TheRPGSite

Yeah, that's right. No 'missing'.

The only reason that you roll is to see if you've caused considerable hurt.

In games with an abstract health statistic, hit points, endurance, call it what you will, there is really no need to specify between a hit and a miss in a melee situation. The roll itself is normally abstract and suggests many blows attempted rather than one attempt that hits or misses.

I say - get into melee combat and you get hurt.

Take a short sword. Say it does 3d4 damage on a 'hit'. On a 'miss' is does 2 points of damage.

Something like that might well have a measurable impact on the game and the players reaction to combat and dangerous situations.

I wonder what sort of genre it is best suited to? Gangland or medieval war springs to mind.

Fight & you get hurt.

If there are any options in combat, the effect will be that every PC does an all-out attack every round, since parrying and dodging leads to them being slowly whittled down anyway.

Depressing.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;304441If there are any options in combat, the effect will be that every PC does an all-out attack every round, since parrying and dodging leads to them being slowly whittled down anyway.

Depressing.

I think that if you have something like stances as combat options that affect both the roll and the damage and get the interaction right it might work as long as everyone realises that when you get into combat, you get hurt. Which is a depressing truth.

What about armors? Do they make you harder to hit, or do they reduce damage?

This makes sense to me. It would be nice though if the damage mechanic included 0 damage as possible outcome.

In FUDGE (and by extention FATE and SotC) the 'to hit' and damage are all incorporated in the same roll. Basically you damage is you margin of success + a fixed amount given by the weapon. It's nice because if you roll really well for attack you automatically get good damage, if only just hit your damage is equally modest. Also, it means one less roll to make, which multiplied by numnber of players and rounds of combat is pretty significant.

Tunnels and Trolls has a combined damage and attack roll. It uses a simultaneous combat model in which all the combined attack roll of one side is compared to the combined attack of the other side (which could be the entire party vs the entire grould of monsters) and the difference between the two attack rolls is the damage suffered by the losing party. Cute as this idea is I found this made for very one-sided fights.

Quote from: One Horse Town;304442when you get into combat, you get hurt. Which is a depressing truth.

I don't think it's true.

There are many modern examples of fights with fist or firearm which end in the death or serious injury of one, and the other suffering nothing worse than sweating and guilt.

It may have been different with melee weapons in earlier times, but I don't see why.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;304447I don't think it's true.

There are many modern examples of fights with fist or firearm which end in the death or serious injury of one, and the other suffering nothing worse than sweating and guilt.

It may have been different with melee weapons in earlier times, but I don't see why.

Sure. This is where the abstract i mentioned earlier comes in. If health, hits, endurance whatever are an abstract grab-bag of luck, hardness, exhaustion etc, then it still simulates this in an abstract fashion. The guy sweating suffered a few hits of damage, whilst he mullered the other guy.

It may be abstract, but I've yet to meet a player who really feels that during play. When you say, "you've lost 4 hit points", players do not imagine luck oozing away (what would luck running out look like, anyway?) nor do they imagine their character getting winded, etc. They imagine bruises and cuts.

Given that players will be imagining bruises and cuts, having a "miss" cause damage anyway will make players have their characters do all-out attacks all the time. "Got nothing to lose, I'll be hurt anyway!"

Try it in play and see.

Personally, I'd love to see more games do away with abstract numbers in general and just go straight for specific injury.  You get hit, you get really hurt, not just lose some imaginary numbers, but rather, take a slug in the arm or get it hacked off.

I like Dark Heresy's combat for just this reason.  Yes, technically you do have the "wounds" stat in there, but the average value vs. the average weapon damage, gets it pretty close to the mark, and makes the wounds stat more about how many of those actual injuries you can take before you drop like a stone.  Take them away entirely, or make injury rolls for all damage, not just that over the wounds threshhold, and you'd be right at what I'm talkin about.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;304451It may be abstract, but I've yet to meet a player who really feels that during play. When you say, "you've lost 4 hit points", players do not imagine luck oozing away (what would luck running out look like, anyway?) nor do they imagine their character getting winded, etc. They imagine bruises and cuts.

Given that players will be imagining bruises and cuts, having a "miss" cause damage anyway will make players have their characters do all-out attacks all the time. "Got nothing to lose, I'll be hurt anyway!"

Try it in play and see.

Depends how it's done, doesn't it?

An alternative is to have a 'miss' ablate exhaustion, but not the character's health.

Melee is particularly draining.  It might be interesting to try a system which wears all combatants down a little each round, with actual hits increasing the rate of depletion.

Quote from: Claudius;304445What about armors? Do they make you harder to hit, or do they reduce damage?

this is normally one of the most pertinent factors in terms of hit/not/what happens of a combat system.

In this system, they could only reduce damage.

Quote from: One Horse Town;304454Depends how it's done, doesn't it?

An alternative is to have a 'miss' ablate exhaustion, but not the character's health.

For me, this seems the most sensible measure.

I started working on a game, awhile ago that was of a similar, though not identical, philosophy.  

The combat system was a direct opposed roll between the attackers.  The winner of the exchange gained the advantage and decided what to do with it, damage his opponent, set himself up for an even bigger advantage next round etc...   There was no chance of missing someone was doing something progressive every round.

Wyatt Earp would disagree with the fundamental concept behind the OP.

Even beside things like cover and armor, there is also a lot to be considered for tactics and plain crazy-luck as far as avoiding being hurt in a fight.

RPGPundit

Quote from: J Arcane;304453Personally, I'd love to see more games do away with abstract numbers in general and just go straight for specific injury.  You get hit, you get really hurt, not just lose some imaginary numbers, but rather, take a slug in the arm or get it hacked off.

Agreed. Abstraction in damage creates more problems than it solves.

Arg, after 20 years of playing, the old "combat isn't realistic!" rears it's dumb head.

In a real fight there are so many different variables to track that to try to make them game-able is an excersize in futility. Abstraction is a good thing, too many system-specifics and you become shoehorned when inevitable unbelievable results come up.

That being said, I like the system for knives in Unknown Armies. Even if the knife-wielder misses, they do 1 damage. I like the little kid with a sharpie example they give for it too.

The conversation about super powers made me think of this. I think damage should be related to the skill of the person being hit and the person doing the hitting. For example, superman and doomsday can fight with any equal number for stats, they can autocrush anything around them. Mike Tyson and Buster Dugles are like that. They fight one another as if they don't have any bonuses, but they easily crush other men. They can fight for 10 rounds or fall from a single hit, but average men can't even hurt them.

Quote from: Cranewings;304564Mike Tyson and Buster Dugles [...] average men can't even hurt them.

They don't seem to think so. They have bodyguards. What's that for, in case they run into other boxers outside the ring?

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;304568They don't seem to think so. They have bodyguards. What's that for, in case they run into other boxers outside the ring?

Guns and knives are different. And there are knife and gun experts on the level of Mike Tyson with boxing, and no ordinary man would be able to outdraw or stab them.

That's funny, because in April 2002 Mike Tyson was at a press conference with Lennox Lewis, everyone got angry and Tyson came out injured... after not having been struck by Lewis, and with no firearms, blades, or even heavy objects used.

Maybe it was a self-inflicted wound, since only Tyson could hurt Tyson.

Just like Chuck Norris.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;304570That's funny, because in April 2002 Mike Tyson was at a press conference with Lennox Lewis, everyone got angry and Tyson came out injured... after not having been struck by Lewis, and with no firearms, blades, or even heavy objects used.

Maybe it was a self-inflicted wound, since only Tyson could hurt Tyson.

Just like Chuck Norris.

I could also kill any musashi with a sword if he is blinded by the sun, crowded, talking to someone else, drunk, or uninterested in fighting and unaware of me. I could probably knock out tyson if I got one good heel kick across his chin, mid sentance, while he is talking to someone else, but if Tyson is actually fighting me, in an rpg - rolling initiative and everything, I wouldn't stand a puncher's chance.

Then the rpg is stupid.

Any decent rpg at the very least lets you say, "I'll roll, maybe I'll get a critical success." Even better, it encourages tactics and use of terrain, so that not every fight is simply two duellists meeting ten paces apart in an open featureless plain under the bright noonday sun.

There's nothing wrong with the OP's idea of 'hitting' doing a fair amount of damage and 'missing' dealing out a much smaller amount.  It can work just fine depending on what the rest of the rules are like.

  For those who feel it's very possible to come out of a fight unscathed, damage done from a 'miss' could just have a negative modifer to the damage rolled. E.g. 1d10 damage on a hit, 1d10-6 ( minumum 0 ) on a miss.  Problem solved.

There might be merit is some form of exhaustion but the idea that you can get into a melee and you have to get hurt is simply not true.

I used to fence and our instructor could beat me into the ground with a flick of the wrist even measuring the effort he expended would be nigh on impossible. Similarly doing martial arts I have met planty of folks that could whip me blindfolded. Could I take them out in the correct conditions, yes of course, standing behind them with a fire axe etc ...

Also with this system you have the problem with fantasy stuff like touch effects, poison, etc etc.

Better system is to have 2 pools. The first is your 'hit points' this is the abstract pool of stuff in increases as you get better, it includes exhaustion etc etc. The second is your wounds. This is when you get really hurt. Wounds do not recover after a 5 minute breather and have penalties (you could even add specifc effects, sprained ankle, broken wrist etc) and you have a set number that you can not increase.
In combat you can take most stuff off your hit points (work out some formula for this) the rest affects your wounds.

I was playing with an idea on this the other day. A little cage fighting game that was really trying to take the idea of special combat moves and use a fatigue system to limit their use. So you have a fatigue point total and you 'spend' fatigue points to make specal attacks as well as using them to absorb/dodge your opponent's attacks.
Not perfected because in the end if you use the same pool then all you are really doing is comparing resources (I 'spend' 3 do do an extra 5 'damage' to you, in effect means I am on +2) and it needs some more subtlety. If I do it I will stick it up here some place its only a combat system so it won;t be more than 2000 words (ish)

Quote from: jibbajibba;304595I used to fence and our instructor could beat me into the ground with a flick of the wrist even measuring the effort he expended would be nigh on impossible. Similarly doing martial arts I have met planty of folks that could whip me blindfolded. Could I take them out in the correct conditions, yes of course, standing behind them with a fire axe etc ...

I don't think it's possible to generalise.  In a one-on-one duel, as in fencing, a superior fighter can come out unscathed, but in RPGs a warrior PC will often face multiple opponents, in which case a bit of bruising is unavoidable.

If firearms are used, it's a different case again.  Depending on the protection available, it's an all-or-nothing proposition, because any hurt is big hurt.

All of this assumes an attempt at combat realism.  If a game system favours high heroics in the PCs, fighting off an army of minions, untouched, is quite possible.

Quote from: Hairfoot;304600In a one-on-one duel, as in fencing, a superior fighter can come out unscathed, but in RPGs a warrior PC will often face multiple opponents, in which case a bit of bruising is unavoidable.

Yes, but it doesn't mean you require a system in which even "missed" attacks inflict damage. And even so, if the warrior PC is much better at fighting than his opponents, that is, his opponents are incompetent, he might emerge unscathed from the combat.

Quote from: Claudius;304609Yes, but it doesn't mean you require a system in which even "missed" attacks inflict damage. And even so, if the warrior PC is much better at fighting than his opponents, that is, his opponents are incompetent, he might emerge unscathed from the combat.

Indeed.  But to declare that a PC emerges unscathed from a multiple-opponent combat requires an assumed superhuman level of PC skill, and that's why I prefer abstracted D&D combat over the micromanaged choreography of Palladium or the precise-but-tiresome Rolemaster.

Quote from: One Horse Town;304440I wonder what sort of genre it is best suited to? Gangland or medieval war springs to mind.

Fight & you get hurt.

Well I did something like this for my OtE game. It was a political thriller. The problem is gun calibre, tactics etc is what makes role playing a character fun in so many genres. It sometimes lessens the impact of verisimitude, if that's what you're aiming for. Chris Kubasik in his Interactive Toolkit articles  talked about this very thing. I would link to them but I'm afraid it would cause a bloodbath -  "story entertainments", "GM and players on equal footing"....oh my.

Regards,
David R

So what happens to all that training time your character spent learning to dodge attacks?  If I'm a small agile guy attacking with two light blades, and I'm fighting a big, slow hulking guy with an unwieldy two-handed sword, I may indeed emerge unscathed.  I may also get splattered against a wall.  It all depends on how well I and my opponent execute our respective attacks.  

I've tried to years to get a really good, working system that would allow opposed attack and parry rolls.  Something along those lines would suit much better than having missed attacks cause damage.

Quote from: Demonseed;304654I've tried to years to get a really good, working system that would allow opposed attack and parry rolls.  Something along those lines would suit much better than having missed attacks cause damage.

Interesting idea...

Why not just assume every attack hits unless the target does something to not get hit.

I think it's a nice fit for games where hit points are nothing more than a countdown to when a character has a chance of getting seriously hurt.

QuoteI was playing with an idea on this the other day. A little cage fighting game that was really trying to take the idea of special combat moves and use a fatigue system to limit their use. So you have a fatigue point total and you 'spend' fatigue points to make specal attacks as well as using them to absorb/dodge your opponent's attacks.
Not perfected because in the end if you use the same pool then all you are really doing is comparing resources (I 'spend' 3 do do an extra 5 'damage' to you, in effect means I am on +2) and it needs some more subtlety. If I do it I will stick it up here some place its only a combat system so it won;t be more than 2000 words (ish)

I really like this idea.  I think if you took this "fatigue" value, and paired it with wound and a hit location/critical system as in Dark Heresy, it'd make a fun high action sort of game but still with lethal consequences.

I'd also note that it does a fantastic job of dealing with the problem of non-lethal damage.  Non-lethal/"subdual" does damage to fatigue, but never wounds.  So you can have non-lethal fights, bar brawls, etc., without having to monkey the system or fudge it or have "special damage" that works differently from the normal method.

I think it would drop in relatively easily to most systems too, as it's just an extra layer.  You'd just need costs for basic actions and such.

Quote from: Demonseed;304654I've tried to years to get a really good, working system that would allow opposed attack and parry rolls.

Try this (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=585&it=1).

Also available in softcover (http://www.fantasygamesunlimited.net/shop/?cart=68626&cat=6).

I would prefer that RPGs reward players and GMs paying attention to what's going on by fucking them hardcore in the ass without lube when caught with their pants down.

Much of what constitutes successful defense in combat stems from awareness and reactions thereto; if you get confused, dazed, stunned, pinned, etc. then landing a blow that takes you out becomes very easy to execute.  Far too few RPG rulesets make this matter sufficiently, and even less craft their machines such that skill in combat stems from inducing such conditions upon the target first before landing that blow becomes practical.  I would rather be able to inflict one-hit kills on a routine basis through the combination of superior player skill and persona manipulation than just because my numbers beat yours.

Interestingly, I can say that the Tunnels & Trolls combat system seems to fit the original poster's requirements completely.

Each side rolls their combat dice.  Compares totals.  High side inflicts the difference between the rolls on the low side.

All maneuvers are handled by complete GM Fiat, so that's not good.   However, the idea is always to pay attention to your surroundings, describe something tactical, and then the GM arbitrarily assigns an effect on the combat roll.

Having your part of a combat roll negated is disastrous.  If you're in battle against an evenly matched opponent, and the opponent does something to disarm you (weapon dice removed), you are well and truly fucked.

Combat rolls use a mishmash of modifiers dumped into a pot and stirred beyond recognition.  Strength, Dexterity, Speed, and Luck all play an equal role.  So you could have an agile, lucky fighter who had just as much basic combat ability as a huge strong guy.  The factors only matter for description as they're all homogenous combat plusses.

Quote from: Demonseed;304654So what happens to all that training time your character spent learning to dodge attacks?  If I'm a small agile guy attacking with two light blades, and I'm fighting a big, slow hulking guy with an unwieldy two-handed sword, I may indeed emerge unscathed.  I may also get splattered against a wall.  It all depends on how well I and my opponent execute our respective attacks.  

I've tried to years to get a really good, working system that would allow opposed attack and parry rolls.  Something along those lines would suit much better than having missed attacks cause damage.

Which ones do you know you're not satisfied with? Because I think there are several which do what you say.

Quote from: Gabriel2;304751Interestingly, I can say that the Tunnels & Trolls combat system seems to fit the original poster's requirements completely.

Not in the slightest. What the OP proposes is a system in which even a missed attack delivers damage. In your Tunnels & Trolls example, it would mean that even the winner of the dice contest would suffer damage.

Quote from: Claudius;304780Not in the slightest. What the OP proposes is a system in which even a missed attack delivers damage. In your Tunnels & Trolls example, it would mean that even the winner of the dice contest would suffer damage.

Spite damage

For every 6 rolled, one point of armor ignoring damage is applied.  This is regardless of who won or lost the combat roll.  So the winner suffers damage too.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;304731I would prefer that RPGs reward players and GMs paying attention to what's going on by fucking them hardcore in the ass without lube when caught with their pants down.
 
Much of what constitutes successful defense in combat stems from awareness and reactions thereto; if you get confused, dazed, stunned, pinned, etc. then landing a blow that takes you out becomes very easy to execute. Far too few RPG rulesets make this matter sufficiently, and even less craft their machines such that skill in combat stems from inducing such conditions upon the target first before landing that blow becomes practical. I would rather be able to inflict one-hit kills on a routine basis through the combination of superior player skill and persona manipulation than just because my numbers beat yours.

Which RPG rulesets do this well?

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;305257Which RPG rulesets do this well?

Well......I don't know if I'd use the term "well", but Call of Cthulhu d20 has "Massive Damage Threshold" much like D&D 3e, except that it's at ten Hit Points, rather than fifty. This means that you can easily get insta-fragged by a bullet, club, or knife. Even a 20th-level CoC investigator can get mulched in this game, superficial 3e rules similarities notwithstanding. It's deadly.

Quote from: Malleus Arianorum;305257Which RPG rulesets do this well?

I have yet to encounter any worthwhile ruleset that does everything that I want as I want it.  That said, here's some of the stuff that gets close.

D&D3.X (and 4, to a lesser extent): Rogues and Sneak Attack.  You have to pay attention, or create, the specific circumstances ("Combat Advantage", as 4.0 puts it) that allow you to apply the additional damage.

CoCd20/d20Modern: Massive Damage Threshold.  In the former, it's at 10; in the latter, it's at Con.  Weapons regularly meet or beat that threshold, forcing an immediate Fortitude Save or Die on the target.  (This is very harsh in CoC, as common shotguns do 3d6 damage.)

Spycraft/SWPME/SWRE: Vitality/Wound System.  Vitality is the usual way that Hit Points in D&D, most of the time and represent all of the minor hurts; serious harm comes to Wound Point loss, and crits go straight to Wounds- a one-shot kill never fails to be a real threat, regardless of either the attacker or target, and that changes combat significantly through reduced occurrence.  (I've had several Spycraft villains get sniped through superior tactical thinking on the PCs' part.)

Exalted 1e: Combat between two individuals greatly resembled playing arcade fighting games; you had to pay attention to timing, watch your Mote pool as well as Health and Action resources, and thereby pay attention and expend mental effort when fighting against significant opposition- and if you were on the wrong end of a lopsided fight it seriously hurt you because if they could run you out of Motes first, you got fucked.  (Then Perfects got into the mix and ruined all of this for a while until everyone got them; lather, rinse, repeat- much like shonen fighting series.)  System mastery helps, but even better is if you can beat the other player mentally before your PC beat his.  It's also one of the RPG systems I've extensively used where the spear was very much a viable weapon choice, instead of everyone going for the biggest sword around, and being lightly or unarmored was also viable.

TORG: Use of the Manuever skill (amongst others) to draw off a target's defenses, and can target vital areas at some penalty; combined, can open target to devastating blow that can one-shot an opponent (usually a potent Ord; P-rated targets usually buy off what damage that they can- savvy players do so anyway to force P-rated foes to blow through Possibilities fast and thus go down faster).

Ars Magica 3: Initiative, once gained, stays where it is until Someone Fucks Up at which point the momentum can shift away from where it resides.  This is inertia in action, and should be accounted for accordingly.

Now, if I were going to put together a ruleset that has all that I want and have it work as I want, this is some of what it would feature:  Static Hit Point totals (HP=Damage Capacity=Hits To Kill), Armor as Damage Reduction, Shields as Cover, High Importance of Situational Awareness and Maneuver (so rules for Perception), Facing and Reaction (so rules for Initiative, which would not necessarily be either static or cyclical), Blow-By-Blow Combat (for that is how common people see it anyway), and High Resolution Speed (by streamlining the process, reducing rolls to minimums and penalizing player inattention; if you're not ready to go when you're up, you're skipped--your PC does nothing, is Confused and provides Combat Advantage to others--and things move on.).

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;305527I have yet to encounter any worthwhile ruleset that does everything that I want as I want it.  That said, here's some of the stuff that gets close.

D&D3.X (and 4, to a lesser extent): Rogues and Sneak Attack.  You have to pay attention, or create, the specific circumstances ("Combat Advantage", as 4.0 puts it) that allow you to apply the additional damage.

CoCd20/d20Modern: Massive Damage Threshold.  In the former, it's at 10; in the latter, it's at Con.  Weapons regularly meet or beat that threshold, forcing an immediate Fortitude Save or Die on the target.  (This is very harsh in CoC, as common shotguns do 3d6 damage.)

Spycraft/SWPME/SWRE: Vitality/Wound System.  Vitality is the usual way that Hit Points in D&D, most of the time and represent all of the minor hurts; serious harm comes to Wound Point loss, and crits go straight to Wounds- a one-shot kill never fails to be a real threat, regardless of either the attacker or target, and that changes combat significantly through reduced occurrence.  (I've had several Spycraft villains get sniped through superior tactical thinking on the PCs' part.)

Exalted 1e: Combat between two individuals greatly resembled playing arcade fighting games; you had to pay attention to timing, watch your Mote pool as well as Health and Action resources, and thereby pay attention and expend mental effort when fighting against significant opposition- and if you were on the wrong end of a lopsided fight it seriously hurt you because if they could run you out of Motes first, you got fucked.  (Then Perfects got into the mix and ruined all of this for a while until everyone got them; lather, rinse, repeat- much like shonen fighting series.)  System mastery helps, but even better is if you can beat the other player mentally before your PC beat his.  It's also one of the RPG systems I've extensively used where the spear was very much a viable weapon choice, instead of everyone going for the biggest sword around, and being lightly or unarmored was also viable.

TORG: Use of the Manuever skill (amongst others) to draw off a target's defenses, and can target vital areas at some penalty; combined, can open target to devastating blow that can one-shot an opponent (usually a potent Ord; P-rated targets usually buy off what damage that they can- savvy players do so anyway to force P-rated foes to blow through Possibilities fast and thus go down faster).

Ars Magica 3: Initiative, once gained, stays where it is until Someone Fucks Up at which point the momentum can shift away from where it resides.  This is inertia in action, and should be accounted for accordingly.

Now, if I were going to put together a ruleset that has all that I want and have it work as I want, this is some of what it would feature:  Static Hit Point totals (HP=Damage Capacity=Hits To Kill), Armor as Damage Reduction, Shields as Cover, High Importance of Situational Awareness and Maneuver (so rules for Perception), Facing and Reaction (so rules for Initiative, which would not necessarily be either static or cyclical), Blow-By-Blow Combat (for that is how common people see it anyway), and High Resolution Speed (by streamlining the process, reducing rolls to minimums and penalizing player inattention; if you're not ready to go when you're up, you're skipped--your PC does nothing, is Confused and provides Combat Advantage to others--and things move on.).

I disagree about blow by blow combat. Lets say two people are fighting and a third runs outside to yell for help. In blow by blow combat, you will end up playing a mini combat game for like 10 rounds while the one guy goes and yells for the rest of the group.

If it were blow by blow, then you would need specific rules for doing things like buying time. If I throw a table in our way, the combat round would be a lot longer than if we just trade hits.