PDA

View Full Version : What fighting moves you want to see in an rpg?



D-naras
2014-02-27, 07:26 PM
I want to pick your brains for ideas regarding fighting moves and combat tactics. How have you seen them implemented in RPGs, and which you think are appropriate for an RPG to have?

In my opinion, the basic moves that a relatively crunch heavy system must model are:

feints (L5R uses this for damage increase, most systems use it to deny defences)
pushes and pulls
grapples including throws
taunts
demoralizations (maybe this should be the same with taunting?)
disarming (though this is 1 tiny step away from called shots and that's quite tricky to handle)
charges and other ways to move and fight simultaneously.
defensive maneuvers that sacrifice attack for defence, including guarding others.
aggressive maneuvers that sacrifice defence for attack.
aim ranged attacks.


Now, considering that anyone can attempt to do these by default, what "special" moves would you like to have access to? Any amount of realism is acceptable.

Mastikator
2014-02-27, 07:48 PM
Attacks that have different effects vs armor. Like impale vs slash with a sword, slash harms a greater area of flesh, impale pierces armor better.

Attacks that aim at specific body parts with damage with appropriate effects (broken kneecaps, broken fingers, concussions, throats cut etc).

Attacks that hit multiple targets.

Magical attacks that imbue some supernatural effect into the attack that otherwise isn't possible.

warty goblin
2014-02-27, 09:32 PM
A system that stops messing about with boring things like hitpoints and get right the point of inflicting drastic harm. Forgive me, but my badass warrior fantasy does not involve the phrase 'you do 56 points of damage.'

veti
2014-02-27, 09:51 PM
Parrying.

Group manoeuvres/formations. A pike phalanx should be pretty much impervious to a frontal charge. Conversely, a co-ordinated volley of arrows should be much more lethal than many individual shots.

Ability to use all your limbs. Kicking, grabbing with a free hand - these should be options that you might get the opportunity to use.

Balance. Falling over in combat is a bad idea - and a major hazard, particularly if you try to kick people.

And I agree with warty goblin that HP are a lame idea, and any system based on them can never hope to achieve True Awesomeness, at least as far as combat is concerned.

Dimers
2014-02-27, 10:43 PM
Armor-piercing attacks, either by being strong enough to blow right through, or by being small and dextrous enough to stab where the armor isn't.

Honest Tiefling
2014-02-27, 10:48 PM
Dirty tricks such as groin kicks, blinding with substances, and hitting weak spots. Oh, and attacking while swinging off of things.

Rhynn
2014-02-27, 11:03 PM
Winding & binding is found in exactly one RPG (The Riddle of Steel, natch), but is the most important aspect of longsword-fighting.

Knaight
2014-02-27, 11:10 PM
It depends on the RPG in question. If it's heavily combat focused and high crunch, I'm entirely good with Riddle of Steel style simulation (binding, armor modeling, etc). However, something like Seven Seas does not need to model stuff outside of it's focus, but needs swashbuckling in a big way. Legend of the Five Rings needs to be pretty solid in a duel situation, in a way that a game with a setting where duels aren't really a thing doesn't need to so much. So on and so forth.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-27, 11:28 PM
In my opinion, the basic moves that a relatively crunch heavy system must model are:

feints (L5R uses this for damage increase, most systems use it to deny defences)
pushes and pulls
grapples including throws
taunts
demoralizations (maybe this should be the same with taunting?)
disarming (though this is 1 tiny step away from called shots and that's quite tricky to handle)
charges and other ways to move and fight simultaneously.
defensive maneuvers that sacrifice attack for defence, including guarding others.
aggressive maneuvers that sacrifice defence for attack.
aim ranged attacks.



I want my melee characters to be able to:

Choke people, with bare hands and a weapon (such as a wire or whip)
Bite people
Gouge their eyes out
Rip/cut/bite their extremities off (includes ears, nose, fingers, toes)
Snap their necks
Break their limbs (especially fingers, arms, and legs)

Those should all be basic moves, as they can all be attempted by an untrained person (although technique certainly helps).

D-naras
2014-02-28, 08:16 AM
I want my melee characters to be able to:

Choke people, with bare hands and a weapon (such as a wire or whip)
Bite people
Gouge their eyes out
Rip/cut/bite their extremities off (includes ears, nose, fingers, toes)
Snap their necks
Break their limbs (especially fingers, arms, and legs)

Those should all be basic moves, as they can all be attempted by an untrained person (although technique certainly helps).

Sure but how would you feel if these happened to your character? Also has anyone seen any of these moves implemented in a system? Not just Slipperychicken's suggestions but all others' as well.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-28, 10:27 AM
Sure but how would you feel if these happened to your character?

Assuming the mechanics were done reasonably well, I would feel like I was playing a pretty hardcore game. If the character is rendered nonfunctional (i.e. a crocodile bites my archer's hands off), then I'll just retire him. No big deal.

Red Fel
2014-02-28, 10:37 AM
Hokuto Shinken (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgpU70MZno). (Caution: Ultraviolence.)

In all seriousness, I recently picked up Ironclaw: Book of Jade, and was quite pleasantly surprised with the diversity of fighting styles and moves in the book. There are fighting schools designed around acquiring and using improvised weapons, techniques designed around what to do if you fail to block or parry, two-fisted techniques that basically ignore your armor, even a rather flavorful assassination school with a capstone technique that, when used, terrifies people familiar with that school, but has no effect on others. Which is just weird and awesome.

Rhynn
2014-02-28, 10:38 AM
Assuming the mechanics were done reasonably well, I would feel like I was playing a pretty hardcore game. If the character is rendered nonfunctional (i.e. a crocodile bites my archer's hands off), then I'll just retire him. No big deal.

Yeah, I don't really even get D-naras's question. Why would having your extremities removed or your eyes gouged out be worse than dying because your HP ran out or you failed some kind of saving throw? Plenty of games have that sort of stuff already.

Brookshw
2014-02-28, 10:41 AM
Aerial and acrobatics are always fun though usually meaningless in a lot of systems.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-28, 10:53 AM
A system that stops messing about with boring things like hitpoints and get right the point of inflicting drastic harm. Forgive me, but my badass warrior fantasy does not involve the phrase 'you do 56 points of damage.'
Boom. This. Casters in a lot of systems get to do things; they don't have to whittle down the "hitpoints" of reality to get what they want. Fighters oughta have a crack at that too. They are, after all, trained warriors. (At bare minimum, turn Cleave into a save-or-die against lower-HD enemies?)

warty goblin
2014-02-28, 11:21 AM
Boom. This. Casters in a lot of systems get to do things; they don't have to whittle down the "hitpoints" of reality to get what they want. Fighters oughta have a crack at that too. They are, after all, trained warriors. (At bare minimum, turn Cleave into a save-or-die against lower-HD enemies?)

My absolutely preferred method would be to make defense an active thing, chose to counter specific attacks. Ideally with gradations of success and failure - it's possibly to 'successfully' defend a blow, but end up losing your balance or end up in a poor position, and also to seize the initiative and counterattack.

This would, I think, have a few benefits:


It would distinguish somebody with genuine skill at arms from somebody lacking that talent. AC does not do this, since there are a myriad ways to raise it besides martial talent, and indeed martial talent can't raise it very well. Which is stupid, the primary defense against being struck is the weapon in your hands.

Pursuant to (1), somebody lacking skill at arms would suffer immensely in hand to hand combat with somebody who is, since the former lacks both the offensive skill to achieve a hit, and the defense ability to avoid getting stabbed in the face. Which is as it should be. Primary melee combatants in RPGs don't get magical abilities any of the other fantastic stuff. They should be fantastically good at carving up enemies who aren't trained in close combat.

Fights between well trained primary combatants would actually be interesting, and require some level of turn-to-turn planning. Instead of repeating the same optimum move every turn, then seeing if you rolled high enough. No more one-trick wonders built to execute a single dumbass 'tactic' like whirlwind attack or charging every turn. They'll get shut down by a warrior with a diverse set of developed options.

Morty
2014-02-28, 11:30 AM
Pursuant to (1), somebody lacking skill at arms would suffer immensely in hand to hand combat with somebody who is, since the former lacks both the offensive skill to achieve a hit, and the defense ability to avoid getting stabbed in the face. Which is as it should be. Primary melee combatants in RPGs don't get magical abilities any of the other fantastic stuff. They should be fantastically good at carving up enemies who aren't trained in close combat.


Seriously. If you're an unarmored, unarmed person with no combat training and you end up within the reach of a weapon wielded by someone willing and able to use it with lethal intent... you die. You don't get to keep casting your magic by stepping back or passing a check.

Other than that, well, warty goblin seems to be saying everything I would say. I'm just going to add that in a high-fantasy game with high-powered magic, I would be entirely fine with warriors pursuing some obscure, larger-than-life specific techniques in addition to the basic variety of combat manoeuvres. An example I'm fond of is parrying spells with your weapon - it's both pretty metal and entirely thematic for a high-fantasy warrior.

erikun
2014-02-28, 11:33 AM
Something that makes use of viking age combat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkhpqAGdZPc), longsword combat (http://www.thearma.org/essays/armoredlongsword.html), samurai kenjutsu, spartian military techniques, and so on.

One thing that bothers me is that fighting tends to just be, well, smacking stuff in the face with a pointy stick. I actually think that's fine with that if we're talking about untrained people (i.e. Clerics in combat) and with simple weapons like maces or scimitars, but someone who is knowledgeable in combat should have options available to easily overcome unskilled fighters.

Delwugor
2014-02-28, 11:56 AM
I want my melee characters to be able to:

Choke people, with bare hands and a weapon (such as a wire or whip)
Bite people
Gouge their eyes out
Rip/cut/bite their extremities off (includes ears, nose, fingers, toes)
Snap their necks
Break their limbs (especially fingers, arms, and legs)

Those should all be basic moves, as they can all be attempted by an untrained person (although technique certainly helps).
Exactly! Combat should be more than just crossing swords, dirty tactics are great because the real goal is to come out alive.

The one which I've never seen is a system that have effective blocking so others can not get past.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-28, 01:23 PM
Some advanced moves could include:

That heart-stopping punch technique.
"Reaction Throws" (things like avoiding a charge and using his momentum to hurl him to the floor)
Catching or deflecting a fast-moving projectile (such as an arrow or bullet) midair. Yes, this can happen in real life.
Flying armbar (which can both break a dude's arm and knock him down)
Climbing up a large opponent to fight it God of War style.



Exactly! Combat should be more than just crossing swords, dirty tactics are great because the real goal is to come out alive.


Including such maneuvers also gives melee the kind of visceral depth it has in real life, as opposed to dnd's abstraction in which the only practical options are "I hit it again", "I hit it a little harder", and "I hit it while moving".


That also reminds me of another one: I want melee characters to be able to inflict pain effects (i.e. penalties and status effects based on pain). A character in extreme pain might lose concentration, take penalties on actions (including rolls made to resist interrogation), be overwhelmed and unable to act, drop any held items, or even fall unconscious from the shock.

The first example which comes to mind is groin-striking (for a basic move), although that could be expanded to various pressure points with advanced training (which might also give bonus hit chance due to potential targets all over the body).

Another obvious move is twisting a weapon inside a wound to inflict extreme pain, bleeding, and internal damage.

D-naras
2014-02-28, 02:25 PM
Yeah, I don't really even get D-naras's question. Why would having your extremities removed or your eyes gouged out be worse than dying because your HP ran out or you failed some kind of saving throw? Plenty of games have that sort of stuff already.

I wasn't trying to be comfrontational, I was really curious as to how would people feel about their characters losing limbs due to some dice rolls. I know that I wouldn't like that if it wasn't agreed upon prior to the event. Dying because of something like that is okay. Losing an arm because a hungry crocodile got lucky seems bad storytelling to me.

Slipperychicken
2014-02-28, 02:39 PM
I wasn't trying to be comfrontational, I was really curious as to how would people feel about their characters losing limbs due to some dice rolls. I know that I wouldn't like that if it wasn't agreed upon prior to the event. Dying because of something like that is okay. Losing an arm because a hungry crocodile got lucky seems bad storytelling to me.

Isn't that why you're writing it into the rules? That way, everyone goes in knowing their characters might get horribly mangled.

And it's not like you have to keep on playing your character through his disability. If you hate it so much, you can just retire him and play a new healthy character, just like if the old one had been killed.

erikun
2014-02-28, 02:47 PM
I don't see much difference between a disintegration trap and an alligator biting off a character's leg. Mind you, it very much depends on the kind of game you want to play. I wouldn't want to play in a game with spontaneous arm-severing crocodiles any more than spontaneous Finger of Death traps.

I don't see dismemberment in combat to be that practical of a thing, though. Even the japanese katana, fearsome reputation and all, would not be used for cutting people in half during a real fight. Any sort of "chop their arm off" attack for any weapon would probably just as reasonably be a "break bones and hit major artery" as well, disabling the limb but without body parts flying around each combat.

Then again, we're talking about what people want. Some people do like that exceptionally lethal (and fantastically strong!) sort of combat.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-02-28, 03:03 PM
Limb-smashing (for a fighter type) is probably a better alternative than limb-severing. It certainly gives you pause before wading into combat against a trained fighter!

Slipperychicken
2014-02-28, 03:22 PM
I don't see dismemberment in combat to be that practical of a thing, though. Even the japanese katana, fearsome reputation and all, would not be used for cutting people in half during a real fight. Any sort of "chop their arm off" attack for any weapon would probably just as reasonably be a "break bones and hit major artery" as well, disabling the limb but without body parts flying around each combat.

You'd probably have a degrees of success sort of deal. Only a particularly strong attack would temprarily impair an extremity's functioning (i.e. Walk it off), a more successful attack might inflict semi-permanent mangling (requiring medical attention to set it right), and only a relatively devastating attack would sever a limb outright.

Morty
2014-02-28, 03:29 PM
I don't think dismemberment is a thing you attempt to do as much as it is a thing that happens if you strike hard enough. Riddle of Steel makes dismemberment happen if you roll well enough while hitting a limb location, for instance.

The Oni
2014-02-28, 03:33 PM
The one which I've never seen is a system that have effective blocking so others can not get past.

An excellent point. My latest Pathfinder character was based around the concept of a terrifyingly badass chain-swinging bodyguard so it disappointed me to learn how limited PF's "You Shall Not Pass" mechanic really is.

warty goblin
2014-02-28, 05:54 PM
I wasn't trying to be comfrontational, I was really curious as to how would people feel about their characters losing limbs due to some dice rolls. I know that I wouldn't like that if it wasn't agreed upon prior to the event. Dying because of something like that is okay. Losing an arm because a hungry crocodile got lucky seems bad storytelling to me.
It seems like that's the place where the improvisational nature of roleplaying can actually shine.

Isn't that why you're writing it into the rules? That way, everyone goes in knowing their characters might get horribly mangled.

It also provides solid incentive to avoid getting into fights for the hell of it.



An excellent point. My latest Pathfinder character was based around the concept of a terrifyingly badass chain-swinging bodyguard so it disappointed me to learn how limited PF's "You Shall Not Pass" mechanic really is.
It's actually pretty difficult to stop somebody bypassing a single person acting alone, barring some extremely favorable terrain. Two people however can cordon off a line and do a lot better.

Mrc.
2014-02-28, 05:59 PM
The issue I have with dismemberment (I homebrewed some rules for it once) is that one of two things happens. Firstly, almost nobody uses it and it becomes a nasty little shock somewhere down the line. Which is fun. Secondly, everyone reverts from "stand in front of target. Hit as hard as possible" to "stand in front of target. Try to remove limbs". This has lead to many characters being retired due to limblessness (pretty sure that's a word now) and it significantly changes the tone of the adventure. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing, just not what I had in mind.

Stoneback
2014-03-01, 01:39 AM
Give mundanes "save or die" abilities like the wizard and cleric have.

Elana
2014-03-01, 02:31 AM
I honestly do not see the trouble with removing limbs.

It just means that magical regrowing limbs will replace raise dead as the standard spell after particular nasty combats

Sith_Happens
2014-03-01, 05:36 AM
Any amount of realism is acceptable.

Any amount, hm? How about "as little as possible?"

http://img4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130323231005/naruto/images/e/e2/Asakujaku.png
http://static.senpuu.net/images/characters/skills/385096786/385096786_photo1_big.jpg
http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120217002345/denaruto3/de/images/4/4b/Hirudora.png
Now, I'm sure one easily could create either of the above effects using the setting in question's effectively omnipresent magic, but this particular character doesn't. He just punches so fast his fists burn up in the atmosphere or claps so hard it makes a giant, tiger-shaped compressed air blast, because he's that good.

Those are the kinds of things I want to see powerful warriors in a high-fantasy game doing. In a more down-to-earth setting, though, I suppose the stuff the rest of you have been posting is fine.:smalltongue:

Amphetryon
2014-03-01, 09:08 AM
Several good ones have already been mentioned. I'll throw additional support to:

1. Parrying: Palladium has its issues as a system, but I appreciated this particular option as an additional line of defense in its combat model.

2. Disabling a limb: Obviously, more abstracted combat systems do not model this well, but I like the idea of a skilled combatant being able to injure (or at least numb) an opponent's arm or leg so that it's clearly impeded. This seems as if it would require both a specific targeting system in combat, and a combat model where the immediate removal of your adversary from the fight is unlikely (in other words, no rocket tag).

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-03-01, 12:47 PM
I wouldn't want the fighter to have to wade through a targeting subsystem to earn the right to disable a limb, though. I feel as though they should just be able to do it, especially because fighting's their specialty.

Knaight
2014-03-01, 03:42 PM
I wouldn't want the fighter to have to wade through a targeting subsystem to earn the right to disable a limb, though. I feel as though they should just be able to do it, especially because fighting's their specialty.

It depends on the targeting system. With something like ORE, it's a non issue.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-01, 04:11 PM
Well, for my system I figured attacking, grappling (and attacking), throwing, tripping, takedowns, binds, hooking, pushes and shoves.

I didn't notice any mentioned of hooking or pushing. Hooking with a tomahawk in one hand and attacking with a knife in the other is pretty good. So is pushing someone off balance then cutting them down (or shoving them back).

D-naras
2014-03-01, 04:35 PM
Well, for my system I figured attacking, grappling (and attacking), throwing, tripping, takedowns, binds, hooking, pushes and shoves.

I didn't notice any mentioned of hooking or pushing. Hooking with a tomahawk in one hand and attacking with a knife in the other is pretty good. So is pushing someone off balance then cutting them down (or shoving them back).

How did you make hooking different (functionaly) than grappling? This sounds interesting.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-01, 04:56 PM
The rolling is similar for all of the mechanics (intentionally), but the details change.


Hooking can be done at a distance, at your weapon's range (grappling can only be done at arm's length or closer).

A person who is hooked can't move away from you any further than your weapon's maximum range (until they escape). If someone who is hooked gets too close, they escape.

You can hook weapons, shields, limbs, necks, and waists. You can't use hooked weapons/shields, nor can you use items in an arm which is hooked. Your hands can be used to hook things, which includes grabbing weapons and shields (beware grabbing swords, it's risky).

If an item like a weapon or shield is being hooked, you can drop it to escape.

The weapon being used to hook with can't be used for anything else (if it has a bladed hook, you can inflict damage).



There are some other details as well. I figured it was better to not get too specific.

AMFV
2014-03-01, 06:07 PM
I want to pick your brains for ideas regarding fighting moves and combat tactics. How have you seen them implemented in RPGs, and which you think are appropriate for an RPG to have?

In my opinion, the basic moves that a relatively crunch heavy system must model are:

feints (L5R uses this for damage increase, most systems use it to deny defences)
pushes and pulls
grapples including throws
taunts
demoralizations (maybe this should be the same with taunting?)
disarming (though this is 1 tiny step away from called shots and that's quite tricky to handle)
charges and other ways to move and fight simultaneously.
defensive maneuvers that sacrifice attack for defence, including guarding others.
aggressive maneuvers that sacrifice defence for attack.
aim ranged attacks.


Now, considering that anyone can attempt to do these by default, what "special" moves would you like to have access to? Any amount of realism is acceptable.

The problem is that while saying "Any amount of realism is acceptable" you make it impossible to discuss effectively. Any amount of realism could be anything from Wrestling Style Shenanigans where somebody could get hit over the head with a chair and then keep fighting to a more realistic outlook where getting punched in the face could kill if you're unlucky, and that's only mundane scale combat.

We'd need to know more about the feel of what you're going for, since that will dictate more what moves should be available.

D-naras
2014-03-01, 06:31 PM
The problem is that while saying "Any amount of realism is acceptable" you make it impossible to discuss effectively. Any amount of realism could be anything from Wrestling Style Shenanigans where somebody could get hit over the head with a chair and then keep fighting to a more realistic outlook where getting punched in the face could kill if you're unlucky, and that's only mundane scale combat.

We'd need to know more about the feel of what you're going for, since that will dictate more what moves should be available.

The only thing I want out of any rules system is to not get in the way of the stories told with it. That's why I am a bit surprised about the level of maiming some people want in their games. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just goes against my story telling sensitivities (emphasis on my :smalltongue: ). With that said, I really want to know if people want to actually have rules about really exotic or specific moves, like hooking or clotheslining or punching the air so hard, it sends shockwaves.

I guess my ultimate goal is figuring out when a move list gets to be rules clutter and when it is an awesome addition to a game.

AMFV
2014-03-01, 06:36 PM
The only thing I want out of any rules system is to not get in the way of the stories told with it. That's why I am a bit surprised about the level of maiming some people want in their games. Not that there is anything wrong with that, it just goes against my story telling sensitivities (emphasis on my :smalltongue: ). With that said, I really want to know if people want to actually have rules about really exotic or specific moves, like hooking or clotheslining or punching the air so hard, it sends shockwaves.

I guess my ultimate goal is figuring out when a move list gets to be rules clutter and when it is an awesome addition to a game.

Well that's really going to depend on the people involved. People that want more strategic complex games will want more complex rules. It depends too much on the games, for some people no rules or very slim rules is fine. "I attack" can be the only option. In other games like TRoS the complexity adds to the game. It depends more on what sort of game you want.

Slipperychicken
2014-03-01, 08:31 PM
Well that's really going to depend on the people involved. People that want more strategic complex games will want more complex rules. It depends too much on the games, for some people no rules or very slim rules is fine. "I attack" can be the only option. In other games like TRoS the complexity adds to the game. It depends more on what sort of game you want.

There are middle grounds too. ACKS has dismemberment and maiming (through its "mortal wounds table"), but you only roll for that if you run out of hit points, and it's the same roll which tells you whether a KO was fatal or not. That means it's not taking up so much time inside combat (the combat system is surprisingly light), but a PC could nonetheless end up losing a hand, getting a disfiguring scar, or being paralyzed for life.

AMFV
2014-03-01, 08:38 PM
There are middle grounds too. ACKS has dismemberment and maiming (through its "mortal wounds table"), but you only roll for that if you run out of hit points, and it's the same roll which tells you whether a KO was fatal or not. That means it's not taking up so much time inside combat (the combat system is surprisingly light), but a PC could nonetheless end up losing a hand, getting a disfiguring scar, or being paralyzed for life.

Certainly true, I was presenting the vast differences in spectrum to try to demonstrate that for any given system, with different design goals, the answer to "rules that are fun but not clunky," will vary so dramatically as to require better definition.

D-naras
2014-03-02, 09:06 AM
I just had an idea. What if we take all moves described in this thread and allow characters to combine them with an attack, provided there is a cost, like reduced accuracy or points of some sort. This way, you can perform an uppercut by combining an attack with increased damage, the knockdown maneuver and reduced accuracy or defence. How does that sound?

AMFV
2014-03-02, 09:08 AM
I just had an idea. What if we take all moves described in this thread and allow characters to combine them with an attack, provided there is a cost, like reduced accuracy or points of some sort. This way, you can perform an uppercut by combining an attack with increased damage, the knockdown maneuver and reduced accuracy or defence. How does that sound?

It's certainly acceptable from a gameplay standpoint, although I would say it's probably not the most realistic system, although it's fine from a gameplay standpoint and could be a fun game aspect. If that's what you're looking for.

Red Fel
2014-03-02, 09:39 AM
I just had an idea. What if we take all moves described in this thread and allow characters to combine them with an attack, provided there is a cost, like reduced accuracy or points of some sort. This way, you can perform an uppercut by combining an attack with increased damage, the knockdown maneuver and reduced accuracy or defence. How does that sound?

In my mind, it should be less about a "cost," and more about a "limit." Not all fighting maneuvers require you to give something up, or lose something. (Although some, like dislocating a joint to escape from a grapple, I'd consider to be a cost.)

I recall someone posted earlier about limits per-day or per-encounter based on stamina, positioning, strain, etc. I think that's a better option. I figure most specialized combat techniques would be limited per-combat, or require the opponent to be in a particular position (e.g. grappled, prone, w/in 5 feet, etc.). Some, due to being particularly strenuous, might be per-day; some, being fairly straightforward and simply requiring a bit of setup, would be once every X rounds.

Frozen_Feet
2014-03-02, 10:12 AM
Sure but how would you feel if these happened to your character? Also has anyone seen any of these moves implemented in a system? Not just Slipperychicken's suggestions but all others' as well.

I've inflicted all of those on my own characters, on my own accord. Plainly put, they just belong to any game with serious close combat.

Case in point, basic D&D had most of those. More advanced versions of D&D definitely have them all.


Why would having your extremities removed or your eyes gouged out be worse than dying because your HP ran out or you failed some kind of saving throw?

"HP running out" and "failed saving throw" in old D&D were often synonymous to all of the mentioned things. Gygax and Arneson definitely had nothing against permanent injury, since their game contained extensive rules for aging, disease, poisoning, parasites, permanent mental trauma, losing sight, hearing or any other sense etc.

And then we get to the purely fictional elements like having your soul eaten, being turned to stone, permanently being lost in the astral plane, being changed to a frog... sudden ugly demises at least started as perfectly acceptable parts of RPG culture. People's aversion towards them is a later phenomenom.


I wasn't trying to be comfrontational, I was really curious as to how would people feel about their characters losing limbs due to some dice rolls.

It has happened, I was okay with it. I mean, why wouldn't I have been okay with it? Like said, I inflict miseries on my characters on my own accord as well. Sometimes, it just makes sense for a person to get injured and remain so.

Case in point, in one game I'm in right now, one of my characters was crippled from the get go. He's been limping around with a cane and a prosthetic for the whole game.

My second character got most of his skin torn away in his first fight. That was one-and-a-half years ago. He's still moving around wrapped up in bandages. And this is a character who would have the power to deus ex machina the injury away, but I've deliberately made all his attempts fail.


I know that I wouldn't like that if it wasn't agreed upon prior to the event. Dying because of something like that is okay. Losing an arm because a hungry crocodile got lucky seems bad storytelling to me.

One: RPGs are not primarily about storytelling. What you see as bad storytelling, can still be pretty damn entertaining as a game and make perfect sense as roleplaying.

Second: one of my favorite stories has a character lose an arm to a hungry seabeast just to save a dumbass kid. We later learn said character is one of the most powerful beings in the setting. The seabeast didn't just get lucky, it won the god-damn lottery there.

That's not the only case of severed limbs in that comic resulting primarily from bad judgement or bad luck on someone's part. Of course, they end up being dramatic later on, because the limb loss comes to define characters and character relations.

Of course looking at occasion of a random injury in isolation is boring! You have to do the smart thing and consider it in the context of the whole game. In one of my games, a character contracted a lethal disease as the result of a failed saving throw. It was a complete afterthought - in fact, I'd forgotten about that roll, and wouldn't have remembered to include the disease at all if one of the other players hadn't reminded me.

Me: "That's it for tonight folks. See you next week."
Player A: "But what about that failed roll?"
Me: "What failed roll?"
Player A: "The one against the poison snake?"
Me: "Oh. Oh."
Player B: "Come on, you did that just to screw me over."
Player A: :smallamused:

What this resulted in, was a month-long quest to the continent to find a cure, visiting healers, preachers and witch-doctors while the character sank further and further into despair. It ended with him bequething his manor (up to that point the group's base of operations) to the party and asking to be stranded on a deserted island in order to not spread the plague. Does this sound "bad storytelling"?

Mr. Mask
2014-03-02, 10:14 AM
Red: I've never seen a combat manoeuvre which was once per day. That's entirely a DnD thing.

Sith_Happens
2014-03-02, 10:26 AM
Red: I've never seen a combat manoeuvre which was once per day. That's entirely a DnD thing.

There's plenty of Dangerous Forbidden Techniques (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerousForbiddenTechnique) in fiction that are at least effectively once-per-day at most.

Morty
2014-03-02, 10:30 AM
I prefer to limit combat manoeuvres, at least the basic ones, by situation. Not every move will be applicable all the time. They're all designed to get past certain defences or defend against certain attacks. That's how Riddle of Steel does it, partly - you do also need to spend your Combat Pool just to attempt them.

Frozen_Feet
2014-03-02, 10:42 AM
One thing I've decided to crib from a computer game (Xenoblade Chronicles) is a breaking mechanic.

Basically, in place of a normal attack, you commit one that disrupts the balance of an enemy, lowers their defense and makes the suspectible to further special attacks.

Once you've broken your enemy, you continue with one that topples or dazes them.

Combined with a basic facing mechanism and damage reduction when standing up and unbroken, it creates a surprising amount of tactical depth.

Red Fel
2014-03-02, 02:46 PM
Red: I've never seen a combat manoeuvre which was once per day. That's entirely a DnD thing.

Not so. There are a lot of things that a person could attempt in real life, that put severe strain on the body, but can be done. After that, however, your body needs time to recover.

Admittedly, this isn't a combat example, but think of the stories of a parent, under an adrenaline rush, who lifts a care off of her child. That puts tremendous strain on the body. She can't do that multiple times a day. Heck, she probably can't do that multiple times a week.

Ever see the TV show "Burn Notice?" Admittedly, yeah, there's a lot of dramatization and Hollywood stunt-action, but the fact is, some of those moves are the sort that you can pull once, and then need to spend a lot of time recovering from.

Once-per-day moves aren't just a D&D invention, is all I'm saying.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-03-02, 03:41 PM
There's also the abstraction of "you don't get this sort of opportunity every time!". Some things, you only get the chance to do on a rarer occasion; but because it's a game, you as the player get to choose when your character finds that opportunity.

(Alternately, you could take the 13th Age route: your die roll determines which opportunities your fighter is able to exploit for that attack--and that changes the special attack powers you can use that turn.)

Mr. Mask
2014-03-02, 04:41 PM
Red: If the woman had children under two cars, it wouldn't be impossible for her to have done that twice per day. Her body would be less willing as it got more strained (particularly if it goes into recovery mode), but the only hard cap on it is when her body gives out. Many people can't call upon that strength even in times of need.

Even the berserkers aren't limited to their straining ability once per day. It's just unwise to strain your body too long and too often, but if you're willing to take the risks you can.

I haven't heard of the tv series you mentioned, I'm afraid.


Carpe: 13th Age, huh? Going to look that one up. Have had ideas similar to that, will be interested to see how it plays out.

Is it just an RPG called 13th Age?

Necroticplague
2014-03-02, 07:12 PM
I'd like to see a combat system based entirely on called shots and active defenses. Instead of abstracting the condition of the whole body, give them different parts to attack, let them target as you want. And all defenses and attacks should have a counter. Like toribash or dwarf fortress.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-02, 07:20 PM
Sounds like the Riddle of Steel's system.



Carpe: I looked up the 13th Age. It doesn't appear to have what you described, and I am puzzled.

NeoSmeers
2014-03-03, 03:39 AM
A system that stops messing about with boring things like hitpoints and get right the point of inflicting drastic harm. Forgive me, but my badass warrior fantasy does not involve the phrase 'you do 56 points of damage.'

so what, bleed/gouge/maim/crush/burn/incinerate the head,arm,torso,vitals,legs? I just don't see how you determine the amount of punishment a character can take without the use of numerical values. bleed/burn do damage over time, crush entirely disables, break inhibits usefulness, etc.

Necroticplague
2014-03-03, 05:27 AM
so what, bleed/gouge/maim/crush/burn/incinerate the head,arm,torso,vitals,legs? I just don't see how you determine the amount of punishment a character can take without the use of numerical values. bleed/burn do damage over time, crush entirely disables, break inhibits usefulness, etc.

Use a "degrees of failure" system when you hit something to see how sever it is. First, you attack, aiming for something specific. You roll and opposed attack against their defense (with you having a penalty based on size of targeted part). If you succeed, you've managed to hit them, and the enemy then rolls a "damage chart" for the body part. They gain a bonus on the roll based on things that would allow it to survive more (armor being the prime example), but take penalties for other conditions (like you using an equivalent of power attacking). Then, you look up on the chart and see what condition that body part has now. Exceptionally good rolls or heavy armor might reduce it to nothing, while a failure inflicts varying conditions based on how far below "failure" the result was and the body part (also the weapon you're using). Using the head with a hammer for example, you might have off-balance, dazed, concussed,unconscious,or shattered, all with different penalties. Instead of dying when your last health box ticks down or you lose your last point, you die when you take a bad enough hit to something vital to die or bleed out.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-03-03, 10:26 AM
Carpe: I looked up the 13th Age. It doesn't appear to have what you described, and I am puzzled.
The fighter has "flexible attacks". You can't use all of your flexible attacks at any given time; your natural attack roll determines which ones are available to you. (So some flexible attacks are only available on a natural even, for instance.) You declare an attack against someone, make a roll, and then see which flex attacks you have the opportunity to use.

Morty
2014-03-03, 10:36 AM
Use a "degrees of failure" system when you hit something to see how sever it is. First, you attack, aiming for something specific. You roll and opposed attack against their defense (with you having a penalty based on size of targeted part). If you succeed, you've managed to hit them, and the enemy then rolls a "damage chart" for the body part. They gain a bonus on the roll based on things that would allow it to survive more (armor being the prime example), but take penalties for other conditions (like you using an equivalent of power attacking). Then, you look up on the chart and see what condition that body part has now. Exceptionally good rolls or heavy armor might reduce it to nothing, while a failure inflicts varying conditions based on how far below "failure" the result was and the body part (also the weapon you're using). Using the head with a hammer for example, you might have off-balance, dazed, concussed,unconscious,or shattered, all with different penalties. Instead of dying when your last health box ticks down or you lose your last point, you die when you take a bad enough hit to something vital to die or bleed out.

That's pretty much how Riddle of Steel does it. Non-lethal injuries make it easier for the opponent to strike one that does kill or incapacitate you. I can't quite remember how blood loss works there.

warty goblin
2014-03-03, 11:00 AM
That's pretty much how Riddle of Steel does it. Non-lethal injuries make it easier for the opponent to strike one that does kill or incapacitate you. I can't quite remember how blood loss works there.

I rather like the health system of the completely insane and rather ancient RPG GateWar, wherein you have per-body part health. Take enough damage to a particular body part and it stops working, at zero it's basically permanently destroyed if not flat out severed. For heads and torsos this is obviously fatal.

But you also have a pool of 'blood points' which each injury also subtracts from. You die if you ever lose at least half of them. So it's fully possible to kill somebody without hacking off their head, but it takes less overall damage to decapitate somebody than it does to cut them enough times they run out of blood. Because this is GateWar, and therefore insane, you determine all of this by cross-referencing about four different tables by your race, build, etc.

A Song of Ice and Fire also has a kinda nice system. You get some number of hitpoints; and normally you are defeated if you run out of those. Since weapons have pretty high base damage relative to hitpoints, and base damage is multiplied by the degree of success however, this is pretty easy to do. So you can suffer wounds and injuries to mitigate damage, but these inflict penalties. In a nice touch, you can spend endurance to ignore the effects of a wound temporarily.

neonchameleon
2014-03-03, 11:07 AM
feints (L5R uses this for damage increase, most systems use it to deny defences)

GURPS - opposed skill check for a bonus. Fate - create an advantage action.


pushes and pulls

4e. Also if you are pushing people into something it's invoking an aspect in Fate.


grapples including throws

GURPS - obvious. Fate - create an advantage, with overcome an obstacle to escape.


taunts

Fate - it's yet another advantage. Probably stunt-backed. 4e has CAGI, 3.5 has the Knight, PF the Cavalier. I think Tenra Bansho Zero has something.


demoralizations (maybe this should be the same with taunting?)

oD&D morale checks, intimidate skills.


disarming (though this is 1 tiny step away from called shots and that's quite tricky to handle)

GURPS has disarm rules. Fate - yet more advantages.


charges and other ways to move and fight simultaneously.

There are games that don't?


defensive maneuvers that sacrifice attack for defence, including guarding others.

What sort of game doesn't if you have any tactical options at all?


aggressive maneuvers that sacrifice defence for attack.

GURPS.


aim ranged attacks.
[/LIST]

GURPS (time for bonus), Fate (Create an advantage).

[QUOTE=Dimers;17090910]Armor-piercing attacks, either by being strong enough to blow right through, or by being small and dextrous enough to stab where the armor isn't.

GURPS and Fate both do (natch).


Dirty tricks such as groin kicks, blinding with substances, and hitting weak spots. Oh, and attacking while swinging off of things.

GURPS and Fate. And for swinging, Wushu gives you a bonus (well, a bonus for more narration to a cap and it doesn't matter what). Effect based games are normally good for wanting you to swing.



Choke people, with bare hands and a weapon (such as a wire or whip)

GURPS, Fate, Leverage.


Bite people
Gouge their eyes out
Rip/cut/bite their extremities off (includes ears, nose, fingers, toes)
Snap their necks
Break their limbs (especially fingers, arms, and legs)

Why don't I just put up a sign saying "GURPS and Fate"?


Aerial and acrobatics are always fun though usually meaningless in a lot of systems.

Fun tho. Wushu, Fate.


Some advanced moves could include:
[LIST]
That heart-stopping punch technique.

Book of 9 Swords. Fate if you're pushing the system. AD&D. GURPS has it I think.


"Reaction Throws" (things like avoiding a charge and using his momentum to hurl him to the floor)

GURPS, anything with genuinely opposed rolls like Cortex Plus (Leverage, Marvel Heroic, Firefly, Smallville). Fate stunt.


Catching or deflecting a fast-moving projectile (such as an arrow or bullet) midair. Yes, this can happen in real life.

GURPS (this is getting tedious), you could do it in Fate.


Flying armbar (which can both break a dude's arm and knock him down)

That's a takeout move I think.


Climbing up a large opponent to fight it God of War style.

Fate, although I've done it in other systems like Feng Shui.


That also reminds me of another one: I want melee characters to be able to inflict pain effects (i.e. penalties and status effects based on pain).

GURPS, Fate. Different methods.


I don't see much difference between a disintegration trap and an alligator biting off a character's leg.

One's real? And actually works? And therefore should definitely be modeled if the other is?


Then again, we're talking about what people want. Some people do like that exceptionally lethal (and fantastically strong!) sort of combat.

Or Mook Rules where it's a special effect of killing.


An excellent point. My latest Pathfinder character was based around the concept of a terrifyingly badass chain-swinging bodyguard so it disappointed me to learn how limited PF's "You Shall Not Pass" mechanic really is.

Try back-converting the 4e fighter? Even the knight?


Any amount, hm? How about "as little as possible?"

Marvel Heroic Roleplaying? Tenra Bansho Zero - where the more hurt you are the bigger your bonus as the music swells.


Those are the kinds of things I want to see powerful warriors in a high-fantasy game doing. In a more down-to-earth setting, though, I suppose the stuff the rest of you have been posting is fine.:smalltongue:

Agreed.


There's plenty of Dangerous Forbidden Techniques (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DangerousForbiddenTechnique) in fiction that are at least effectively once-per-day at most.

This. 4e is about fictional action heroes.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:32 AM
Carpe: Found out a bit about it. Different than what I first understood. It's an interesting idea. Will think about it. Will also think about that other idea, which I thought it originally was.

Thank you for bringing it up and elaborating for my benefit.


Goblin: That does sound pretty neat. They should really incorporate it into a computer game version.

CarpeGuitarrem
2014-03-03, 11:33 AM
Carpe: Found out a bit about it. Different than what I first understood. It's an interesting idea. Will think about it. Will also think about that other idea, which I thought it originally was.


Thank you for bringing it up and elaborating for my benefit.
No problem! It seemed a bit odd to me at first, until I started working through it and its implications.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-03, 11:54 AM
I might be able to use it to solve problems with the, "AC Wall," of low level characters fighting high level characters. Will have to think about it more.

Knaight
2014-03-04, 12:22 PM
I might be able to use it to solve problems with the, "AC Wall," of low level characters fighting high level characters. Will have to think about it more.

As far as the AC wall is concerned, that's mostly an effect of ganging up providing really piddly bonuses in D&D. For instance, flanking is a whole +2. In Fudge, having two people on the same side of you both fighting you is roughly equivalent to +4 for both of their attacks, and something along the lines of +6 to both of their defenses, with 3 or more people making it get really ugly really fast (Whereas in D&D you can be fighting 3 people and none of them get an advantage against you). In REIGN, the only real defense is active defense, though untrained combatants have a tendency to just fail to make useful attacks in the first place. As you need to parry/dodge every attack individually, being outnumbered really sucks. So on and so forth.

Mr. Mask
2014-03-04, 02:46 PM
Hopefully, outnumbered persons aren't such a problem. The penalties for facing multiple foes in the same instant and for being blindsided are quite severe.