So, how about this for a topic.

Should ranged combat and melee combat use the same rules?

There are pros and cons to both.  I'll elaborate, but I want to see what replies I get first.

yes

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 06:23:48 PM
So, how about this for a topic.

Should ranged combat and melee combat use the same rules?

There are pros and cons to both.  I'll elaborate, but I want to see what replies I get first.

  I need more to answer this.  Are we talking throwing a weapon?  a bow?  a crossbow? A semi auto/full auto firearm?    Are you taking in terms of determining whether an attack hits or are you looking for something else like different time scale for combat (rounds being longer/shorter etc). 

I say no, because opposing skill should matter in melee but not with ranged. IOW, hitting a skilled swordsman with your sword should be harder than hitting a jobber thug in melee, but being a great shot with a gun doesn't help you avoid bullets.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 06:23:48 PM
So, how about this for a topic.

Should ranged combat and melee combat use the same rules?

There are pros and cons to both.  I'll elaborate, but I want to see what replies I get first.

As usual, it depends. If you want a quick system that's easy to understand, probably not.
What systems would be used, and what would be the advantages and disadvantages of having a split rules system?

I think in some games it is helpful to have a "skirmish" mode distinct from regular combat where melee isn't an option, only ranged attacks.  The time frame for rounds can be longer, as well, even 1 minute rounds.  However, I don't end up using this in D&D-style games very often, because:

- I tend to assign ranged attacks lower ranges outside of mass combat (or the system may already do it for me).
- The other differences I can just handle on an ad hoc basis, depending on what the characters do. 

Effectively, if the ranges are low enough that melee can close in a round or three, and the reload times are a thing, and everyone has some cover/concealment, then it's sniping.  Chances are, you've got someone trying to sneak or use a spell in a different way, too. 

In my own system, the length of a "round" is fluid, with the GM making a call for the fight based on the situation, and it can even change as the fight changes.  Given the relatively short ranges of bows/crossbows and the way my magic system works, that's about all I need to change.  So I might go from the typical 10 second rounds to 30 seconds for a running fight, or even 1 minute in a sniping action. Naturally, movement gets magnified, but that's easy enough to do.

Some people prefer hard simulation, but I guess I don't. Very different when someone is fighting back at you with bad intentions, and most game designers don't even spar to pressure test what they do know.

I want all the rules to use very similar dice mechanics. I don't want a perfect simulation because it won't be that. It will never be.

I like lighter rules, and very particular combat rules won't do it for me. It'll be detail for the sake of detail, not something useful for me to measure and consider in relation to the rules' weight.

I'm gonna go out on limb and answer with a hard 'maybe'.

If you want swashbuckling or wushu or pulp fights I would say yes, unified systems may be harder to design but are simpler to play.

If you want something more tactical or realistic then I would say no. In those games the details should matter and players will probably be disappointed if their choice of ground and cover and weapon don't go a long way to determining the outcome.

I say no.  Each should be it's own combat style. 

Paintball and a fist fight are not the same things.  I've done both.

To me I like to think of this basic tenet.  In melee combat, it's about movement and can be done out in the open.  Ranged combat is hunkering down behind cover, and only sprinting from cover to cover. 

But.

There is also something to be said for simplicity.  Keep it simple, stupid.  Right?   

I don't have a clear feeling either way.  I just thought it would make for an interesting topic.  Hey, at the very least it's got nothing to do with left wing, woke politics that dominates this forum, right?

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 06:23:48 PMShould ranged combat and melee combat use the same rules?

Depends on what you mean by "the same" rules. On a very basic level, melee and ranged combat in GURPS both use "the same" rules in that both involve taking whatever time is necessary to ready your weapon, then making a roll-under of 3d6 against your weapon Skill as an attack, while hoping the defender's roll against his Defense fails.  The details of time-structure and available modifier conditions differ radically, on the other hand, as do the kinds of interim actions you can take; if enough effects accumulate from those differences that ranged combat feels drastically different from melee in play, then I think you have achieved a happy medium.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
I don't have a clear feeling either way.  I just thought it would make for an interesting topic.  Hey, at the very least it's got nothing to do with left wing, woke politics that dominates this forum, right?

Congratulations on bringing politics into your thread.

An attack is an attack and should be broadly similar for smooth gameplay flow. Differences between ranged and melee would depend on the granularity of the system and the prevalence of either in the setting. If 99% of all combat is gunplay, the odd stabbing is best handled as a special zero range gun attack. Conversely, in a sword play dominant setting making range attacks as extended range melee makes sense. In a d20 setting I would prefer weapons have a STR requirement, all attacks hit with DEX and modify damage with strength up to per weapon maximum bonus or flat weapon bonus for special effects. For example, bows have a minimum and maximum draw weight while crossbow and guns have fixed projectile energy.

Go buy the Twilight:2013 PDF.  The best combat rules for ranged weapons, bar none because the mechanics were derived from ballistics calculations, without the cumbersomeness of Phoenix Command. Melee rules are differently-abled than ranges rules.  Both resolve to the same damage system. Billiant and elegant.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 07, 2022, 07:46:33 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
I don't have a clear feeling either way.  I just thought it would make for an interesting topic.  Hey, at the very least it's got nothing to do with left wing, woke politics that dominates this forum, right?

Congratulations on bringing politics into your thread.

Maybe.  I'm just bored from all that noise that a rules design debate sounds good. 

That being said, what prompted this was also a set of optional rules for D6 Star Wars called "Dueling Blades" by Griffon Publishing. 

http://griffonpubstudio.blogspot.com/p/schweigs-d6-resources.html?m=1

I use this for Lightsaber duels.  It makes the sword fights much more cinematic by adding movement to the things you can do to an enemy.  You can force your opponent into a corner, or in one duel I had, into an airlock and death by vacuum of space. 

So gun combat is traditional WEG D6 rules, using initiative and actions vs enemies in cover and dodging. 

Melee with Dueling Blades is quite different.  First, no initiative.  Both fighters roll their skill.  The margin of success determines one of four results.  A forced move, a stun, a wound, or all the way up to a critical hit effect determined by the GM (we actually use a brutal random table).

I'm toying with making ranged combat like Dueling Blades, just with different results for the four results.  But then again, ranged combat sort of works fine as written in WEG D6.

Again, this isn't meant to be a serious question.  I'm just curious how the rest of you guys play, and maybe get some good suggestions as a side benefit. 

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 09:19:51 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 07, 2022, 07:46:33 PM

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 07, 2022, 07:15:24 PM
I don't have a clear feeling either way.  I just thought it would make for an interesting topic.  Hey, at the very least it's got nothing to do with left wing, woke politics that dominates this forum, right?

Congratulations on bringing politics into your thread.

Maybe.  I'm just bored from all that noise that a rules design debate sounds good. 

Cut and paste of links from the first page of the forum to non-political gaming threads.

https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/trying-to-cram-weird-metaphysics-into-5e-as-a-joke/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/exalted-s-setting-with-your-favorite-system-what-changes/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/rpg-system-for-fantasy-political-settings/ (explicitly politics as setting detail, not culture war stuff)
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/looking-for-dungeons-and-npcs/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/how-wargames-paved-the-way-for-me/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/trading-in-rpgs/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/your-appendix-n/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/rping-non-humans/
https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/invisible-college/