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. 

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.

I've actually considered using similar rules for melee combat to these Dueling Blade rules, but generally speaking I prefer to a least keep the core rules more or less unified and handle that stuff as case by case exceptions rather than use completely different rules for melee vs ranged combat. But there are definitely instances where melee and ranged aren't the same and those should be taken into account to some extent or another. Like for instance melee weapons should have the advantage when fighting within melee reach, making the use of ranged weapons close to melee adversaries risky, but ranged weapons should have the advantage at a distance, forcing melee attackers to approach ranged attackers in a roundabout way (ducking for cover in incremental steps) if they don't want to get gunned down on the way to get there.

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

It would be nice, but I haven't seen it done well yet.

One of the problems is that D&D is the dominant melee combat system, and it's where most players get their expectations for what melee combat is supposed to be like.

In D&D, you typically advance in melee fighting by levelling up for better attacks, and getting better armor.

For generic RPG ranged combat, giving characters better armor leads to characters who can tank light weapons, which is considered to be game-breaking.

I would suspect that levelling up ranged combat damage would also be considered game-breaking, though I can't think of an example when it has actually been done.

Quote from: Lurkndog on July 08, 2022, 02:24:36 PM

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

It would be nice, but I haven't seen it done well yet.

One of the problems is that D&D is the dominant melee combat system, and it's where most players get their expectations for what melee combat is supposed to be like.

In D&D, you typically advance in melee fighting by levelling up for better attacks, and getting better armor.

For generic RPG ranged combat, giving characters better armor leads to characters who can tank light weapons, which is considered to be game-breaking.

I would suspect that levelling up ranged combat damage would also be considered game-breaking, though I can't think of an example when it has actually been done.

Rolemaster is one game where ranged combat can be very nasty because, without a shield to defned with, the elven machinegunner (with a bow) can be absolutely deadly.

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 07, 2022, 06:40:52 PM
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.

I disagree. Not only is not getting shot a valuable combat skill, but many characters from multiple genres rely on their unhittability to survive: John Wick, Spider-Man, ninjas, etc. So any game that treats melee and ranged combat differently, such as Savage Worlds or D&D, is simply limiting the types of games that the system can support.

For me it is:

d20 + Attacker's Combat Skill >= 11 + Defender's Combat Skill

I use the same formula for melee combat, ranged combat, and skill checks.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 08, 2022, 05:02:27 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 07, 2022, 06:40:52 PM
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.

I disagree. Not only is not getting shot a valuable combat skill, but many characters from multiple genres rely on their unhittability to survive: John Wick, Spider-Man, ninjas, etc. So any game that treats melee and ranged combat differently, such as Savage Worlds or D&D, is simply limiting the types of games that the system can support.

For me it is:

d20 + Attacker's Combat Skill >= 11 + Defender's Combat Skill

I use the same formula for melee combat, ranged combat, and skill checks.

I agree. Even if the person being shot at has less agility than an anvil, if they are a good shot themselves then they'll keep the other person in cover, unable to get off a good shot. There's a reason why armies make use of suppressing fire.

Quote from: Krazz on July 08, 2022, 05:52:17 PM
I agree. Even if the person being shot at has less agility than an anvil, if they are a good shot themselves then they'll keep the other person in cover, unable to get off a good shot. There's a reason why armies make use of suppressing fire.

Game wise, suppressive fire would be more of a debuff and arguably different action from aimed fire. Volume of accurate fire has its own demoralizing effect but it is different from spraying an are to keep the enemy down. Marksmanship is not combat tactics, the best Olympic target shooter could be useless in a firefight because these pesky targets shoot back. Opposing gunfighter skill with gunfighter skill makes sense, but actively opposing precision shooting with precision shoot does not. I would argue that using evasion and cover for defense should come at a penalty to attack, as it is harder to shoot from those position, but not as difficult as it is to hit someone in that position.

Wounds/Vitality is probably a better way to handle unhittable evasion based characters as the protection from harm would ablate through out combat. They could be ground down, instead of can never be hit by mere mortal mooks.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 08, 2022, 05:02:27 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 07, 2022, 06:40:52 PM
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.

I disagree. Not only is not getting shot a valuable combat skill, but many characters from multiple genres rely on their unhittability to survive: John Wick, Spider-Man, ninjas, etc.

In John Wick case I think that his "unhittability" skill is based on intelligence: he scans his surrounds, makes a plan and enacts it in real time - often changing things on the fly according to the situation. If he takes down a bad guy he doesn't shoot him but shoots a more distant target. Once the latter (who, now, was the biggest menace) is dead John shoots the guy on the ground. Everything is simple and logical because you can literally see how fast he thinks.

Jason Bourne is half and half (he always uses his intelligence above and before any other skill) but he doesn't shoot much in the movies. In the first one, however, he tells Marie things like how long he could run at a certain altitude before his hand starts shaking, underlying the importance of knowledge even in basic assassin tasks like firing a gun; and the way he uses his surroundings to avoid being hit is pure genius.

Quote from: Reckall on July 09, 2022, 09:54:06 AM

Quote from: hedgehobbit on July 08, 2022, 05:02:27 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 07, 2022, 06:40:52 PM
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.

I disagree. Not only is not getting shot a valuable combat skill, but many characters from multiple genres rely on their unhittability to survive: John Wick, Spider-Man, ninjas, etc.

In John Wick case I think that his "unhittability" skill is based on intelligence: he scans his surrounds, makes a plan and enacts it in real time - often changing things on the fly according to the situation. If he takes down a bad guy he doesn't shoot him but shoots a more distant target. Once the latter (who, now, was the biggest menace) is dead John shoots the guy on the ground. Everything is simple and logical because you can literally see how fast he thinks.

Jason Bourne is half and half (he always uses his intelligence above and before any other skill) but he doesn't shoot much in the movies. In the first one, however, he tells Marie things like how long he could run at a certain altitude before his hand starts shaking, underlying the importance of knowledge even in basic assassin tasks like firing a gun; and the way he uses his surroundings to avoid being hit is pure genius.

The biggest issue is how to reflect this in a roleplaying game. In Savage Worlds for ranged combat you need a GM who understands the importance of cover in setting up conflicts so they don't devolve into who has the most damage/toughness (because without cover the TN is almost always 4; meaning even a mediocre d6 mook will hit half the time).

This can be even more tricky with theatre of the mind where you have to basically "GM may I?" cover into existence if the GM hasn't adequately described the setting with any.

5th Edition Vampire made its very abstract firearm vs. firearm combat into I think it was an opposed Composure + Firearms test... basically how well you could keep your cool plus your skill with the weapon to determine who wins (loser takes margin of loss wounds with combat usually supposed to be over in no more than three rounds).

Much as I despise V5 overall, I'll admit that it's analysis that keeping one's head is more important than reflexes in a firefight seems pretty in line with what the veterans who've seen action I know have described.

Maybe if Savage Worlds had a 2+half Smarts for an abstract ranged defense akin to Parry for melee (if you're doing quick-and-dirty/theatre-of-the-mind combat) would work?

Strong smarts (which Spidey, Bourne, Wick and Bond all share) + the dodge edge would well reflect the ability to use cover, positioning, suppressing fire and opportunity to be quite unhittable with ranged attacks.

I'm going to go with yes. I play TOTM and don't get too fancy. If I want skirmish stuff there are wargames for that.

I don't think that there's a RIGHT answer. But I do think that for a game with firearms especially, giving range & melee different feels is beneficial. However, doing so needs to be a core pillar of the system rather than being slapped on.

In the system I've put together Space Dogs (toot my own horn: https://spacedogsrpg.wixsite.com/space-dogs) it's easier to differentiate due to having a phase/side based initiative rather than standard round-robin. Ranged attacks work relatively normally (albeit with a focus on range/cover - such that getting shot in the open at close range is very rough) while melee is basically opposed attack rolls. (Technically your attack roll becomes your defense score for the melee phase - as otherwise there would be a ton of wonky edge cases.)

Melee attacks are inherently more accurate (adding 2 attributes instead of 1) so using a ranged weapon in melee gives you a major drawback offensively and defensively.

On the other hand, base movement in Space Dogs is very slow, so getting into melee can be difficult. It's very much a high risk/reward tactic by design. Though of course some monstrous aliens will make that decision for you.

Quote from: Wisithir on July 08, 2022, 08:49:33 PM

Quote from: Krazz on July 08, 2022, 05:52:17 PM
I agree. Even if the person being shot at has less agility than an anvil, if they are a good shot themselves then they'll keep the other person in cover, unable to get off a good shot. There's a reason why armies make use of suppressing fire.

Game wise, suppressive fire would be more of a debuff and arguably different action from aimed fire. Volume of accurate fire has its own demoralizing effect but it is different from spraying an are to keep the enemy down.

I played around with a bunch of different suppression mechanics, but I didn't like forcing someone to keep their head down etc. I ended up flipping the script and anyone can, as a reaction, hug cover to give up their turn's action to jack up the cover penalty to hit them. This also helps push the players to have to split their fire rather than always focusing on the same target and risk the foe hugging cover.

I've shot a bow, I've sung a sword, and I think these things are not even in the same ballpark. A SINGLE dagger is extremely deadly, a SINGLE arrow simply isn't. Speed, power, accuracy, everything is different. I think even the English used to say that to train archers, you must start with their grandfathers, while I'd be afraid of ANY adult with a dagger, despite practicing martial arts.

(I do not have much experience with crossbows; I think they might be deadlier for the first shot and then take a while, maybe similar rules for black powder weapons.... Modern guns, again, are a whole different game, a hundred times more deadly than bows - you cannot dodge, accuracy is high, rate of fire is immense, etc.).

"Oh but Agincourt..." - that is raining arrows over an army, not aiming at one specific foe.

Same goes for thrown weapons. If someone approaches me with a dagger, I can only hope they throw it, and not use it to stab me. Even if they are carrying a dozen dagger to throw at me, it will take longer than stabbing me a dozen times, and the accuracy will suffer.

Not to mention shields. A mace to the shield hurts you, you might deflect a shield and stab, but a thrown dagger to the shield? It will be worthless most of the time.

Well, that is, realistically.

In practice, I do not want a system that is so complex, so I'm okay with "dagger 1d4, longbow 1d8" or whatever.

If I were to turn make a more "realistic" version of bows and darts I'd just say they deal half damage. So, dagger is 1d4+3 in your hands, half the result if you throw it. Longbow is 1d8+3 divided by two. Maybe double shield AC against ranged attacks. Etc.

Essentially the same rules, yes, excepting only that most will expect range to cause a malus to hit - the further away, the more difficult.

Notably, in a very few systems, a close range can make hitting with ranged weapons harder. Perhaps the weapon itself gets in the way - if you're toe-to-toe wrestling, it's harder to hit someone with a rifle than a pistol. Or perhaps the angular movement of the target makes things harder - someone moving 6 feet in a round at 100 feet, you don't have to adjust your aim as much as if they're 10 feet away.

Whenever considering game design, always bear in mind that it's all an abstraction, and will thus collapse into absurdity if examined at its lowest level of resolution. Look at your computer screen close enough and it's just coloured dots. You can't avoid this close-up absurdity, all you can do is try to make sure that the little absurd dots come together into a nice picture or some readable text when you pull away from the screen.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on July 11, 2022, 06:58:02 AM
Essentially the same rules, yes, excepting only that most will expect range to cause a malus to hit - the further away, the more difficult.

Notably, in a very few systems, a close range can make hitting with ranged weapons harder. Perhaps the weapon itself gets in the way - if you're toe-to-toe wrestling, it's harder to hit someone with a rifle than a pistol. Or perhaps the angular movement of the target makes things harder - someone moving 6 feet in a round at 100 feet, you don't have to adjust your aim as much as if they're 10 feet away.

Whenever considering game design, always bear in mind that it's all an abstraction, and will thus collapse into absurdity if examined at its lowest level of resolution. Look at your computer screen close enough and it's just coloured dots. You can't avoid this close-up absurdity, all you can do is try to make sure that the little absurd dots come together into a nice picture or some readable text when you pull away from the screen.

This.  Part of the goal of game mechanics is to produce results that are predictable (within the context), replicable, and make sense when resolved.  So, no matter how you construct them, rules that consistently result in a character hitting with a ranged weapon more often at 100 feet than at 20 feet is going to seem to violate the players' expectations of how the world works.  Now, you can build your settings such that counterintuitive results in our world make sense as results in the fictional one, but that has to be careful and explicit.  What matters is that the overall "feel" of ranged meets the expectation of the players in comparison to melee combat.  This is somewhat player dependent, as well.  But the big picture is what determines if the rules are working.

I would prefer much different rules for melee and ranged combat. What's typically done is situational modifiers, separate ranged/melee actions, separate initiative, and what others have mentioned. It would be nice to see two completely distinct subsystems implemented well, if for no other reason than to add interest to the game by making class distinctions stronger.

Yes and no.  Range and melee must share the same system, otherwise how would you handle close range combat where one character uses a ranged weapon while the other uses a melee weapon.  I would expect them to use different modifiers though, as various conditions only apply to one or the other.