I have seen games that do melee combat well.

I have seen games that do ranged combat well.

I have not seen too many games that easily handle both.

I have seen many games that muck up one or the other.

I can't say too much more without talking specifics, but if you intend to try and hit that elusive 'both' catagory there are a few things I think that need to be kept in mind.

One: Melee combat should never, realistically, be less deadly than ranged combat.  Less optimal, certainly, but deadliness should not be the issue.

This comes up in the current edition of Shadowrun, where it is possible for one, armed, human with a high degree of skill to find themselves unable to reasonably kill another human being without becoming 'superhuman' first. Contrast this to the fact that even a relatively untrained punk with a common pistol can kill just about anybody in the same amount of time.

When strong ranged combat exists, it will always be an 'optimal choice' over other forms of combat simply because it is possible to shoot someone, often several times, before they can close to 'choppy choppy distance'.

In real life, in the movies, in books and literature and our imaginations, sneaking up on a guy while holding a knife, or being a master of Kung Fu, means you can kill a fool quickly and quietly. Obviously, our game avatars should be, within limits, capable of similar tactics. Melee should be deadly (baring occasionally Kung fu, but that's another topic...)

 
It is possible, even easy, to muck things up the opposite way. Consider traditional D&D, of any stripe.  The game is predicated on melee combat, and the only way to remotely threaten even a mid-range game with range is to either be a hyperspecialized bowguy or use the effects of volume fire.  A 'standard' melee fighter, beyond 5th or 6th level has no use at all for a ranged weapon.  An example of weak ranged combat.

In this case there is little need to protect melee combat. the weaknesses of ranged combat can be addressed directly. In this case make ranged weapons more friendly to the melee weapon resolution. Bow and even crossbow guys should be able to fire as often as their sword swinging buddy gets his licks in. Offset 'slow to fire' weapons with enough extra damage to make it worthwhile.

I agree that Melee should be more "deadly" than ranged, in general. However, in real life any joe that can pull a trigger could take out the greatest martial artist in the world. It all depends on the sort of realism you are going for in your design. You also don't want your system to fail the "gunshot to the head" test either.

I agree. This is why I make weapon of an order of magnitude of damage when I design it. So, yeah, you have a zwei-hander doing 5d10, 2 att but you have a heavy crossbow doing 6d12 and 1/2 att. Reason: Ranged is a factor. Some of it is game balance but more than that, HC do a crapload of damage when they hit IRL. So do zwei-handers. Since I have hit locations you can further localize the effect. So, a massive shot to the arm does not kill, but shoot him through the heart and it is over.

I tend to believe that you need to consider.
1. Game balance: Is it fun and reasonable to want to use a weapon, meaning does the system make it the only logical choice or will each player have their own preferences;i.e. a few swings at massive damage or the death of a thousand cuts.

2. Does it make sense to the setting. I had problems with this initially but hopefully it will straighten out shortly. Essentially, do you have katana's that cut tanks in half? Is it supposed to? So, part of it is genre emulation or setting appropriate.

That's my take at least.

Bill

The main difference between ranged and melee combat is that in melee combat I can not miss unless you make me miss. Try it go and pick up a baseball bat and try and hit a chair with it. You will connect 100% of the time unless you are drunk, physically disabled or a girl. now go and stand 20 yeards away and try shooting it with an air pistol. Start from the hip. If you are good you might hit 1 in 5. Then try to take a snap shot, gun up and fire (1in 3) aimed (you hit it pretty much all the time).
The differences between melee combat and missile combat are
i) You can train a guy to use a pistol in an hour. It takes a fair bit longer to train them in the use of a three sectional staff.
ii) You get tired in melee combat (3 3 minute full combat rounds will exhaust a fit 25 year old male)
iii) In melee combat the most skillful combatant will win

If you can these elements workign you have a good balance. I really liked the Top Secret combat systems and I think it managed ranged and melee combat reasonable well and both had a very distinctive feel.

Quote from: jibbajibbaii) You get tired in melee combat (3 3 minute full combat rounds will exhaust

Yup, a good way to check this out is to watch some high school or college wrestling. You see some outstangin atheletes in great shape that train for endurance in that sport and they get gased after 3 two minute period. IMO, real wrestling is very much a type of combat. Now take an average joe and I bet they're dead tired after just one period.

Yeah, the big factor that separates ranged and melee combat is the fact that one can get off a few shots with a ranged weapon before one's foe can close in melee. Otherwise, I prefer to leave damage similar between the two.

In the case of DnD, they make melee combat more appealing in a number of ways.

1)It's too damn easy to close. Charging lets you move what? Four times your speed? And attack in the same round? Damn. Making a shot from more than 120 feet to prevent that would probably incur range increment penalties, not that anyone really tracks those. At this point the ideal solution for a ranged fighter is to pick "difficult terrain" or inaccessible higher ground.

2)Strength bonus to damage on melee weapons. Things are comparable otherwise, but this puts melee weapons at a marked advantage, I think.

3)Attacks of opportunity. Not only can a melee combatant get a shitload of extra attacks this way, but the rules specifically gimp ranged weapons because they provoke attacks of opportunity.

I kind of prefer the Heinlein approach (brain fart... can't bring up the name of the book... kind of fantasy scifi crossover) where ranged weapons were preferable because you could get off a few shots before closing but melee weapons were preferable once you got in close because ranged combatants couldn't effectively defend themselves. One way to model this is an active defense mechanic where defense is split up between dodging and parrying. Dodging is for ranged attacks, though you can dodge melee attacks at a penalty; parrying is for melee attacks, though you could parry ranged attacks at a penalty. This way, the way you want to go about it is to attack with ranged weapons first and then switch to melee when you get close. I don't know that it's particularly realistic, but I think it would be good for a game.

In his book War Before Civilization, Lawrence Keeley describes warfare between primitive bands of warriors and says that the reason why they often had few casualties is that once a person or two took a good hit from a missile weapon, their side would normally retreat.  But he points out that once people closed to hand-to-hand combat, the body counts went up substantially because not only did they hit more often but more effectively.

jibbajibba has it essentially correct, to which I would add (A) that taking an aimed shot at a moving and evading target can be difficult, especially with a heavy or muscle-powered ranged weapon and (B) strength and size are also huge in melee combat, which is why hand-to-hand combat sports rank the competitors by weight and reach is considered an important number in boxing.

Quote from: beejazzYeah, the big factor that separates ranged and melee combat is the fact that one can get off a few shots with a ranged weapon before one's foe can close in melee. Otherwise, I prefer to leave damage similar between the two.

In the case of DnD, they make melee combat more appealing in a number of ways.

1)It's too damn easy to close. Charging lets you move what? Four times your speed? And attack in the same round? Damn. Making a shot from more than 120 feet to prevent that would probably incur range increment penalties, not that anyone really tracks those. At this point the ideal solution for a ranged fighter is to pick "difficult terrain" or inaccessible higher ground.

2)Strength bonus to damage on melee weapons. Things are comparable otherwise, but this puts melee weapons at a marked advantage, I think.

3)Attacks of opportunity. Not only can a melee combatant get a shitload of extra attacks this way, but the rules specifically gimp ranged weapons because they provoke attacks of opportunity.

I kind of prefer the Heinlein approach (brain fart... can't bring up the name of the book... kind of fantasy scifi crossover)

Glory Road? Awesome book!

In StarCluster System games, the difference between weapons is dwarfed by the variable. A pistol is d%+15, same as a shortsword. A dagger is d%+0 and a rifle is d%+30. The big difference is that one is ranged and the other isn't.

-clash

This is why I like using open-ended damage dice.  The 1d4 knife or 1d6 arrow probably won't kill you, but it could.  

Pete

Quote from: McrowYou also don't want your system to fail the "gunshot to the head" test either.

My answer for this was always, "if you can do it, so can NPCs."  I always get called shots and head shots ironed out at the beginning of campaigns now as I had a near-game-ending situation in VtM because of this.  The PCs had Obfuscate [invisibility, more or less] and didn't think they should have to roll to put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger for an instant kill.  Of course when their enemies used the same tactic to automatically stake them through the heart with a crossbow, they weren't too pleased.  

Pete

I think he may be referring to the infamous situation in Shadowrun 3 where you could fairly easily with a Troll create a character that couldn't possibly commit suicide with a light pistol.

Shadowrun 2 had an even worse situation where you could fairly easily create a starting Troll (even Orcs IIRC) who all they did in combat was walk up beside you and drop live grenades at their feet. They were impervious to the grenade blast.  They didn't even need to hop like in Quake.

All aimed missile shots should be called shots. If you aim at a target you aim at a specific point, not only is it natural but it's actually easier (ignore for full automatic which presents numerous problems of its own for ranged combat)

In my homebrewed cyberpunk game in ranged combat if you aim your shot (ie take a round to sight up) you pick the hit location (we have 20 locations rolled on a d20 with the hit with the majority in the chest and abdomen). You actually get an aimed shot bonus rather than a called shot negative. If you are aiming at something small, or the neck, hands or knees - which are deemed Hard Targets - then a -ve modifier can be applied (eg the gap in the guy's kevlar vest in his armpit, or the remote control for the explosive charge etc).
 
In Melee Combat the attacker secretly records which location they are trying to hit. The defender can defend 2 locations and if you try to hit a location that is being defended your attack is blocked and you loose initiaitve to your oponent. This stops all hits being head/groin/throat. If you strike at an unprotected location there is as skill check and a parry check (unless your opponent is trying to do something else, other than fight, when the hit is automatic).

Just to complete the thread we have a hitpoint total % of which apply to each location. So if you have 13 Hitpoints your chest areas, abdomen and head all have 13 hit points. The groin will have 75% or 9 hitpoints and a hand 50% (7). There is a simple rule on damage in that if a location is reduced to 0 its out of use. So to kill someone you need to reduce a key location to 0 hits (with lethal damage). You can't kill someone by blowing their foot off (they would need to make a shock save or loose consciousness)  

To reduce bookeeping (and to give a heroic feel) there is no cumulative effect of small injuries across many locations. so a guy with 10 hit points can take 9 damage to both chest locations, groin, abdomen and head and still keep going, but 5 damage to his neck location will kill him (well render him unconscious for the remains of the scene leading to death without medical attention).

All these rules (the effect of a location dropping to 0, targetting modifiers for locations etc) are printed on the character sheet on a body template that shows the hit locations and the d20 value for random damage and after a session most players are totally au fait with the whole system.

Quote from: jibbajibbaAll aimed missile shots should be called shots. If you aim at a target you aim at a specific point, not only is it natural but it's actually easier (ignore for full automatic which presents numerous problems of its own for ranged combat)

The problem is that while people aim at a specific point, they often don't hit the exact point that they aim for.  Thus police officers are taught to shoot at the center of the torso because that has the best chance of still hitting, even if they don't hit the spot they are aiming for.  Look at where people get wounded during gunfights and it's rarely the particular spot where a person would aim.

Quote from: jibbajibbaIn Melee Combat the attacker secretly records which location they are trying to hit. The defender can defend 2 locations and if you try to hit a location that is being defended your attack is blocked and you loose initiaitve to your oponent. This stops all hits being head/groin/throat. If you strike at an unprotected location there is as skill check and a parry check (unless your opponent is trying to do something else, other than fight, when the hit is automatic).

The problem I have with this is that in melee combat, a defender's response adapts to the attackers attacks, thus if a defender sees that you are attacking their head, they'll put more defense there.  That's also what feinting is all about.  Trying to fool the defender to defend where you aren't attacking.  And without that sort of give and take, I would think that picking hit locations becomes pretty arbitrary if it has to be done up front.

The main reason to not roll for hit location until after the attack is that people adjust their attack base on opportunity.  Thus if they see an opening on an arm, they might attack the arm even if they'd really like to hit the person in the head.  So what a normal combat system with called shot negatives is trying to simulate is that an uncalled attack will take whatever opening presents itself and thus will take advantage of unguarded locations and so on while a called shot will pass on certain attacks against other locations in order to get the best opening at a specific location.  Or in the case of a missile weapon, it means taking a shot at the center of gravity without worrying about being certain it's actually going to hit the middle of their torso.

I understand what you mean about atacks of opportunity. In fact this system introduces a degree of meta game where you are trying to out think your opponent (we added feints and the like into the system as hard rules but got rather too complex). The fact that melee blows to the body and head could kill meant that these were the areas people defended which meant that blows to the arms and legs were actually easier to succeed with and so from a round about position you actaully endeded with melee combat fits focusing here.

I know what you mean about ranged combat as well. But generally a trained even half trained shooter can hit a target the size of a football from 10 yards nearly all of the time. The problem in combat isn't accuracy its nerves.  

This is something else that doesn't feature in enough games really the fact that in a gun fight most people are bricking themselves. It seems less true of melee combat I guess because you are in a sense engaged unlike in a firefight where a shot from an unknown assailant can kill you outright without you ever even seeing the guy.
There is a nice example of this in the Young Guns movie where some grizzled old bounty hunter shows up to arrest Billy the Kid's gang and they all totally loose the plot.
We have played with all sorts of 'coolness under fire' rules but never came up with anything that worked very well and so just assumed that all our heroes would be immune to such concerns. In reality its probably the single most important aspect.

Quote from: pspahnMy answer for this was always, "if you can do it, so can NPCs."  I always get called shots and head shots ironed out at the beginning of campaigns now as I had a near-game-ending situation in VtM because of this.  The PCs had Obfuscate [invisibility, more or less] and didn't think they should have to roll to put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger for an instant kill.  Of course when their enemies used the same tactic to automatically stake them through the heart with a crossbow, they weren't too pleased.  

Pete

Yes, that is what I do. Unless there is something in the setting or that is a core concept of the game, NPCs will have access to pretty much everything PCs do.