Quote from: RPGPundit;1077559In Lion & Dragon, fighters get multiple attacks if they're fighting against several foes of 1hd or less.  Many OSR games have a similar rule.

Honest question, I was under the impression that AD&D wasn't OSR?  Or is that 'Old School'?  I honestly don't remember.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1077559In Lion & Dragon, fighters get multiple attacks if they're fighting against several foes of 1hd or less.  Many OSR games have a similar rule.

This is good and me and tenbones have recreated that in our comparisons with special traits/advantages. However, as a gentle reminder, the main issue in this thread is this:

In most RPGs, 1 v Many looks like this, all the time:




When in many rounds, it should look like this:




Hope this clears things up!

Both scenes seem to be about 10 seconds* in real time which is roughly 1-2 rounds in many systems and 1/6 of a single one-minute round in original D&D. And the net effect of bunch of guys fighting one guy in clip #1 is nobody is visibly hit and damaged whereas in clip #2 four mooks get hit and damaged.

Many combat systems will output similar results in a 1 or 2 round interval. The problem with narration lies in an assumption that each roll of the dice corresponds to a single swing of the weapon. Rather most combat systems subsume what occurs in the round (various feints, missed or blocked attacks, and the occasional actual hit) with a single die roll (or a single die roll per opponent). The assumption is natural, at least it is certainly very, very common. That doesn't make it correct** though.

* The second clip seems a bit shorter than the first clip, but they seem to be roughly similar in length.

** Correct here means, in accord with the meaning of an attack in an RPG combat system.

Quote from: Bren;1077590The assumption is natural, at least it is certainly very, very common. That doesn't make it correct** though.

But it makes the mechanics that lead to such very, very common wrong assumptions very, very unevocative/unintuitive. Or misleading, if you'd prefer to frame it that way. Discussing the situation in cinematic combat and how it could be captured in a more evocative way has been the main body of this thread.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077578This is good and me and tenbones have recreated that in our comparisons with special traits/advantages. However, as a gentle reminder, the main issue in this thread is this:

In most RPGs, 1 v Many looks like this, all the time:

In D&D every attacker misses, OR they didn't get the Knight down to 0 HP.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077578When in many rounds, it should look like this:



Hope this clears things up!

In D&D, high level fighter, with multiple attacks.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077591But it makes the mechanics that lead to such very, very common wrong assumptions very, very unevocative/unintuitive. Or misleading, if you'd prefer to frame it that way. Discussing the situation in cinematic combat and how it could be captured in a more evocative way has been the main body of this thread.

I wouldn't prefer to frame it as misleading. I suspect that the kinesthesic connection between the player rolling dice in the real world and the player's character doing or not doing something in the game world based on the roll lends itself to think of one roll as one action. Even though in many or most systems it isn't because the minutia of the round is abstracted to one (or a few) rolls.

If there is no roll that round (because for reasons my character is hesitating or blocked) for me, and likely for many players, not being able to roll that round is evocative of standing around doing nothing. (Thumb insertion optional.) That is part of why I'm not convinced that the problem you have is solvable in a way that won't create problems that are at least as bad. And that's why I asked for an example of "more evocative."

The GM can also roleplay or model hesitation, cowardice, confusion, lack of initiative, shock, surprise, etc (whether for notions of "cinematicity" or realism or whatever), and just have some people choose not to attack, and/or take defensive or "waiting for an opening" actions. Personally I think that works better with a mapped system, but then I think practically everything works better with a mapped system... ;-)

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1077602In D&D every attacker misses, OR they didn't get the Knight down to 0 HP.
In D&D, high level fighter, with multiple attacks.

Sadly the issue at the center of discussion is still not clear then: in the top image, every member of the outnumbering force makes an attack within a 5 or 6 second round. In the bottom GIF, they don't. And "not everyone attacking every round" is the norm rather than the exception in cinematic combat. In most RPGs, however, the dice mechanics do not intuitively evoke this imagery - they evoke everyone attacking (and some missing) each round instead.

Quote from: Skarg;1077620The GM can also roleplay or model hesitation, cowardice, confusion, lack of initiative, shock, surprise, etc (whether for notions of "cinematicity" or realism or whatever), and just have some people choose not to attack, and/or take defensive or "waiting for an opening" actions. Personally I think that works better with a mapped system, but then I think practically everything works better with a mapped system... ;-)

Sure and in more abstract systems (say, Dungeon World) that's what you got to do - narrate it as such. But look at Critical Role: it commonly doesn't get interpreted as such in trad games like D&D. It could but it doesn't because it's not an evocative mechanic. It doesn't naturally/intuitively evoke the images it should evoke to make the combat cinematic. That's why we're searching for mechanics that do evoke the appropriate mental imagery to translate cinematic action to game.

Quote from: Bren;1077607If there is no roll that round (because for reasons my character is hesitating or blocked) for me, and likely for many players, not being able to roll that round is evocative of standing around doing nothing. (Thumb insertion optional.) That is part of why I'm not convinced that the problem you have is solvable in a way that won't create problems that are at least as bad. And that's why I asked for an example of "more evocative."

Hold on: there is a roll taking place under two solutions that have been proposed here (#1: roll a random max number of "outnumberers" who can attack this round, handle in initiative order; #2: make a seperate test for each attacker to see if he can move into position and doesnt hesitate). Now, you raise a very valid issue here: it's possible that when not being able to attack here it feels like standing around in a casual/disinterested manner. I cannot dismiss this concern out of hand; nor can I assume it to happen like that. Only time will tell which imagery will be evoked in the players' mind. I have to point out though that this makes #2 look like the stronger mechanic of the two: here every attacker gets to roll for himself to see if he gets into position and spots an opportunity for attack. The player alone is in charge of his own fate by rolling well enough. But you're right - there's not necessarily an attack roll.

So, yeah, only one way to find out for sure: publish the rules and study how gamers run it.

Not really sure why you want to evoke the bad martial arts movie trope of "Mooks standing around doing nothing so as not to overwhelm protagonist" - unless you are definitely going for that particular genre and its tropes. To me the more realistic Death of Arthur Dane fight seems a much better one to seek to emulate.

You can do that but it wouldn't be very cinematic if everyone would attack every round in every fight. The videos posted earlier in this thread demonstrate that. Not everyone involved attacks every round. They're hesitating like a Sons of Harpy or blocked like a Nazgul. Or like one of Ned's men in the Tower of Joy fight itself:

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077673In most RPGs, however, the dice mechanics do not intuitively evoke this imagery - they evoke everyone attacking (and some missing) each round instead.

That's a problem with what's in the player's head, not the mechanics per se. If one can break the tie that some players have in their heads that the attack roll = a swing of the sword, then this problem recedes.

QuoteSure and in more abstract systems (say, Dungeon World) that's what you got to do - narrate it as such. But look at Critical Role: it commonly doesn't get interpreted as such in trad games like D&D.

Skarg can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe he is talking about traditional games of the GURPS or Fantasy Hero/Melee/Wizard variety. He isn't talking about narrating a GM story to explain missed attack rolls, he is talking about running the NPCs in a logical fashion, in a rational world setup, with position indicated on a map that has hexes or squares and counters or minis to mark position. So it is visually apparent which attackers are physically blocked from attacking. And he uses some type of morale, or a good GM knowledge of the NPCs in question, to indicate which attackers hesitate because they are nervous or afraid.

QuoteIt could but it doesn't because it's not an evocative mechanic. It doesn't naturally/intuitively evoke the images it should evoke to make the combat cinematic. That's why we're searching for mechanics that do evoke the appropriate mental imagery to translate cinematic action to game.

I'm wondering if it would be more effective to change the idea in the GM's and the players' heads of what an attack roll means rather than redesigning the system.

QuoteHold on: there is a roll taking place under two solutions that have been proposed here (#1: roll a random max number of "outnumberers" who can attack this round, handle in initiative order; #2: make a seperate test for each attacker to see if he can move into position and doesnt hesitate). Now, you raise a very valid issue here: it's possible that when not being able to attack here it feels like standing around in a casual/disinterested manner. I cannot dismiss this concern out of hand; nor can I assume it to happen like that.

I can tell you right now that that is what no roll currently evokes in my mind. My experience as a GM and player tells me that I won't be alone in that feeling.

QuoteI have to point out though that this makes #2 look like the stronger mechanic of the two: here every attacker gets to roll for himself to see if he gets into position and spots an opportunity for attack.

The determination of getting an opening and spotting an opportunity is already subsumed* in the single attack roll for virtually every RPG I've ever played. You seem to advocating two rolls (one to determine opportunity to attack and a second roll to make the attack given a successful opportunity) whereas most RPG systems include the determination of opportunity as part and parcel of the single attack roll.

I think you may be missing another problem with what an attack roll evokes for many players. But more on that in another post.

Let me see if I grasp the difficulty you have with the existing system. I think there are two issues.

1)   You find that a single attack roll evokes in your mind everybody (PC, important NPCs, and mook NPCs) attacking their target by swinging their sword every round. This doesn't match up in your imagination with the visual media you enjoy and want to emulate in your gaming.

2)   In the event that an attacker does not hit this round you want the system to output the answer to the question, did the attacker not hit because he never got a clear opportunity to attack or did he get an opportunity to attack and just failed to solidly hit the target. You don't want that question unanswered by the system output or left to GM fiat.

Did I summarize your two concerns correctly?


* Play that is not theater of the mind also uses actual movement and position (on a map, a sketch, or grid/hex layout) to determine part of the answer to the question of whether the attacker is in the proper position to get an opening.

Quote from: Bren;1077745That's a problem with what's in the player's head, not the mechanics per se. If one can break the tie that some players have in their heads that the attack roll = a swing of the sword, then this problem recedes.

Still the players will have to go consciously against their natural impulse. And the more a roll subsumes, the more vague it is, the more room is left to the GM interpretation - which carries somewhat less weight than impartial, hard, cold mechanics. It's not because the GM felt like you didn't make it into attack position - the dice determined it. So it's an abstraction level too high in my estimation.

Quote from: Bren;1077745So it is visually apparent which attackers are physically blocked from attacking. And he uses some type of morale, or a good GM knowledge of the NPCs in question, to indicate which attackers hesitate because they are nervous or afraid.

Hesitation isn't necessarily due to fear of getting hit. It's also about looking for the optimal moment to go forward. And then there is cases in which an ally makes a motion to attack but breaks off - yet his twitching forward momentarily breaks your determination to go forward. Or what if an attacker gets the impression that the long character specifically waits for him to make his move and that makes him wait? You can't model everything, not even in GURPS. At least not if you want to keep it playable.

So what is the right abstraction level? For me it's: who can attack this round? It solves the problem of failed attack = missed swing and as a GM I get explain why the character could not attack. To me, it's unlikely that a GM will intuitively say "Bob, you failed. You just stand around not knowing what to do" all the time. But - time will tell.

Quote from: Bren;1077745I'm wondering if it would be more effective to change the idea in the GM's and the players' heads of what an attack roll means rather than redesigning the system.

Changing the rules not only keeps players from having to go against their natural inclination, it makes the scene also seem more dynamics, less static - as the pattern of attackers changes each round.

Quote from: Bren;1077745I can tell you right now that that is what no roll currently evokes in my mind. My experience as a GM and player tells me that I won't be alone in that feeling.

Well, I've put it into the fire of publication to see if it will hold. But to be honest my bigger concern is that it demands more patience from gamers than what gamers might be used to from other games.

Quote from: Bren;1077745The determination of getting an opening and spotting an opportunity is already subsumed* in the single attack roll for virtually every RPG I've ever played.

...and tends to get narrated as: "You failed your roll? You strike but miss. Who's next?"

Quote from: Bren;1077745You seem to advocating two rolls (one to determine opportunity to attack and a second roll to make the attack given a successful opportunity) whereas most RPG systems include the determination of opportunity as part and parcel of the single attack roll.

Yes but since the defender normally doesn't get to parry the additional defenders, it's still 2 rolls per attack, comparable to other systems with active defense.

Quote from: Bren;10777452)   In the event that an attacker does not hit this round you want the system to output the answer to the question, did the attacker not hit because he never got a clear opportunity to attack or did he get an opportunity to attack and just failed to solidly hit the target. You don't want that question unanswered by the system output or left to GM fiat.

It's important to me that the attacker does not necessarily get to roll to attack. Because that signals clearly that he hasn't had the opportunity for a good swing. And then the GM can narrate why, piece it together out of the information of who gets to attack and who doesn't.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077767Still the players will have to go consciously against their natural impulse.

Yes, to an extent that is correct. But every roleplaying game has a certain amount of this. Its certainly not like levels and increasing hit point are intuitively obvious. They are just now so commonly known that gamers understand the mechanic (at least to an extent) even if they don't like the mechanic.

QuoteHesitation isn't necessarily due to fear of getting hit. It's also about looking for the optimal moment to go forward. And then there is cases in which an ally makes a motion to attack but breaks off - yet his twitching forward momentarily breaks your determination to go forward. Or what if an attacker gets the impression that the long character specifically waits for him to make his move and that makes him wait? You can't model everything, not even in GURPS. At least not if you want to keep it playable.

What I think you are proposing maintains the same level of abstraction it just divides a failed attack into "you didn't have an opportunity" and "you had an opportunity but you failed to hit for unspecified reasons." The reason why you didn't have an opportunity is still abstracted away and has no relation in the system to previous actions that the player chose.

QuoteSo what is the right abstraction level? For me it's: who can attack this round? It solves the problem of failed attack = missed swing and as a GM I get explain why the character could not attack.

It's the same level of abstraction. But instead of using one roll you are now using two rolls. It doesn't seem like you get much for the addition of the extra die roll. I think there is a better way to get the same information.
 

QuoteTo me, it's unlikely that a GM will intuitively say "Bob, you failed. You just stand around not knowing what to do" all the time. But - time will tell.

"Bob you failed " is the equivalent of the GM saying "Bob you missed" when an attack roll which simulates the back and forth, feints, and minor motions of a multi-second combat round fails to succeed. If GMs say that now. They will say something like "Bob you failed to get an attack this round" under your proposed system. Which will probably then evoke for the player, "your guy stood around doing nothing this round."

QuoteChanging the rules not only keeps players from having to go against their natural inclination, it makes the scene also seem more dynamics, less static - as the pattern of attackers changes each round.

The number of attack rolls made isn't static. because some combatants will fail their opportunity to attack roll. The actual outcome of how many attacks actually succeed is the effectively the same, so that is static. All you are adding is a mechanical determination of when a failed attack is due to "you had no good chance to attack" or "you had a chance to attack but you failed."

Quote...and tends to get narrated as: "You failed your roll? You strike but miss. Who's next?"

As opposed to "You don't get to attack. Who's next?"

QuoteYes but since the defender normally doesn't get to parry the additional defenders, it's still 2 rolls per attack, comparable to other systems with active defense.

That is true. But systems with active defenses are doing something different than single roll systems by including a defense roll. I'm really not seeing why knowing whether a failure to hit this round was due to a lost opportunity or some other unspecified reason is an improvement on knowing whether at failure to hit this round was due to a failure by the attacker for unspecified reasons or a success by the attacker due to a parry or dodge. But I guess you want what you want.

QuoteIt's important to me that the attacker does not necessarily get to roll to attack. Because that signals clearly that he hasn't had the opportunity for a good swing. And then the GM can narrate why, piece it together out of the information of who gets to attack and who doesn't.

Yeah I guess I don't understand why knowing that is more important to you than knowing if the attack was parried or dodged by the defender. But I confess I'm partial to systems with active defense. It feels much more natural or evocative of a combat where both sides are doing something than single roll systems.

Be that as it may, you aren't me and I'm not you. So if what you want is the system to determine whether a combatant had an opportunity to attack. You can get that and also generate a reason why an attacker didn't get an opportunity to attack (i.e. player got to make an attack roll)you can do that with the existing attack roll. All you need to do is add on a table for misses to the existing single attack roll e.g.

D10.........Reason Your Attack Failed
1..................Another combatant blocked your path or swing
2..................An object (tree, wall, wagon, horse) blocked your path or swing.
3..................You are still waiting for the right opportunity for an attack.
4..................Your opponent moved so that he was no longer in position for you to attack.
5..................You moved such that you were no longer in position for you to attack.
6-7.............Your opponent parried you blow.
8-9.............Your opponent dodged your blow.
10...............Your simply missed with your attack.

In fact if you used a D100 attack roll you could simply use the tens digit on a failed roll to determine the reason why the attack failed. This way you only need a single die roll to determine significantly more about the combat instead of just two things. I think this would evoke a less static combat round. With a single die roll you get...

• Whether you had an opportunity to attack and if not why not.
  
• Whether you had an attack opportunity but your attack failed to land and why.
  
• Whether you had an attack opportunity and your attack succeeded.

I think Adventurer Conqueror King System handles this sort of issue very well.
1) Every fighter has the ability to cleave after each kill, up to a number of times equal to his level. Each time he cleaves he is permitted a 5' step.
2) A fighter with a long weapon (spear) ready can attack an enemy with higher initiative simultaneously with being attacked, because of his advantage of reach.
3) A fighter can do a sweeping attack that forces all enemies within 5' to disengage unless they wish to risk being hit. If all of them disengage, the fighter can withdraw but retains the ability to attack if anyone re-engages him.
4) A fighter gets +2 bonus to hit if attacking from flank or rear.
5) A fighter deals double damage on a charge or set for charge with spear.
6) Fighter damage increases with level, so high level fighters cleave more often.

How does this play out in practice?
1) If mooks all swarm a hero at once (all on the same initiative count), they will be able to get the flank and rear bonuses, but they will also be in range of the hero on his initiative, and on a good series of attack rolls, he can wipe out a number of mooks equal to his level.
2) If mooks hang back separately and move to attack the hero one at a time, then they will not be able to get flank and rear bonuses, but the hero will not be able to cleave through them all on his turn because they're not near each other.

Quote from: amacris;10777992) If mooks hang back separately and move to attack the hero one at a time, then they will not be able to get flank and rear bonuses, but the hero will not be able to cleave through them all on his turn because they're not near each other.

This emulates what I've seen in a lot of Samurai flicks and would replicate the style of combat seen in the Samurai vs. minions clip that Alexander posted. (Clearly the katana wielding minions are hesitating so not all are in range some of the time. And other times we see more than one get in range to get flanking bonuses and the hero ends up cleaving more than one minion.)