting, striking for damage.
Defensive: Doing your best to hold off your opponent.
Mobile: Set up your opponent for a really devastating move.

Defensive > Aggressive > Mobile > Defensive

The person with the dominant Stance gains a bonus against his opponent:

Aggressive: +3 to Combat roll.
Defensive: +5 to Combat roll, but you can't cause damage.
Mobile: +5 to next engagement with this opponent (no matter what Stance is chosen then).

If the combatants chose the same Stance, both get the bonus.

Why do it this way?

These are abstract, and not blow-by-blow mechanics. They're simple, and can be chosen fast (via cards or actual R-P-S). They are easy to describe in vivid, concrete terms, a must.

They allow for strategy: go in hard, turtle up, or set up your opponent for a really devastating attack next engagement. You have to guess what your opponent will do, and chose your own strategy accordingly.

They emulate the feel of real combat, giving the players choices that (very loosely) correspond to the kinds of choices real fighters face. Hopefully, the mechanic is fast in play.

At least on its face, this meets my criteria. Playtesting is a must, of course.

Quote from: The Traveller;620336Feinting, parrying, ripostes, all of that is covered by normal melee rules anyway.

What am I missing?

I'm talking about normal melee rules: how to build them so they give the feel of real combat. Not match it point for point, but so it gives the players the feel of the flow of a bout, choosing strategy, setting up your enemy for an attack, and so forth. Most importantly, so it moves quickly.

MA can be emulated with bonuses, exactly as you describe. But for that to work, the basic rules have to work.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620339I'm talking about normal melee rules: how to build them so they give the feel of real combat. Not match it point for point, but so it gives the players the feel of the flow of a bout, choosing strategy, setting up our enemy for an attack, and so forth. Most importantly, so it moves quickly.

MA can be emulated with bonuses, exactly as you describe. But for that to work, the basic rules have to work.

Oh okay, well the key feature I'd use would be a battle wheel in lieu of intiative (tick based basically). This is the most important mechanic for keeping things similar to real combat, it really brings a dimension of pure chaos to any battle. You'd have to experience it to grasp the implications at the table though.

Quote from: SJBenoist;620330Apologies, but this is flat wrong, as VT is real fighting.

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

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

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

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

Quote from: SJBenoist;620330(Here is an english vid from World Vale Tudo Championship 3.  The video covers about 14 minutes of fighting, but the fight actually lasts 30 minutes): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhbFkSKc8uo

(Edit for another English Vid [WVTC2].  ~30 minutes, but more exciting example of VT than the above)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx2NgQ5VBXg

Links for verification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vale_tudo

http://www.bloodyelbow.com/2012/1/1/2663021/mma-origins-vale-tudo-and-the-original-mma-rivalry

Quote from: Pete Nash;620344So with all due respect, that is what real fighting is. VT is still just sport, brutal sport admittedly, but sport just the same.

A counter-example to the sport-based MMA stuff is the Folsom Prison Knife Fighting manual, among others

http://ebookbrowse.com/don-pentecost-put-em-down-take-em-out-knife-fighting-techniques-from-the-folsom-prisom-pdf-d133500559

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He did. :)

Desired feel 1. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=619941&postcount=1)
Desired feel 2. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=620100&postcount=17)

Prototype system to test. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=620337&postcount=41)

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

A little more complex version of the previous system.

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

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

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

The Stances:

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Simlasa;620253What was that old system of fantasy gamebooks that worked like Ace of Aces where each player had a book with pictures of his opponent... they each chose a move... then turned to the appropriate page and got a new picture of the resulting stance?

"Combat Heroes" ?

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

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620543He did. :)

Yes, and jolly good!

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

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

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

I love simplification. Love it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy to use, transparent, subtle, strategic.

I like it!

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

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

Post your systems, and justifications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPGPundit

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

RPGPundit

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

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

RPGPundit

I see what you did there.

JG

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

JG

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

RPGPundit

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

RPGPundit

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


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

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

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

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

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

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;620554A little more complex version of the previous system.

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

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

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

The Stances:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RPGPundit

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

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

Yeah, I thought it was fairly good too.

RPGPundit

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

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

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

Quote from: James Gillen;620063HERO System.

But then, I say that with everything.  :D

JG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you don't want to bog down combat, don't keep trudging down the road of complexity. The stuff you have shared so far seems complex enough that you would be better served by something already tested.

At that juncture, GURPS 4e would be a good game to look at. You can learn techniques to eliminate maneuver penalties. It handles cinematic martial arts with over-the-top skills and techniques (like trained by a master and pressure points) or less fanciful approaches. The listings of styles are thorough. There is a PDF for the Fairborne Combat System if you like. :-) GURPS already has fatigue and a somewhat gritty yet playable hit point system. If I had a group that wanted "realistic feeling" combat and martial arts, I would pull out GURPS 4e.

Also, GURPS 4e Martial Arts covers other combat options as well like bleeding. So it not only covers Kung-Fu but all aspects of martial combat. You can add as much detail as you can handle.

Also note one of the guiding principles of GURPS; play-able realism. When the rules would get in way of what they consider play-able, they err on the side of play-able. So, the system has crunch, but it's not so cumbersome as to be useless at the table (at least from the testimonials of those who play it on the GURPS forum... :-)

Quote from: trechriron;822460If you don't want to bog down combat, don't keep trudging down the road of complexity. The stuff you have shared so far seems complex enough that you would be better served by something already tested.

At that juncture, GURPS 4e would be a good game to look at. You can learn techniques to eliminate maneuver penalties. It handles cinematic martial arts with over-the-top skills and techniques (like trained by a master and pressure points) or less fanciful approaches. The listings of styles are thorough. There is a PDF for the Fairborne Combat System if you like. :-) GURPS already has fatigue and a somewhat gritty yet playable hit point system. If I had a group that wanted "realistic feeling" combat and martial arts, I would pull out GURPS 4e.

Also, GURPS 4e Martial Arts covers other combat options as well like bleeding. So it not only covers Kung-Fu but all aspects of martial combat. You can add as much detail as you can handle.

Also note one of the guiding principles of GURPS; play-able realism. When the rules would get in way of what they consider play-able, they err on the side of play-able. So, the system has crunch, but it's not so cumbersome as to be useless at the table (at least from the testimonials of those who play it on the GURPS forum... :-)

Huh, I never thought of what I was doing as that complex, for some reason at the table it plays out at about the same speed as stock OD&D. We don't go into that much detail for damage from actual HP versus Fatigue, save that it requires more resting time to heal and Fatigue can be largely restored by short rests. Using fatigue in combat mostly boils down to expending it to get a flat bonus on an attack or damage roll. Nothing more than a bit of extra bookkeeping.

Either way I will give Gurps 4e a look, I had a handful of Gurps books in the early 2000's but I don't recall what edition they were nor did I read them that much.

Quote from: Arkansan;822467Huh, I never thought of what I was doing as that complex, for some reason at the table it plays out at about the same speed as stock OD&D. We don't go into that much detail for damage from actual HP versus Fatigue, save that it requires more resting time to heal and Fatigue can be largely restored by short rests. Using fatigue in combat mostly boils down to expending it to get a flat bonus on an attack or damage roll. Nothing more than a bit of extra bookkeeping.

Either way I will give Gurps 4e a look, I had a handful of Gurps books in the early 2000's but I don't recall what edition they were nor did I read them that much.

I'm not all that familiar with GURPS but what you describe as fatigue sounds a lot like what the HERO System (Champions) calls Stun & Endurance.  HERO has an equally well developed Martial Arts system that you should consider looking at.

Yeah it's just a little a homebrew modification I used for older editions of D&D. I will check out the HERO system.

Quote from: grimstav;822379Now if you missed the Driftwood publishing run of The Riddle of Steel in 2001-2003 I am not surprised. It was put together in co-operation with ARMA (the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts) and while based on an earlier Polish RPG and with a strong hint of swords play and a narrative mass combat system, it is the best at capturing the real feel of combat I have encountered.

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

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

/delurk

There was a pseudo-2nd edition of TROS that came out a year or so ago called BLADE OF THE IRON THRONE. It fixed a lot of the wonky stuff at the edges of TROS while recasting it much more strongly into a Sword and Sorcery vibe. For purchase here:

http://bit.ly/1NlbVQB

I wrote a longish review of it here:

https://rpggeek.com/thread/1203290/dethroning-pretenders

I played a lot of TROS and loved it, and think Blade is better in pretty much every way. While the focus of both is on swordsmanship, I think it does unarmed striking and grappling pretty well.

For the OP's purposes though, Blade is probably way too complicated. You may want to check out:

Jolly Roger's SWASHBUCKLER (1998). As the name implies, kind of three musketeerish, but the concepts would translate into unarmed easily. It would appeal to you because it has an excellent system of out maneuvering your opponent -- if you do X, then they really need to do Y, because to do Z would be desperate and stupid. Maybe a little crunchy for your goals but nowhere near Blade.

Prince of Darkness' ETERNAL CONTENDERS (2013). As written, a GMless story game set in the fantasy Asian worlds of video games like Soul Caliber and Samurai Shodown. However you could easily ignore all the scene-setting stuff and just use the basic system to run a traditional game. This would be good because it's not super detailed yet it deals with fatigue and such. The system does a really good job of finding the balance between boringly random (where no matter how many good decisions you made previously in the fight, the winner is the first one to land a lucky shot) and boringly deterministic (where the first one to land a blow then immediately fights defensively until the other guy bleeds out). You can always come back but you have to play smart.

Sirlin Games' YOMI (2011). A card game, not an RPG or storygame. The epitome of RPS fighting games. It feels random at first but you quickly learn that it is a game of hand management, which simulates the fatigue aspect. You can play online for free at //www.fantasystrike.com. There's also an app (not free).

Hope that helps; if you have any followup questions please ask!

/relurk

Quote from: grimstav;822379Now if you missed the Driftwood publishing run of The Riddle of Steel in 2001-2003 I am not surprised. It was put together in co-operation with ARMA (the Association for Renaissance Martial Arts) and while based on an earlier Polish RPG and with a strong hint of swords play and a narrative mass combat system, it is the best at capturing the real feel of combat I have encountered.

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

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

Welcome to theRPGsite!

Say I wanted to check out Ninjas & Superspies, should I look for the original version or revised?  Ebay has both in my price range, and I know nothing about the game.

Quote from: Saladman;822873Say I wanted to check out Ninjas & Superspies, should I look for the original version or revised?  Ebay has both in my price range, and I know nothing about the game.

I've only ever owned Revised. Probably no big difference.

I have the original and have at least seen Revised, though not for awhile. The main difference I think is that in original Dedicated Martial Artists got 3 forms, Worldly got 2, and others had one the option of getting one. In revised Dedicated got 2 forms and Worldly Martial Artists got boned. I expect there may have been some specific problematic powers that may have been modified, and there's a section on converting to Heroes Unlimited in the revised book that I don't remember seeing in the original book.
Overall I think I prefer the original but its close. Either way, hey its Palladium you're going to have to figure out patches or DIY rules for a few things in any case.

Funny thing about N&S is how some forms required such intense dedication as to count as two styles: Ninjitsu and... Muay Thai.

Cue 30 years later a Muay Thai gym in every corner.

Erick was a great RPG writer but his writing on martial arts hasn't aged gracefully, to say the least. Admittedly, his biases are the biases of nearly every book written in the 1980s, and the extent of his research is impressive (first even heard about Wing Chun here), but alongside the technology/gear chapter, this is another reason I'd love to see a new edition of N&S.

Quote from: The Butcher;823029Cue 30 years later a Muay Thai gym in every corner.

I would like to add that it must have been the traditional foot-stomping straight-from-Thailand Muay Thai that Erick Wujcik was referring to, not the modern - and considerably less focused - style so popular in western kickboxing/MMA gyms today. It's hard to get a westerner to jump over a freshly planted tree every day.

What I'm saying is - the martial arts themselves have changed. So, of course the reference is, in some cases, dated. Not to say there were not also mistaken interpretations from third-hand sources in Ninjas & Superspies - there were, but generally I think it was an impressive list of martial arts.

//Panjumanju

The Riddle of Steel. Everything except the combat system is shit, but the combat system *feels* like an actual struggle. There's positioning, out thinking your opponent, taking big risks for big rewards. I actually created a stand alone gladiator game based on RoS.

Quote from: Panjumanju;823058I would like to add that it must have been the traditional foot-stomping straight-from-Thailand Muay Thai that Erick Wujcik was referring to, not the modern - and considerably less focused - style so popular in western kickboxing/MMA gyms today. It's hard to get a westerner to jump over a freshly planted tree every day.

What I'm saying is - the martial arts themselves have changed. So, of course the reference is, in some cases, dated. Not to say there were not also mistaken interpretations from third-hand sources in Ninjas & Superspies - there were, but generally I think it was an impressive list of martial arts.

//Panjumanju

Straight from Thailand muay thai is pretty sport oriented though. It is a sport there. Has been for quite some time.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;823065Straight from Thailand muay thai is pretty sport oriented though. It is a sport there. Has been for quite some time.

I'm sure you know more about it than I do. My understanding is only academic, and from some enthusiasts I've met. However - I think the fact that Muai Thai has a changing face even in Thailand is even more indicative that we need a new and updated edition of Ninjas & Superspies.

//Panjumanju

It hasn't changed much since the book in question was written. There is an older form of Muay thai that still gets practiced there and is experiencing something of a cultural revival, and there is also an older form the sport version that doesn't use boxing gloves with slightly different rules and that gets used for special events and occasions (it is comparable to the difference between modern boxing and bare knuckle boxing). But most of the Muay Thai gyms in the US (at least the ones I have been to in Boston) are run by guys who trained in Thailand and have ties with boxing camps there. The drills are largely the same. The big difference is you don't have boxing camps in the US with stables of fighters. And there also isn't the enthusiasm for Muay thai here so there are not nearly as many opportunities to fight. It is a big sport in Thailand with several Muay thai stadiums. Here Muay Thai is seen as supplementary training for MMA (at least in terms of its practical utility). There people love the sport and if you do Muay thai its your job and life (though it is still mostly the poor who become fighters). Here most people do it as a hobby or take pro fights if they are really good.