The weird cyberpunk game I'm currently playing in has homebrew rules. They're percentile, and a big part of this is how suppression fire works. It's trying to make gun combat less about just picking a target and shooting, and trying to come up with a balance between suppression and aimed fire.

The core idea is here (from the draft of rules):

QuoteSuppression Mechanics
You roll your suppression skill (modified by the amount of ammunition you're using) on your target.  If you are successful in your skill, you force them to take a damage roll, but this roll is never modified by your success (wild shots to suppress aren't particularly accurate).  The victim of suppression may use cover, if any, to modify the damage roll, but if they do, they forfeit their action (or the rest of their action) for the turn.  The primary purpose of suppression is to prevent opponents from taking action.

Mutual Suppression
If you and an opponent are mutually suppressing each other, your level of success of your suppression roll is relevant: both suppressors roll, and whoever rolls the highest has their suppression resolve first.  If the opponent chooses to use cover, then their own suppression ends (all of it, including suppression on other targets).

We've only had two session so far, and we're still getting used to how it works. I'm not sure if it's encouraging what it's supposed to, but at least it's an interesting experiment. There is some sense of realism, but I think the real goal is to get a different feel to play - where rather than just slugging it out back and forth, there is the sense of hiding, suppressing, and maneuvering.

I'm wondering if people have used anything similar in play and how it worked for them.

From what it sounds like, it could be used to effectively target a single individual, but it also sounds like it's still worst then dealing outright damage (would need more info tbh). My biggest gripe about this (not really just this, just suppression mechanics in general) is it doesn't seem to do what you really want.

Encourage taking cover and using suppressive fire to aid allies. Along with denying the enemy from taking more advantageous positions or actions. But modeling that is hard.

At the moment, I can only see the rules above being useful to deny actions to a single target, which could be useful. But damage might just be better. And I don't see how thia encourages using advantageous terrain or positions/encourages movement, if anything it seems to encourage players to hunker down in one spot and tank damage so they don't lose actions.

As for similar ideas. Twilight 2k (I think 4e?), had a mechanic where you spent more ammo to get more ammo dice in order to increase chances of damage and suppression. It was interesting, still had the issues of combat being static though.

In my own games I've messed around with adding modifiers for expending more ammo to either increase the chances of hitting at the cost of not dealing as much damage, and I've messed around with the idea of spending  actions to take cover in order to negate in coming/modify damage, both changes have had a variety of different responses. But I've yet to crack the "mobile" gunplay stuff you seen in action movies and ultra high skill spec ops.

Quote from: Kahoona on September 13, 2024, 02:04:27 PMFrom what it sounds like, it could be used to effectively target a single individual, but it also sounds like it's still worst then dealing outright damage (would need more info tbh). My biggest gripe about this (not really just this, just suppression mechanics in general) is it doesn't seem to do what you really want.

Encourage taking cover and using suppressive fire to aid allies. Along with denying the enemy from taking more advantageous positions or actions. But modeling that is hard.

At the moment, I can only see the rules above being useful to deny actions to a single target, which could be useful. But damage might just be better.

I agree that it's hard. Suppression against multiple targets is possible - using a standard of three rounds per target suppressed. The more lengthy (but still draft) combat rules are here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1tNYhuqz-B9Dc86I2cXZA4fXs4tCaQjtihc08_C_b8f8/edit

(Don't comment on the doc, since I don't own it.)

The basics are:

• Clean shots resolve first - shooting at anyone outside of cover
• Suppression is resolved next.
• Last is movement and reactive shots - i.e. waiting until someone breaks cover

More below...

Quote from: Kahoona on September 13, 2024, 02:04:27 PMAnd I don't see how thia encourages using advantageous terrain or positions/encourages movement, if anything it seems to encourage players to hunker down in one spot and tank damage so they don't lose actions.

As for similar ideas. Twilight 2k (I think 4e?), had a mechanic where you spent more ammo to get more ammo dice in order to increase chances of damage and suppression. It was interesting, still had the issues of combat being static though.

In my own games I've messed around with adding modifiers for expending more ammo to either increase the chances of hitting at the cost of not dealing as much damage, and I've messed around with the idea of spending  actions to take cover in order to negate in coming/modify damage, both changes have had a variety of different responses. But I've yet to crack the "mobile" gunplay stuff you seen in action movies and ultra high skill spec ops.

Yeah - spending ammunition to suppress multiple targets (or better suppression) is possible in this system. The intent is described in the start of the doc.

QuoteWith decent defensive positioning, suppressive fire is unlikely to seriously injure a combatant -- however, it can disrupt their actions.  The major way to get an actual kill in is to accumulate offensive position and then attempt a clean shot.  However, maneuvering is easy to suppress.

The ideal game plan for a team is to suppress your opponents, preventing them from maneuvering.  Then either suppress them to the point where your flanker can move unencumbered, or else wait for their suppression rolls to fail so that your flanker can opportunistically gain position.  Once your flanker has gained offensive position sufficient to threaten them, the other side has the unappealing decision of either taking clean shots, or trying to maneuver themselves through your suppressive fire.

In the event that you are unable to achieve this level of dominance for the ideal scenario, your flanker may choose to trust his non-cover defenses for a brief dash through fire, or a sniper who hangs back can potentially remove an opponent with a reactive shot.  Having some role flexibility prevents your opponents from pouring tons of fire into only one flanker and pinning them down -- if they do that to the point of neglecting your other team members, another person may function as a flanker or a sniper.  You may also bait your opponents into brief interruptions in their suppression routine by running them out of ammo and making the most of the round in which they reload.

(Design Note:  The mechanics probably fall short of fully incenting the described tempo of battle.  Some level of fine tuning will certainly be necessary, if indeed the basic concept can work at all.  I'm more interested in achieving this vision of combat than I am of being super faithful to the mechanics -- if you are playing and it seems like you should be able to achieve something in this combat paradigm, but the mechanics aren't there, describe what you want to do and we'll improvise.)

The key is whether maneuvering with a flanker actually helps. It's been a little unclear thus far in practice at what point a flanker can deny the enemy cover.

In Conflict, I based things on this article:-

https://christian-gamers-guild.org/2017/04/18/keeping-their-heads-down/

The authour notes that in combat (and I would add, any crisis situation like a car crash or someone needing life-saving first aid), many people freeze completely, or simply repeat previous actions, and so on. Rory Miller the writer of many books about real world violence makes similar observations, giving examples like a police officer repeating commands to an armed suspect as the suspect approaches - and stabs him.

Thus in a realistic-themed game, we would have a dice roll each combat round to see if the character does nothing, acts usefully, repeats previous actions or whatever. This would be modified by their training (range firing is not training, things like the "kill rooms" is training), experience and so on.

For Conflict, I found that as with any game, players get annoyed by the GM or dice rolls dictating their actions, plus every dice roll you have to make in a combat round slows things down. This tends to clash with players without military background, who tend to idolise the military and imagine them as portrayed in movies with choreographed combats, "but I should be able to -" and so on. But if there's a stat for it then they argue less, and we don't have to roll each round. Instead I put in a trait called "Readiness."

Readiness may be thought of as the lubricant for the friction of combat: the adventurer normally gets one action for each level of Readiness. This means that those with Readiness+0 will not act at all; they may only drop to crouch or prone, or flee if they think themselves unobserved. Most people will not act usefully in a trauma situation without training, experience or leadership. Readiness varies from +0 to +3, depending on background, training and experience.

Of the 0 to 3 possible actions, the player may choose from - give orders, watch, move, equip, melee or fire. Dropping to crouch/prone is a free action, though standing is not.

Readiness may be increased by a psych-up, or by someone giving orders (using their action as "give orders"). Even a Readiness +0 person may ambush someone, though they will only get actions for that surprise round, so if they don't down or cow their opponent they'll be in trouble.

Suppressive fire is any automatic fire, or three or more individuals doing single shots (including just throwing things). Suppressive fire subtracts a level of Readiness. Sustaining a wound also subtracts a level of Readiness for that round only.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron on September 13, 2024, 11:11:33 PMReadiness may be thought of as the lubricant for the friction of combat: the adventurer normally gets one action for each level of Readiness. This means that those with Readiness+0 will not act at all; they may only drop to crouch or prone, or flee if they think themselves unobserved. Most people will not act usefully in a trauma situation without training, experience or leadership. Readiness varies from +0 to +3, depending on background, training and experience.

This kind of reminds me of T2k 1e's Coolness Under Fire stat.  Players had to perform hesitation actions equal to their CUF/2. Hesitations were not required if the character repeated the same action for the entire turn.

I played T2k 1e ages ago, so there's no doubt some unconscious copying there. But moreso there'll be convergent evolution. If you're aiming for a particular playstyle then you tend to come up with similar game mechanics to make it happen.

I aimed for the simplest possible. I wanted the game to fit in 48pp digest, like OD&D and Classic Traveller. I'm a big believer that in hobbies, professional and personal life, constraints enhance creativity and productivity, just generally making things better.

It wasn't meant as a knock, just that it hit me as similar. Moreso after reading your comment "many people freeze completely, or simply repeat previous actions, and so on" and how that was modeled with CUF.

I didn't take it as a knock. We're fifty years into the hobby with literally thousands of RPGs published. It's impossible to be completely original. At most we can present things in a slightly clearer way, or combine the old ingredients in a slightly new way.

I run my girls' group in Traveller and intermittently CoC/DG, and I've added suppressive fire into both of the games.

I do say it is for an area as opposed to against a specific target. Also, I have diving for cover etc rules that go hand in hand for it.

The specific game mechanic is a little different for each since one id a d66 game and the other is d100. But, it boils down to make a successful attack roll (to make sure the fire is accurate enough in the targeted area to be effective). If successful, anyone in the area has to make a check (Wis Int or Pow depending on the game) to take an action (sometimes it might still be at a negative) . Anyone moving in into or through the area must make a dodge check or be hit by one of the rounds being sprayed into the area.

The games so far have not been supper heavy combat, but even then they have used suppressive fire in both. In traveller it was to slow down a group thugs trying to run up and grab the last player and a few NPCs they were rescuing from a crashed vehicle in a ravine. In CoC it was last night trying to keep 3 cultist priests from finishing a ritual to summon something (they didn't know what, but know what every it was they were summoning would NOT be good) and kill the last kidnapped victim, and give a chance for 2 of the players to get up to the alter to untie the victim etc. It kept the 3 priests at the alter down ducking for cover and unable to kill her for an important 2 rounds.