Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1075637In many entertaining mook fights, however, some or all mooks are visually distinct. It helps to tell a unique story.

And in many fights they are indistinct. Sometimes, like with Star Wars Stormtroopers, they are visually identical.

But in an RPG the mooks are mechanically identical. (That's part of what being a mook in an RPG means.) So practically speaking it is mechanically irrelevant if mook #2 (the guy with blond hair and a furry vest) hits or mook #5 (the guy with brown hair and the leather cross belts) hits. At that point, instead of adding additional mechanics that don't involve actual player tactical choices, it seems simple enough for the GM to decide who was in the best position to make the hit or simply roll 1D6 to figure out which mook hit.

Alexander, my sense is that you and I don't enjoy quite the same things in the media we consume, we are playing using significantly different types of combat systems, and we want different kinds of play experiences. Given that, I suspect my suggestions or criticisms aren't likely to help you get what you want. So I'll try to avoid pissing on your parade.

Quote from: Bren;1075889It could just be age and get-off-my-lawn crankiness, but it seems like action TV shows these days are especially bad at having combat make sense or maintaining any consistency in the relative combat expertise of villains and heroes. Instead the shows seem to be all about the drama and the angst.

Oddly enough I think it was in the 1990s that fight choreography & consistency peaked with TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and to a lesser extent other shows like Xena/Hercules and Stargate-SG1. Stargate had a strong 'villain decay' tendency but they justified it with tech talk.

Alright, let's have a look at the death of Ser Barristan Selmy. In response to your post: I have ignored the time issue on the 300 video because of the slo-mo but in SW a round is 6 seconds. So, with Barristan Selmy you need to go at least 2 rounds before the cut to Greyworm and 3 rounds afterwards (+ 1 round where Greyworm kills the final attacker). This is VERY important here. Only then we can see how faithful SW is.


Ser Barristan
STR 6, TOUGH 6, AGI 6, DEX 5
Sword 8 (he's growing old, 9 is normal human max)
INIT 8, DAM 0, SOAK 0, Damage Capacity 3 (I counted 3 serious wounds before he was taken out - so it's not an arbitrary number but directly derived from what we can observe.)
Gear: Sword (M I8)
Traits:
Mook-Killer - After killing/incapacitating a Mook, the character can move up to 1.5 m and attack another Mook as part of the same melee action. Up to 3 Mooks can be dispatched this way per round. Same as Leo above.
Expert in Counter-Attack: +2 Defend against Mooks. Can Defend against Mooks an unlimited number of times per round.
Human Shield - Once per battle on a successful counterattack the character can instead grab an enemy Mook for a turn and direct the next successful enemy attack against him.

Sons of Harpy
All attributes 5 (human average)
Melee 5
Init 5, DAM 0, SOAK 0
Gear: Shortsword (S I7 Dam M) or Dagger (S I6 -1 Def)


Round 1: (1:20-1:24)
Mook 1 attacks and gets counterattacked, going down. The other Mooks count as Supporters and must therefore test against Melee (Closing Roll) to see if they get to attack. One of them passes and rolls for attack and gets countered by Ser Barristan as well. Ser Barristan has the Init.

Round 2: (1:24-1:28)
Barristan gives up the Init again, gets attacked, rolls a counter once more and triggers his Human Shield special ability. Another Supporter attacks and the attack gets misdirected to his ally who goes down. Nobody has the initiative.

Round 3: (1:28-1:32)
Barristan wins initiative and attacks one Mook. The Mook goes down (which is very likely), enabling him to trigger his Mook-Killer ability - taking down in the following 2 more.

CUT TO GREYWORM, SELMY CUTS A KNEELING SoH

Round 4: (1:37-1:43)
Barristan counters and kills a Son of Harpy attacker. A supporter kicks him in the back (Fumble Barristan or Crit by SoH?) and he loses a bit balance (probably counts as Stun) and gets tossed back once more (another Stun result but it's NOT cumulative). The SoH dude has init.

Round 5: (1:43-1:49)
The stunned Barristan counters one attack (main atttacker), parries the second (supporter) and then gets hit by a 3rd attack (another supporter who passed his Melee skill test). And here's where the KotBL system begins to break down: Selmy kills the attacker who wounded him in return. But there is no simultaneous wounding each other in the Quickstart BETA. Under KotBL at present only he would get wounded.

Round 6: (1:49-1:55)
Barristan gets kicked (which doesn't do anything except as a cosmetic effect because then the attacker gets killed by him). In that round Selmy receives 2 hits (the last one fatal, even if not immediately so, as it reaches his Damage Capacity) and takes down 2 himself. So the breakdown of the KotBL rules continues here with more simultaneous attacks.

END

So, I am not going to sugarcoat it: there is one(!) major deviation, the lack of naturally occurring simultaneous wounds. But then again it's only Quickstart rules and I know exactly how and where one would build such a rare event into the system. A full ruleset would probably be VERY accurate here. Also, nice to see that the Mook-Killer Trait from the Leonidas fight finds use here again as Selmy proactively cuts down 3 Mooks in short order within one round. So the limit of 3 per round is about right and the rule not specifically tailored to the 300 scene.

This is very satisfying, especially with the One-against-Many combat rules discussed here. You have a lot of Sons of Harpy fighters not attacking (they do not pass their Closing Roll and hang back) and always 1 to 3 which make it each round and attack. In the beginning they get countered but then Selmy loses his balance for a turn, which sets him up for defeat. That's exactly how it could occur in a KotBL fight.

And now I am looking forward to the explanation why not all the attackers that could be attacking Selmy are doing so each round under SW rules (my guess: they failed their attack roll?). Remember: we have at least 5 rounds of attacks, not 2, as you originally suggested. 2 rounds would circumvent the issue raised in this thread: outnumbering attackers in cinematic combats NOT attacking each round but often hesitating or beign outmaneuvered.
In KotBL, it is mandated by the mechanics, depending on how the Closing Rolls.

I have found the clearest example of this hesitation yet - in chanbara. Look at 5:40 here:

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


Compare these staggered atatcks to how each outnumbering character attacks each round in RPGs. THAT is the main issue of this thread. I hope it's clear to everyone now what I think the key to cinematic One v Many is.



PS I read through your interpretation only after writing this down. I am glad that we both came to the conclusion that Selmy is an expert at counter-attack here and that the final kick to Selmy did really NOTHING.

AK, it would have been fairer if you had explained from the start that you have a ready prototype which shows your personal solution to the problem(s), and wanted feedback, not just a theoretical discussion. I see that SolidTom designed your logo: did you ask for his advice, too? He is a very tactically-minded player, not just a RoleMaster fan and a good artist. He is making a RM clone with my friend Max and others, at the moment.

Some of the solutions you instrumented are interesting, and certainly you have tackled the problem of interrupting actions in a detailed and thoughtful way. I need a closer look at the flow of events to give an opinion on the subject, though.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1075038I am somewhat aware of Mythras, having done some research. Also, I am a big fan of all things d100, especially CoC, which is the best RPG overall, imho. But I'm pursuing a bit of a different philosophy: that the players generally (but not entirely) can't choose specific maneuvers or outcomes because it is assumed their character will choose the best move and you can't force any move if the opportunity isn't there anyway. So most things are subsumed under the attack roll.

There is a problem here - manoeuvres represent a tactical choice which implements a strategic decision (kill or disable? maximum damage or tactical advantage? take a risk and finish quickly or be more prudent and risk dragging the combat for a long time?) which only the player can take on behalf of the character. Letting the die roll decide this would take away too much agency from the players. Thus, in any case, there should be moments where the player makes a conscious choice - the die roll representing how well he implemented that choice, but not being able to change that decision for him.

Honestly, I think that the simplest way forward then is to let the player decide everything, instead of telling him "ok, you determine your strategy, but what specific tactics you use to achieve it are determined by the character operating on autopilot". Handling every decision in the same way is more streamlined, and sooner or later you will hit a spot where the decision is more strategic than tactical and the system tries to handle it for the player - thus robbing him of some fun.

The "outmanoeuvre" of Mythras, which you do not like, and neither do I, is a specific example of this : it is not a combat effect but a pre-roll decision the character can make, depending on his specific strategy to face a superior number of opponents. It would be easier if Lawrence and Peter had implemented it as a combat effect, as you would have one less rule to remember and one less decision the player must make before rolling, when he does not know whether he won the exchange or not.

As for not all options being realistically available when winning an exchange, it is rather easy to design the manoeuvres as being dependant on the die roll (even 13th Age does this with its flexible attacks for fighters) and thus not applicable in certain cases, regardless of the fighter's will.

QuoteBut nothing wrong with Mythras whatsoever. I think it's a bit slower than my game but more detailed - so it's a trade-off, making it solely a matter of personal preference.

Did you check the speeds in practice ? Because only the table can give a verdict about the required time.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1075855Hmm, it's odd that you say you want detailed and PC-focused moves yet don't want Outmaneuver, because that's exactly what it is.

PC-selected. That means "not player-selected" aka abstracted away behind some dice mechanic - like an Attack roll, which might subsume a range of feints, maneuvers and assorted trickery.

Quote from: CRKrueger;1075855Why wouldn't you always be doing it?
Because you don't need to.
Because you don't want to based on the tactics on the ground.

Exactly. And some crucial factors that impact that are not covered by game rules, usually. A moment of insecurity on the defender. A brief opportunity to triangulate him. A brief window in time (2s?) where he adopts a stance that leaves him open to a specific attack. We don't track the flux of such states, that's why players can't take the decision. It's the PC that needs to take these decisions which may get summarized by a plain attack or parry roll.

Quote from: Skarg;1075875"What if we ignore rate x time = distance?" or "what if we ignore physics?" or "what if we ignore what humans are really like?" are not fantasies I often want to play.

What do you think about the Star Wars OT?

Quote from: S'mon;1075898Oddly enough I think it was in the 1990s that fight choreography & consistency peaked with TV shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and to a lesser extent other shows like Xena/Hercules and Stargate-SG1. Stargate had a strong 'villain decay' tendency but they justified it with tech talk.

In the late 90s Hollywood discovered Heroic Bloodshed and its highly choreographed fight scenes. A water-shed moment was Romeo Must Die or roundabout that time at least, if my memory doesn't fail me.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;1075999AK, it would have been fairer if you had explained from the start that you have a ready prototype which shows your personal solution to the problem(s), and wanted feedback, not just a theoretical discussion.

I would however prefer not to debate my actual implementation (or at least as little as possible) - but it grows harder to not get sucked into that as a thread goes on. I would prefer to analyze scenes more open-mindedly and debate underlying design choices. That way I both get my logic examined indepedently and there's a floating of ideas regarding how to implement that. That said, I believe I have mentioned that I do have an existing system before in this thread but since it's still in a BETA state and there's no on-going crowdfunding preparation yet, I have a brief window of time left to do major rewiring. So I am quite curious about alternative approaches and viewpoints.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;1075999I see that SolidTom designed your logo: did you ask for his advice, too? He is a very tactically-minded player, not just a RoleMaster fan and a good artist. He is making a RM clone with my friend Max and others, at the moment.

Oh yeah, he did, pretty happy with it. I made the PDF available to him a while before public release but I didn't ask specifically for his opinion because I see him and his crew being quite busy with Against the Darkmaster and reading into a new system can consume time and energy that might better be spend on your own game. I only glanced through AtD myself because I got so much on my plate - and I have the advantage of being familiar with Rolemaster/MERP so... much less work for me. Everybody who likes the basic approach of Rolemaster/MERP but thinks it could be modernized, however, please go ahead and check it out.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;1075999The "outmanoeuvre" of Mythras, which you do not like, and neither do I, is a specific example of this : it is not a combat effect but a pre-roll decision the character can make, depending on his specific strategy to face a superior number of opponents. It would be easier if Lawrence and Peter had implemented it as a combat effect, as you would have one less rule to remember and one less decision the player must make before rolling, when he does not know whether he won the exchange or not.

Exactly! In my case the outmanoeuvre isn't a hit result but implied based on how many and which attackers get to roll to attack. If they don't, they have either been outmanoeuvre'd or (more likely) they hesitated, as shown in the Lone Wolf with Cub clip. It's nothing the player can decide - his PC is assumed to outmanoeuvre his attackers whenever he can and thinks it's best.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;1075999As for not all options being realistically available when winning an exchange, it is rather easy to design the manoeuvres as being dependant on the die roll (even 13th Age does this with its flexible attacks for fighters) and thus not applicable in certain cases, regardless of the fighter's will.

Oh, that's a good one. This one has escaped my attention so far, I need to check it out. Thanks for the tip.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;1075999Did you check the speeds in practice ? Because only the table can give a verdict about the required time.

No, not specifically. Testing and comparing various systems is time-consuming, especially if you want to compare the speeds of people who have actually mastered a system. But I am familiar with both CoC/BRP and tactical options-rich systems, so I feel like I can take an educated guess. I mean you just have to look at the Special Effects summary page. The problem that I have with so much player choice is this: either an option is clearly the best, then you select it. And possibly select it as often as possible. Or there are multiple options that are roughly equally viable and then you're risking slowing down the action through analysis paralysis. Especially when a player has quite a list to choose from. Plus then he needs to know the rules for each from the top of his head to make a selection, etc.

That said, being a d100 fan, I'd love to play RQ6/Mythras.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076020Oh yeah, he did, pretty happy with it. I made the PDF available to him a while before public release but I didn't ask specifically for his opinion because I see him and his crew being quite busy with Against the Darkmaster and reading into a new system can consume time and energy that might better be spend on your own game. I only glanced through AtD myself because I got so much on my plate - and I have the advantage of being familiar with Rolemaster/MERP so... much less work for me. Everybody who likes the basic approach of Rolemaster/MERP but thinks it could be modernized, however, please go ahead and check it out.

Yeah, definitely. When it comes to Rolemaster, Max and Tom have "done their homework"

QuoteI mean you just have to look at the Special Effects summary page. The problem that I have with so much player choice is this: either an option is clearly the best, then you select it. And possibly select it as often as possible. Or there are multiple options that are roughly equally viable and then you're risking slowing down the action through analysis paralysis. Especially when a player has quite a list to choose from. Plus then he needs to know the rules for each from the top of his head to make a selection, etc.

The problem is exactly this, i.e. being afraid of the "best manoeuvre" syndrome or the "decision paralysis" one. Both situations can happen, but a good design of the combat effect and usage of combat cards for unexperienced players avoids it.

I will speculate on the subject later, when I have more time.

Whenever I see high Round-Counts I get wary when they get "too high" - because it's an inevitable time-eater. It sounds to me like you're wanting a very tic-tac style of combat (which is fine) that resembles a fast pace hand of Magic to determine the outcomes within a certain set of parameterized maneuvers?

Okay, more on "Why special effects do not overcomplicate a detailed combat simulation".

The first point is to clearly label the effects so that you know when you are supposed to use them. Some effects are defensive, some are offensive, some are both. Others are critical only. Yet others are possible only with certain weapons (entangle, impale, sunder...). Finally, some effects are damage effects (they only apply if you strike for damage) while others are tactical (they also apply when the attack was stopped). There is no situation when you can choose among the whole list of 30+ effects. With a little practice and with the help of combat effect cards for newbies ( the GM selects the most useful cards for the player, who picks among them and not from the full list when he or she succeeds in a roll ), the choices are restricted to two or three per roll. Very often, a best possible choice is available, which usually corresponds to the fulfillment of the overall strategy the combatant was pursuing.

The second point is to link the effectiveness of the combat effect to the die roll, so that common options become useless or non-applicable in some situations. In 13th Age, some effects are only available if your attack roll is odd or even. In Mythras, some effects can be countered with an opposed roll, so if you succeeded with a very low roll you better not pick that option, as the enemy will most likely negate it with a saving throw; on the contrary, if you rolled very high you should favour that option, as the opponent must roll a critical to negate the effect. In Revolution D100, some effects depend on the number shown by either the tens or the units die: if that die shows a zero, then the option has no effect if you pick it; on the other hand, if the die shows a nine then the tactical situation at hand is the one when that specific manoeuvre can have a truly devastating effect.

It is clearly possible to obtain similar results with a system that does not require player agency, but there is no way you are going to obtain this without complex calculations or a further roll on an additional table (à la RoleMaster). And it is virtually impossible to design the system in such a way that you do not end up with the dice suggesting some implausible result which requires plenty GM handwaiving, and contradicts the principle that "the character is supposed to be competent enough to pick the optimal effect".

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076020PC-selected. That means "not player-selected" aka abstracted away behind some dice mechanic - like an Attack roll, which might subsume a range of feints, maneuvers and assorted trickery.

This discussion of Mythras' Outmaneuver option seems to have concluded that you want to leave the decision of "I'm being attacked by too many people; I should try to get into a position where only some of them can attack" in the PC's hands and abstract it out of the player's control.  Fair enough.  But, to me, that seems like a pretty broad tactical decision, rather than a moment-by-moment response to immediate opportunities, so it makes me wonder...  What level of tactical decision-making do you want to leave in the player's hands?  I'm kind of getting a "no player tactical involvement; just roll dice and assume the PC made the appropriate decisions without player input" vibe, but the very fact that you've started this thread seems to imply that you want the player to be more hands-on than that.

LOL, for almost 2 weeks I am trying to let the thread die because I want to start a new thread on One-on-One cinematic combat (I'll address some issues, like # of rounds, there) - but at they same time I don't wanna spam the forum with my stuff. Still, this thread keeps raising interesting points, so on it goes:

A bit of my philoshophy in designing Knights of the Black Lily was indeed "We roll to find out what happens to my little guy." This, of course, deemphasizes player decisions during combat at least to some degree. Suppose in Red Viper v Mountain, Prince Oberyn was your little guy. Just rolling the dice and observing how the battle swings back-and-forth can be a lot of fun by all itself. Now, without any player options during any fight it's kinda boring too, so there need to be some.

Also, just rolling dice to see what happens can be kinda boring when you have old-school combat systems and all that happens is whittling down each others hitpoints. But when the dice generate a plausible sequence of cinematic events, it's a bit different. The dice begin to tell a story that is easy to visualize. That reduces a bit the need for a plethora of tactical options (albeit without eliminating it).


As for the outmaneuvering, we have to agree to disagree. I see it more as an instinctive decision, where you take the opportunity if it presents itself to you rather than a tactical, intellectual decision. And that leaves out the issue that sometimes an enemy cannot attack because an ally gets in the way, not because the lone fighter has you outmaneuver'd. Look at the guy in the lower left corner in the Lone Wolf with Cub clip at 5:55  - he tries to attack but his ally blocks him. Plus, often enemies don't attack due to hesitation. So the Outmaneuver action (or special effect) covers only part of the combat dynamics.

We got to ask at this point: what is really the relevant information we need in cinematic 1 v Many situations? For me, it's who attacks this round. The reason why someone cannot/does not attack - I am comfortable with leaving that up to GM narration. Because 1 v Many is a more complex situation with many variables, it leaves much creative space for the GM to interpret the dice rolls in varied ways.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076178We got to ask at this point: what is really the relevant information we need in cinematic 1 v Many situations? For me, it's who attacks this round. The reason why someone cannot/does not attack - I am comfortable with leaving that up to GM narration. Because 1 v Many is a more complex situation with many variables, it leaves much creative space for the GM to interpret the dice rolls in varied ways.

No, I get you! I'm very much into "cinematic" combat. Ideally I want my options to matter as both a player and GM without bogging down play. There is a sweet spot to hit.

My Want List:

1) I want characters to be able to mechanically emphasize a "style" of combat. Not all styles needs to be equal - but where they're situational they should shine.
2) I want weapon types to matter on some mechanical level. Armor types should as well.
3) Characters should have skill-based options AND/OR mechanics based on choices during progression. Whether this is Talents/Edges/Feats or simply Skill progression that opens up access during progression - or a hybrid of those is is fine.
4) Equally meaningful defense choices.
5) These subsystems must plug into the core combat mechanics as seamlessly as possible - this is the rub.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076178This, of course, deemphasizes player decisions during combat at least to some degree. Suppose in Red Viper v Mountain, Prince Oberyn was your little guy. Just rolling the dice and observing how the battle swings back-and-forth can be a lot of fun by all itself. Now, without any player options during any fight it's kinda boring too, so there need to be some.

Also, just rolling dice to see what happens can be kinda boring when you have old-school combat systems and all that happens is whittling down each others hitpoints. But when the dice generate a plausible sequence of cinematic events, it's a bit different. The dice begin to tell a story that is easy to visualize. That reduces a bit the need for a plethora of tactical options (albeit without eliminating it).

There are two problems here.
1. Why have detailed events if you have no control over them ? It is a bit boring even in PC games when at least they show you a rendering of the action on-screen. In theatre of the mind, I would not find this exciting.
2. What exactly is the effect of a "cinematic event" ? When "Cinematic Event A" happens, how does it differ from "Cinematic Event B" happening? If all of the difference is in the narration, then you could just go back to HP attrition and force players to narrate what happened. If instead there is a mechanical difference between A and B, then everything makes sense.

However, for the difference to be present, then A must leave the player with a different set of options left than B does. In other words, player agenda is still at the centre of the system.

If that is not true, could you show us an example of a die-generated cinematic event and how this affects the outcome of the round without the player making any decisions ?

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076020What do you think about the Star Wars OT?

I like most of it, with a few exceptions such as most of the Ewok combat.

On the other hand, it does have some apparent rate/time/distance problems especially in the first Death Star battle, though those problems are more conceptual than right there blatantly in your face (the way so many things are in the later more hyperactive SW films).

I feel the OT succeeds in having most of its space opera dramatic action look and feel fairly real, while the prequels and especially the Disney SW films range from semi-plausible to utterly fake and wrong-looking to me.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1076178LOL, for almost 2 weeks I am trying to let the thread die because I want to start a new thread on One-on-One cinematic combat (I'll address some issues, like # of rounds, there) - but at they same time I don't wanna spam the forum with my stuff. Still, this thread keeps raising interesting points, so on it goes:

That is the nature of forum threads.

Quote from: RosenMcStern;1076191If that is not true, could you show us an example of a die-generated cinematic event and how this affects the outcome of the round without the player making any decisions ?

I would also like to see an example of a die-generated cinematic event. It would help me to (a) get a sense of what [strike]your[/strike] his Beta does and (b) get a better sense of whether the solution would have any appeal to me or my current players.

In Lion & Dragon, fighters get multiple attacks if they're fighting against several foes of 1hd or less.  Many OSR games have a similar rule.