Quote from: Larsdangly;998087One of the things people in the HEMA community quickly figured out is that wrestling is integral to fencing with one and two handed swords, and daggers with or without a small shield. It is emphasized in all the major manuals, and a significant number of the techniques call for intentionally bringing an exchange to some sort of grappling action, either dropping your own sword or keeping it. And the weapon systems and manuals that are closer to sharp-weapon combat (as opposed to sport) emphasize grappling with weapons more. So, while no one alive really has significant experience fighting earnestly with these things, it is a good bet that no rpg combat system should be thought of as realistic unless it includes wrestling as a core feature, fully integrated with the rest of the system. Not many games meet that criterion, though TFT was an early example that sort of did this, and GURPS with all the combat options turned on is pretty close.

Or you could say "A round of combat is one minute, and there's all kinds of mayhem going on, and the die roll represents whether or not at the end of a minute you've done anything useful to the other bugger."

Just like OD&D.

Abstraction is your friend.

Quote from: tenbones;998125And a large part of this over everything else is the systems we use don't really call for it. Probably why I don't use GURPS (players hate it).

If the systems you use don't include weapons breaking, dropping, or getting knocked away then you are at a level of abstraction way beyond what I tend to enjoy. I initially responded because it seemed you didn't know anyone who wanted that level of detail. Not wanting it yourself and not knowing anyone who would ever want it aren't the same thing.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998139Or you could say "A round of combat is one minute, and there's all kinds of mayhem going on, and the die roll represents whether or not at the end of a minute you've done anything useful to the other bugger."

Just like OD&D.

Abstraction is your friend.

Some people enjoy playing out the combat blow by blow.

Quote from: Bren;998141If the systems you use don't include weapons breaking, dropping, or getting knocked away then you are at a level of abstraction way beyond what I tend to enjoy. I initially responded because it seemed you didn't know anyone who wanted that level of detail. Not wanting it yourself and not knowing anyone who would ever want it aren't the same thing.

Hmm. I play actively pretty standard fare (D&D, Savage Worlds, Talislanta, CP2020, FFG Star Wars off the top of my head). All of those things could happen in combat - but they tend to be active things people DO. Not incidental as a part of combat. So I don't agree with the abstraction comment at all. My players tend to not do them as their characters fight by other means.

Currently I have a player whose character does specialize in grappling - in Savage Worlds using a grappling chain. But he's so good at it, that rolling around and disarming people would not be as effective as him simply choking people out. /shrug.

Not wanting it myself/Not knowing anyone - Well if the game conceits involved that kind of combat over everything else, I generally wouldn't have a problem with it. I've GMed at conventions and my general playerbase which is a cross section of hundreds of players over the years - I don't know *anyone* that has ever liked grappling rules with this level of detail. Of course I'm sure there are. But then otherwise why would this thread exist? I still stand by my point: it's not necessary unless you really want it.

Take Gronan's response - I'm not even satisfied with that level of abstraction, but I'm vastly closer to that than wanting the roll-around-the-ground-struggling-for-the-gun type combat with multiple rolls per round where nothing might happen because "mechanics".

Quote from: tenbones;998150Hmm. I play actively pretty standard fare (D&D, Savage Worlds, Talislanta, CP2020, FFG Star Wars off the top of my head). All of those things could happen in combat - but they tend to be active things people DO. Not incidental as a part of combat. So I don't agree with the abstraction comment at all. My players tend to not do them as their characters fight by other means.

Nobody chooses to or accidentally breaks a weapon, drops a weapon, disarms a foe or is disarmed by a foe? Unless those outcomes are abstracted away, say by a 1 minute combat round, not seeing (or virtually never seeing) those outcomes seems weird to me.

QuoteCurrently I have a player whose character does specialize in grappling...

This is not what I was referring to. But it does raise the question in my mind of bar fights and brawls. Do brawls also never (or virtually never) happen to the PCs?

Quote from: Dumarest;998145Some people enjoy playing out the combat blow by blow.

Sure they do.  Fantasy Hero is actually pretty neat for that; I like the way Skill Levels can be used for attack, defense, damage, or stun.  It works really well for 1 PC vs one enemy.

The more people involved, I submit the more abstraction needed.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998162The more people involved, I submit the more abstraction needed.

Needed? No. But since there is a direct relationship between number of combatants and time to resolve and an inverse relation between time required to resolve and degree of abstraction, more abstraction may be desirable if we want to resolve things in less than geological time.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998139Or you could say "A round of combat is one minute, and there's all kinds of mayhem going on, and the die roll represents whether or not at the end of a minute you've done anything useful to the other bugger."

Just like OD&D.

Abstraction is your friend.

I'm cool with abstraction; the abstract nature of D&D combat (at least, as implemented in the OOP editions I play) is why you can resolve most fights in a couple of minutes, an spend the rest of your time making more interesting decisions. One of the hugest mistakes in the more recent editions to the D&D family of games was to to try to turn it into a combat engine, which turned fights into 1-2 hour affairs, which basically trashed the rest of your session. Just dumb, and not what the game is about. But there are other games under the sun. TFT started as a gladiatorial board game, and that game is great. In that case, the whole point of playing is to resolve an individual fight. D&D completely sucks at that kind of thing.

Quote from: Bren;998159Nobody chooses to or accidentally breaks a weapon, drops a weapon, disarms a foe or is disarmed by a foe? Unless those outcomes are abstracted away, say by a 1 minute combat round, not seeing (or virtually never seeing) those outcomes seems weird to me.

I can't think of a single system I've run where anything accidental where a weapon breaks/drops is not the result of a fumble of some sort. Disarming has always been a discrete action.

I'm not a fan of 1-minutes rounds, too war-gamey feeling for me. I like blow by blow (which is weird given my general dislike for too many mechanics - this thread is crystalizing my opinion rapidly on why - specifically as it pertains to grappling) - and that is: Grappling historically is underutilized because it is inefficient in most game-systems. This is not to say it doesn't have its uses. It's that for the purposes of rendering an opponent inert, in most systems it's a mechanically inefficient way to do it - before we even discuss roleplaying reasons, situational reasons which might demand it etc.

Unless you're playing a grappling specialist, most systems have cumbersome rules that preclude grappling as a viable option for most players who want to have skilled combatant PC's within the context of the game (i.e. no trying to be realistic). I suspect this is the fault of designers and gives much more weight to Gronan's position of high-abstraction, which has it's own requirements that new RPG players haven't gotten to yet (GM trust > mechanical trust).

This is making me reconsider a few things about my next project. Grappling rules done well.

Quote from: Bren;998159This is not what I was referring to. But it does raise the question in my mind of bar fights and brawls. Do brawls also never (or virtually never) happen to the PCs?

See? This is an excellent point. My PC's do get into bar-room brawls because to them - it doesn't "feel" like "real combat". It's kids-gloves etc. - which arguably it should be, since not all fights should be lethal. And here is the ghetto that grappling rules for most characters live. In the bar-room brawl. And I think that sucks.

Quote from: Larsdangly;998170I'm cool with abstraction; the abstract nature of D&D combat (at least, as implemented in the OOP editions I play) is why you can resolve most fights in a couple of minutes, an spend the rest of your time making more interesting decisions. One of the hugest mistakes in the more recent editions to the D&D family of games was to to try to turn it into a combat engine, which turned fights into 1-2 hour affairs, which basically trashed the rest of your session. Just dumb, and not what the game is about. But there are other games under the sun. TFT started as a gladiatorial board game, and that game is great. In that case, the whole point of playing is to resolve an individual fight. D&D completely sucks at that kind of thing.

This is exactly why I like grappling in FASERIP. Combat doesn't last long because taking someone out generally doesn't require a lot of damage or effort. Here Grappling serves as viable of a means of defeating/restraining someone, rewards high-skill and high-strength and resolves insanely fast.

Quote from: Larsdangly;998170I'm cool with abstraction; the abstract nature of D&D combat (at least, as implemented in the OOP editions I play) is why you can resolve most fights in a couple of minutes, an spend the rest of your time making more interesting decisions. One of the hugest mistakes in the more recent editions to the D&D family of games was to to try to turn it into a combat engine, which turned fights into 1-2 hour affairs, which basically trashed the rest of your session. Just dumb, and not what the game is about. But there are other games under the sun. TFT started as a gladiatorial board game, and that game is great. In that case, the whole point of playing is to resolve an individual fight. D&D completely sucks at that kind of thing.

Oh Crom.

I'm playing PATHFINDER right now.  Because I like the people, that's why.

A combat really does take 2 hours or more.

And yes, the TFT vs D&D thing is dead on.  D&D's roots are a mass combat system, not a duel game.  Conversely, I know a TFT ref who recently ran a fortress attack with about 20 to 25 people on each side, and it took something like 4 or 5 six-hour sessions.  I would not run a siege with TFT, just like I would not run Teutenburg Wald with a gladiatorial combat game.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998174...Conversely, I know a TFT ref who recently ran a fortress attack with about 20 to 25 people on each side, and it took something like 4 or 5 six-hour sessions.

Granted it takes longer than an abstract system, but how did it take that long? Was it lots and lots of arrow shots at people in cover at long range, and then chopping down portcullises with smallaxes?

Quote from: tenbones;998172I can't think of a single system I've run where anything accidental where a weapon breaks/drops is not the result of a fumble of some sort. Disarming has always been a discrete action.

Don't fumbles occur? Does no one think disarming their foe is useful? And do those two things not result in an unarmed foe who may have to grapple? These things you just said are in the systems you play are exactly what I was talking about. :confused:

It feels like we are talking past each other.

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998174I'm playing PATHFINDER right now.

Well that explains why you have so much time to post here. You're doing that during combat while waiting for your turn to come around, am I right?

Quote from: Gronan of Simmerya;998162Sure they do.  Fantasy Hero is actually pretty neat for that; I like the way Skill Levels can be used for attack, defense, damage, or stun.  It works really well for 1 PC vs one enemy.

The more people involved, I submit the more abstraction needed.

The more time needed, sure. The level of abstraction is always optional. I'm not interested in playing out a battle between dozens of guys and having to roll for each sword stroke or laser blast. But if Iron Fist and Shang  Chi meet up in the mighty Marvel manner of mysterious misunderstandings and mistake each other for malevolent masked mutant menaces that must be mitigated by macho melee, then half the fun is the blow by blow.