How tactical can melee combat get before players stop bothering?

[Avianmosquito]

I've got an original system with EXTREMELY tactical melee combat where, for example, you have five useful forms of melee attack, five combat stances with different effects, position and terrain effects, a wide variety of armour and weapons that are meaningfully different, some weapons have multiple use methods beyond just the attack options, weapon selection is hugely important and when mismatched you may have to use bizarre tactics to accommodate. The entirety of fighting revolves around how these things interact and you live or die less on the dice and more on gauging your opponent and environment, tailoring your strategy to them, and then gauging the flow of the fight as it's happening and changing your current tactics to fit the changing situation. This whole thing is then thrown for a loop with different enemy types that perform drastically differently when wounded due to their unique physiology.

So my question is: How tactical can a melee system get before most players say "**** it" and just try to brute force their way through everything? Does it sound like this system is already past that point, or still has some room? After all, I want the system to be realistic and deep, but I also don't want it to be inaccessible to new or unskilled players. (Keep in mind that when *I* run a campaign, I wholly intend to start off slow and teach the new player(s) the ropes. I also expect anybody else who later picks up this system to do the same, of course. So that does make more complexity tolerable.)

[rexx1888]

in both theory and practise you can give players many many options, and given enough time they will learn to both use them and utilise them effectively. Its not even specifically about their complexity either. Players that are interested will take the time to learn the system.

The problem is the interest part. You need both a game that garners interest and a system that garners interest. The first part is dm dependent. The other one is just plain hard. First, you need to accomodate the players when they first start. meaning that the system has to be playable with little effort. It has to be fast and fun at that point too, so players dont get bored. The first moments are really really important. Then obviously once they are enjoying it and used to it, they will start to learn the more nitty gritty parts of the system. There, the problem is that the system has to be complex enough to maintain interest while not being so complex that players get lost in it. Finally, beyond this point the system has to seem(or be) fair. To give that impression, it needs to be transparent so players can see all the moving parts.

alot of this stuff relies on presentation on the DM's part, but if as the designer you handicap them, then obviously the system probably wont take.
as to whether your system is too complicated or not, wed need to actually see it to be able to tell you.

sidenote: try to avoid niggling bonuses in a PnP game. stuff that last longer than a sword strike that players have to remember is more than anything else annoying and of little consequence, and often makjes them feel like theyr cheating if they forget its only momentary(or stupid because they forget it when it was actually relevant)

Edit: had a look at your sig, im assuming your talking about change, is that right?


continued edit: Theres alot there to look at, an im interested so ill go over it for a little while yet but what sticks out to me most atm is formatting. Honestly i dont have much experience on this side of things, but i think youll fair better on rule retention if you split each page into multiple columns, and better divide your sections. Obviously combat needs to be a full chapter, but could it be better divided. Basically, stuff is easier to read when it gives your eyes a break.

[Avianmosquito]

in both theory and practise you can give players many many options, and given enough time they will learn to both use them and utilise them effectively. Its not even specifically about their complexity either. Players that are interested will take the time to learn the system.

The problem is the interest part. You need both a game that garners interest and a system that garners interest. The first part is dm dependent. The other one is just plain hard. First, you need to accomodate the players when they first start. meaning that the system has to be playable with little effort. It has to be fast and fun at that point too, so players dont get bored. The first moments are really really important. Then obviously once they are enjoying it and used to it, they will start to learn the more nitty gritty parts of the system. There, the problem is that the system has to be complex enough to maintain interest while not being so complex that players get lost in it. Finally, beyond this point the system has to seem(or be) fair. To give that impression, it needs to be transparent so players can see all the moving parts.

alot of this stuff relies on presentation on the DM's part, but if as the designer you handicap them, then obviously the system probably wont take.
as to whether your system is too complicated or not, wed need to actually see it to be able to tell you.

sidenote: try to avoid niggling bonuses in a PnP game. stuff that last longer than a sword strike that players have to remember is more than anything else annoying and of little consequence, and often makjes them feel like theyr cheating if they forget its only momentary(or stupid because they forget it when it was actually relevant)

Yes, but most of these are simple. Say, you can use total defence to avoid injury while a wounded enemy bleeds to death. You can lure an enemy up a hill so you'll always have the high ground. Full offence kills enemies that can't retaliate effectively before they have the chance to fight back. Blunt weapons generally perform better against armour, blades generally perform better against flesh. Thrusting doesn't do as much damage, but slashing sucks against armour. Zombies don't bleed and don't have health, so you need to use body damage to kill them. That kind of thing. The complicated part is how all these actually very simple mechanics interact.

Also, *I* am the GM for now. The one and only. I doubt anybody, other than maybe my real-life friends and family, will try and run a campaign in my system for quite a while. So in the mean time, doesn't that mean I set the precedent? So doesn't my ability as a GM have a huge effect on how the system is received and what kind of player investment I see?

Edit: had a look at your sig, im assuming your talking about change, is that right?

Right. Although the version in the sig is WAY behind. It doesn't even list combat stances yet. Give me a couple minutes to get the current version uploaded.

[rexx1888]

on the gm side of things, im really just laying out a basic guide. Obviously while play testing it youll prolly be the only person running it, but i generally try to avoid designing in a vacuum as we often(people in general) get used to things certain ways an miss that other folks wont be such a fan of it. equally, you cant fault a good sound mechanical system if its major failing is some random terrible person running it, which is always an important thing to remember :)

[Avianmosquito]

on the gm side of things, im really just laying out a basic guide. Obviously while play testing it youll prolly be the only person running it, but i generally try to avoid designing in a vacuum as we often(people in general) get used to things certain ways an miss that other folks wont be such a fan of it. equally, you cant fault a good sound mechanical system if its major failing is some random terrible person running it, which is always an important thing to remember :)

I'm aware of this. But a new and unique system probably needs unique methods on the GM's part, especially in teaching new players. I'm hoping I can get away with a more complex system by setting a good precedent in teaching new players how to use it. In particular, I think that introducing new elements one at a time is a good idea, as is starting players against enemies that are of no real threat to them, and spreading out lessons over the campaign so they don't get bored with a front-loaded tutorial that just goes on forever.

Also, new version of the rulebook is now in my signature. It's much sleeker (all the way down to 27 pages, much easier to flip through when you need to), doesn't have any content in it (just core rules) and is (more or less) up to date. I've got changes in queue that I'm currently working on, but I'll be adding those over the next few days. Like moving the big block of content I missed to the other book. (Whoops. Corrected now.) And it's not finished, no.

EDIT:
All the changes I had written down are done, didn't take as long as I thought. Not even close. Now to get back to the unfinished sections.

[bekeleven]

A friend of mine developed a role-playing system based on cards. Each player had a custom deck, and would play cards to cast spells. For instance, I might have one spell that requires [Red] [Red] [4] and another that requires [7] [Hearts]. If I play a six of diamonds turn one, followed by a seven of hearts turn two, then I can theoretically finish either spell on my third turn depending on what's in my hand. If I play a 4 of hearts I can finish either. If I have no 4 and no hearts, then I can't finish either. You can't pass the turn, so if I play a 2 of spades and those are my only spells, I know I won't complete a spell for at least 2 more turns.

I built a deck that used every spell that didn't require black cards, then basically halved my deck and was always able to pull something off. Another friend built a small deck based around a handful of spells - a hearts healing spell, and spades fire spell, etc. A third friend grabbed mostly clubs, because the system's few nonmagical maneuvers were in that suit (you know, swing a sword, or what have you).

One of the (few) physical maneuvers was where you held your axe above your head and powered up, then swung. After a bit of analysis we found that the dominant strategy was to build an all-clubs deck, because you could place any clubs to keep holding your axe above your head. Then, once you got into range of someone, you played the 10 of clubs, chopped, and killed them.

Anyway, complexity can be iffy at best when your system has dominant strategies. It was a fun system, besides game balance.

[Avianmosquito]

I'm sorry, but what exactly does that have to do with the system or the questions?

[bekeleven]

I'm sorry, but what exactly does that have to do with the system or the questions?

That if there's a dominant strategy, it doesn't matter how complicated your system is. In fact, complication hurts in many ways:

1. Complication makes it harder to balance every move against every other, so you might let unbalanced options slip by you.
2. With complication, a player can spend time to get more system mastery and give himself significant advantages against other players (less of a deal in pve games).
3. Players may feel cheated, as I did, when they spend a ton of time developing some original or unique take on a system to find that a simple, brute force, overwhelming power strategy is the best option. It basically means your additional mechanics exist on the periphery of problem-solving rather than being used in it. To rephrase, it means you wasted a ton of time coming up with the useless 90% of your game.

It's pretty much impossible to judge your system because all you've said about it is "there are five options here, five options there, and charts and graphs to combine them." So I didn't try to say anything about your system.* Instead I said something about making mechanics with a ton of rules and options.

That being: Don't make one mechanic better. Don't be "mash heaviest attack until out of stamina, then mash your heaviest stamina-neutral attack." Don't be "A parry automatically hits." Don't be two-handed axe guy.

*If each of your five stances just gives a different number to attack and defense (Assault is +5 attack, aggression is +4 attack/+1 defense... Cower is +5 defense) and each of your attacks is a simple difference too (+5 attack +0 damage to +0 attack +5 damage) then no, your system isn't overcomplicated at all.

[Avianmosquito]

No need to worry about that. Doing one thing over and over WILL get you killed, and brute force is seldom useful by itself. The closest thing to a dominant strategy is switching in and out of total defence, because you'll do that a lot... If you fight melee enemies directly a lot, not really useful against anybody else. Maybe total offence... but that gets you killed really quickly against other melee enemies, so it's only useful against ranged attackers. Swinging? Nope, armour works too well against it. Thrusting? Not very accurate, doesn't do as much damage later on. Jabbing or swiping? Just isn't strong enough. Bashing? Only good as an interrupt. Power attack? Useful only if there's no other way to do damage, liable to get you killed. Take the high ground and defend it? Can't always do that. Stick to a good terrain type? Benefits them the same way as you, though you might find that more useful it also can't always be done. Blades? Not as good against armour and some enemies resist it especially well. Blunt? Not as good against flesh and some enemies resist it especially well. Chest shots only? Runs into armour the most often and takes a LOT to kill by body damage. Head shots only? Not worth the loss in accuracy. Anything else? Something else common makes it not work as well.

Pretty sure that every strategy more specific than "use your weapons, they are designed to inflict damage" is going to run into something it can't handle, or at the very least something it can't handle as well as your other tools, the moment you start relying on it. At least, if your GM is awake.

[silphael]

Why is thrusting dealing that few damage? Thrusting attacks are the highest damaging attacks usually. For balance sake you may just say "damage going through armor is doubled, but armor is increased against those".

You may want to shot an eye at gurps, though.

[Avianmosquito]

Why is thrusting dealing that few damage? Thrusting attacks are the highest damaging attacks usually.

Because thrusts really are less damaging. MUCH less damaging. At least, later on. See, thrusts suffer from diminishing returns. There's only so much damage they can do, thrusting harder or better won't seriously increase their damage once they're perforating a target, and they end up doing that pretty quickly. In-game, thrusts actually deal really good damage compared to a low-skill swing, if you don't take strength into account. The problem is there's less benefit (in damage, at least) from strength and skill only increases penetration. A late-game thrust basically ignores armour, and a late-game slash deals extremely high damage. The thrust is better against armour, but the slash does more damage if there isn't any armour in the way.

EDIT:
And I know you didn't ask, but jabs are basically really light thrusts, so it makes sense they'd do the least damage. They actually don't get any bonus from strength to their damage, they deal the same (starting) damage as swings which without a strength bonus leaves them competing only with the bash for least damaging attack, and like a thrust only get more penetration as time goes on. They're accurate, though, and can be used in attacks of opportunity and flurries.

EDIT 2:
Actually, if your strength and skill are low enough and your weapon big enough, a jab might do more damage than a swipe for the same reason a thrust might do more damage than a swing. Not unexpected, jabs are extremely light thrusts and swipes are extremely light swings. But swipes are the single most accurate melee attack in the game, so they're still useful despite crap damage that won't even be felt most of the time through armour.

For balance sake you may just say "damage going through armor is doubled, but armor is increased against those".

...Yeah, we have a better system for that. A more realistic one, too. We use a score called "penetration". Penetration allows you to ignore a number of points of damage reduction equal to its value. So if your attack presently has 10 penetration and the enemy has 12 DR, only 2 points of DR has any effect on the attack. It has no effect beyond reducing penetration, so if the enemy's DR is less than penetration the extra points are meaningless. Thrusts get penetration from your strength, swings only get penetration if the weapon has some inherent amount of it. (Projectiles also get penetration, of course. It's even more important to them since they lose power as they go on and penetration goes first so that's a factor in their range.)

You may want to shot an eye at gurps, though.

I don't like GURPS. It's the kind of system clearly made by a group of guys who really don't know what they're talking about. It's also got too many relic mechanics from its early years that just aren't as efficient as something newer.

[silphael]

Neither do i like gurps, yet it still gives interresting ways to go with some weapons.

But actually, refering to penetration i was going the other way, with thrusts being LESS effective on armours but highly damaging otherwise. If you want to go at health instead of the fictive HP of D&D, consider that :

-most piercing weapons are purely deadly : land a hit and like half the body, and your opponent will die for sure. He probably won't know it before he stops moving though, and will have to bash you before he dies.

-slashing weapons, however, have hard time slashing through bones, therefore have a far harder time dealing lethal wounds. Yet when you cut someone's arm off, he'll most probably stop fighting, even if he may survive the swing.

That's even why the edge of late middle age sword are round : you don't want to kill the other noble, the one that's worth around 3 new horses and as many good armours, or at least you want to be able to try to keep him alive.

Basically, in wars, slashing (or bashing weapons) are better, just because they makes "morale kills" before making real kills, while piercing are far better in duels : you usually want to take your opponent down, and so on.

But piercing weapons are really easy to deflect. Coat of plates (not sure of the word in english) are just small bands of metal stitched together. It's cheap, relatively easy and quick to do, and, while it won't stop a coucheed lance (but that more like bashing anyway), it can reliably stop arrows and some bolts. Spears and lances used in melee have globally no chance going through, at least for the first three hits : but if you stay long enough for three hits to land, you're already dead...

[Avianmosquito]

Neither do i like gurps, yet it still gives interresting ways to go with some weapons.

But actually, refering to penetration i was going the other way, with thrusts being LESS effective on armours but highly damaging otherwise. If you want to go at health instead of the fictive HP of D&D, consider that :

-most piercing weapons are purely deadly : land a hit and like half the body, and your opponent will die for sure. He probably won't know it before he stops moving though, and will have to bash you before he dies.

-slashing weapons, however, have hard time slashing through bones, therefore have a far harder time dealing lethal wounds. Yet when you cut someone's arm off, he'll most probably stop fighting, even if he may survive the swing.

That's even why the edge of late middle age sword are round : you don't want to kill the other noble, the one that's worth around 3 new horses and as many good armours, or at least you want to be able to try to keep him alive.

Basically, in wars, slashing (or bashing weapons) are better, just because they makes "morale kills" before making real kills, while piercing are far better in duels : you usually want to take your opponent down, and so on.

But piercing weapons are really easy to deflect. Coat of plates (not sure of the word in english) are just small bands of metal stitched together. It's cheap, relatively easy and quick to do, and, while it won't stop a coucheed lance (but that more like bashing anyway), it can reliably stop arrows and some bolts. Spears and lances used in melee have globally no chance going through, at least for the first three hits : but if you stay long enough for three hits to land, you're already dead...

This whole thing is completely ass-backwards.

1. Being stabbed is not an incapacitating injury. At all. It only damages the one body part struck, the human body is multiple-redundant, its organs can keep working even when severely damaged. The body is EXTREMELY tolerant of EXTREMELY massive wounds so putting a hole, even a very big one, in most organs just isn't going to stop it until blood loss kicks in. Somebody can be repeatedly perforated and still be a serious threat in the short term. We see it ALL THE TIME with gunshot wounds, and while a sword leaves a wound that's rather a lot bigger it's still not enough by itself to take somebody down right away.

2. Thrusts are effective because they focus the force of the attack on a small point, which makes them EXTREMELY effective at penetrating armour. If you even notice a layer of chainmail, you're doing something wrong. The only problem with armour is with plate, and the problem is not stabbing through it. You can totally stab through it and might even go all the way through the target, but the problem comes afterwards when you're trying to get the weapon back out.

3. Slashes can cut bone pretty easily. In fact, they can cut bone REALLY easily. Slashing all the way down through somebody's rib cage and into their abdomen is not unheard of, completely destroying all the organs and blood vessels along the path of the blade and putting an opponent down more or less instantly. While it's harder to hit an enemy higher up, especially if they can defend against it with their weapon, so most injuries in melee are abdominal injuries, a slashing wound across the abdomen with a sword is very lethal in very short order anyway due to the massive blood loss associated with a massive jagged wound through the intestines and the severing of the common iliac artery. (Depending on the height of the slash, you may hit the liver, stomach, spleen and descending aorta instead.) This may not immediately stop a target either, but it's more likely to do the job than a thrust and a slashed enemy will bleed out faster so they'll be less dangerous for less time.

4. Middle age swords are not round. They're also not blunt, which they'd have to be to suck as bad as you're saying.

5. Plate armour is NOT cheap. It cost enough money to buy a HOUSE. It also wasn't easy to make, and was more than just plates stiched together. It was articulated to reduce its restriction, the plates were multi-layered, thicker above vital organs and sloped to increase the chance of deflection, and underneath the armour would be a thin layer of chainmail and a thick layer of padding to protect the wearer from attacks that penetrated it. It had to be custom made for the wearer, took weeks to make, and was almost exclusively restricted to nobles because of the sheer time and effort that went into it. It was also almost absurdly effective against slashing weapons, could only be defeated by piercing and blunt weapons, of which blunt weapons performed better, wasn't too restrictive on the user and the typical suit weighed between twenty and thirty kilos, which isn't very much when distributed across the wearer's body and could be easily handled by the knight wearing it.

6. Historically, swords saw very little use in actual warfare. They're not very good against multiple opponents or in formation. The weapons of war for the common man were usually spears, axes, bows and crossbows. Guess what ALL these weapons have in common? They're PIERCING. Yes, even the axe is a piercing weapon. The blade comes straight at a target, and penetrates directly into it rather than slicing across it, that is the very definition of a piercing weapon. This, like how many hands you use to wield a longsword and whether a longsword or a bastard sword is bigger, is something D&D inexplicably gets ass-backwards. Axes are piercing, longswords are primarily two-handed and bastard swords are smaller than longswords.

7. Duelling weapons were NOT primarily piercing, not even rennaisance blades like the rapier and smallsword. Those weapons left very small wounds compared to other swords and were not especially effective no matter how you used them, they were NOT used because they were offensively powerful. Nobles carried their swords all the time, a lighter weapon was preferable. A lighter blade was also easier to defend with and to defend against so fewer duels would end with both nobles dead than would happen if a larger sword was used instead.

8. An enemy in battle is more dangerous than an enemy in a duel. If anything, you want the guy in battle down faster before somebody else comes to help him, which will not happen in a duel so you're free to take your time. That's another reason why duelling weapons were smaller and more defensive, while battle weapons were larger and more offensive.

[qazzquimby]

Would it be possible to port your combat system to replace 3.5's rather shallow system? And if it won't derail the thread, could someone elaborate an the grups hate?

[Avianmosquito]

Would it be possible to port your combat system to replace 3.5's rather shallow system?

Somebody else could if they wanted, but I'm not a big fan of D&D myself and I have a HUGE amount of work to do creating all the content for this system so I'm not taking time away from my system to port anything out of it.

And if it won't derail the thread, could someone elaborate an the grups hate?

No, not really. I'd be here too long talking about a system I can't stand. Suffice to say that people getting things completely ass-backwards is pretty much the entirety of GURPS and that's why I don't like it.

[silphael]

Thing is, I was definitely not talking about plate armors... but about something using a word relatively similar in my language that i had issues translating in english.

Being stabbed being not incapaciting was exactly my point. Yet it goes far easier past bones. In a clear fight, how often can you get a big enough opening to land a blow that cut your opponent in two? Which conditions do you need? With a stabbing weapon (i'm more talking about rapier like weapons than spears here)the likeliness of hitting a big enough arterie is far bigger. Yet dying of an hemorragy won't incapacitate the wounded.

Get me right, I totally agree that someone stabbed to death will stop far later than someone slashed to death... because the wound will be more impressive.

About duel : I wasn't at start talking about later duels in renaissance sense, but basically about a 1 vs 1 case, which derailled to that. But those duelling weapons, while not piercing by design, are by construction : in fencing if you learn how to lunge quickly, it isn't only to use your reach, or because it is highly defensive : it's because if it lands it's very likely it will kill.

Edit : searching a corresponding word in english for the armor i'm talking about, pretty sure it's something like coat of *.

[Avianmosquito]

Thing is, I was definitely not talking about plate armors... but about something using a word relatively similar in my language that i had issues translating in english.

Being stabbed being not incapaciting was exactly my point. Yet it goes far easier past bones. In a clear fight, how often can you get a big enough opening to land a blow that cut your opponent in two? Which conditions do you need? With a stabbing weapon (i'm more talking about rapier like weapons than spears here)the likeliness of hitting a big enough arterie is far bigger. Yet dying of an hemorragy won't incapacitate the wounded.

Get me right, I totally agree that someone stabbed to death will stop far later than someone slashed to death... because the wound will be more impressive.

About duel : I wasn't at start talking about later duels in renaissance sense, but basically about a 1 vs 1 case, which derailled to that. But those duelling weapons, while not piercing by design, are by construction : in fencing if you learn how to lunge quickly, it isn't only to use your reach, or because it is highly defensive : it's because if it lands it's very likely it will kill.

Edit : searching a corresponding word in english for the armor i'm talking about, pretty sure it's something like coat of *.

You're wrong here again. And again. And again.

1. Piercing into organs would be easy if thrusts weren't linear as hell and easy to avoid. It's hard to actually connect if a thrust is made up high at the target's chest so most wounds are STILL going to be abdominal wounds where piercing injuries do almost nothing to slow a target in the short term.

2. You don't NEED to bisect somebody, you just need to cut into vitals, which is NOT hard. Even a light swipe entirely in the attacker's wrists can cut through the collar bone and into the upper reaches of the lung, which will significantly impair the target due to damage to the collar bone, shoulder and lung, and results in death fairly quickly due to blood loss from the loss of the subclavian artery. A full swing with the arms and trunk involved can disembowel the target, or sever an arm. If brought down on the chest it'll cut deep into the lungs, likely taking the aorta with it, and if horizontal across the chest will destroy both lungs, the heart and the aorta. A thrust has a hard time hitting more than one organ and doesn't damage the one it hits as much as a thrust.

3. Bones provide little protection against steel. Especially not with a two-handed blade, which is barely slowed by the target's ribs and can easily cut through the entire rib cage (at least the front half, deep enough to cut into vitals) without needing a monstrously powerful swing. Even very thick bones like the vertebrae aren't enough to stop a sword. The simple truth is that even as tough as the human body is, steel really is just THAT much stronger. The human body only survives by being able to withstand damage. That's our way of living through an attack: Our body isn't tough enough to stop it from doing damage, so we're just built to direct the attack away from the heart so we can take the damage and keep going anyway.

4. Again, duelling weapons were NOT piercing. The only reason thrusts were used in duels was because light jabs are so easy to land and more likely than swipes, the only easier attack to land, to reach into vitals with a smaller weapon. The thrusts used were light jabs, almost exclusively. Thrusting is also NOT defensive AT ALL. It's hard not to telegraph a strong thrust, and very easy to counter, while it leaves the attacker entirely open. It's a TERRIBLE attack from a defensive standpoint. And with a weapon as small as a rapier, a jab just doesn't do enough damage and even a full thrust isn't that much better.

5. Why do we think of rapiers and smallswords as piercing weapons, then? Because in fencing all you have to do in make contact, which is easiest to do with a surprise jab after an opponent parries, so most of the time the "win" comes from a jab. This was then carried into movies by Errol Flynn, whose experience was with fencing and not HEMA and didn't know any better. He then further ruined common perception of sword fighting further by inventing "flynning", where the two combatants aim exclusively at each other's weapons while bantering instead of actually trying to kill eachother like real fighters would, then the fight is over when one of them pulls a magical instant-death thrust through the chest that wouldn't be immediately fatal and with the weapons used likely wouldn't be fatal at all by itself as even the doctors back then could treat such a small wound fairly easily and the main risk would have been infection.

6. Fencing is a sport, not a martial art. In fencing all you need is to make contact. It absolutely does not prepare you for a real fight where your opponent will tank a rapier through the chest and stab you right back. Fencing in a REAL sword fight WILL get you killed EVERY time. Sport is NOT combat, and using sports techniques in an actual fight is stupid. Using fencing techniques in a sword fight is like using football techniques in a fist fight. And actually, if anything, it's worse.

[silphael]

Indeed, fencing is just a sport, with kevlar-woven armors...

A lunge IS a defensive move, or at the very least (depending on your reach, if you're short it's less true) greatly reduce the possibilities of attack.

Have you really watched fencing matchs? I mean, you see every weapon bow when they land. It's a martial art as well.

Too tired to keep talking about anything right now (3 AM here...), and I'm not gonna keep talking about your design choices, but I kinda think you're using the scientific raw measures without taking parries into account. Anyway, that was some interresting talking ^^

[Avianmosquito]

Indeed, fencing is just a sport, with kevlar-woven armors...

Kevlar does NOTHING to stop a sword. AT ALL. Kevlar is THE example of crippling overspecialisation. It is extremely strong, sure, but it's softer than leather. Or cotton. Or human flesh. It won't even slow an edged weapon down. Meanwhile, it's also too stiff and lacks any elasticity or thickness to cushion blows. All the kevlar shows is that the fencing foils are edgeless, have basically no mass, and aren't really a danger to the fencers. The only thing they really need is eye and neck protection, the rest is for SHOW.

A lunge IS a defensive move, or at the very least (depending on your reach, if you're short it's less true) greatly reduce the possibilities of attack.

Says somebody who clearly doesn't understand sword fighting at all. Lunges are telegraphed and linear, they can be easily sidestepped and leave the attacker open to a counter attack. They are SUICIDE in real combat.

Have you really watched fencing matchs? I mean, you see every weapon bow when they land. It's a martial art as well.

It is not. Fencing's goal is only to make contact, and that's all the techniques are useful for. REAL sword fighting takes speed and power that simply isn't possible in a fencing match due to the nature of the foils, and fencing techniques are not useful for landing an actual killing blow. Fencing in a sword fight WILL get you killed. Not just by a REAL martial artist, but by any common layman off the street. Or a small child. Or a chimpanzee with a rusty knife.

Too tired to keep talking about anything right now (3 AM here...), and I'm not gonna keep talking about your design choices, but I kinda think you're using the scientific raw measures without taking parries into account. Anyway, that was some interresting talking ^^

Parrying isn't harder with a thrust than a swing. The force of a thrust goes straight forward and it's easy to redirect because there's no force pushing against the parry. If anything, it's easier to deflect than a swing is. A swing is harder to deflect, easier to land, does more damage and has no issue reaching vitals. The ONLY weakness of a swing is armour. That's the ONLY weakness it has, at all.

[qazzquimby]

You should remember that he's only trying to help, and try to sound less argumentative no matter how confident you are of your position. I read the new pdf and I really liked the depth. Are you interested in peaching?

[Avianmosquito]

You should remember that he's only trying to help, and try to sound less argumentative no matter how confident you are of your position.

It's hard not to sound argumentative when you're having an argument, you know. And no matter the source, that was an argument. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, and it didn't get nasty, so I don't see the problem.

I read the new pdf and I really liked the depth.

Thanks. Although I still need to finish the skills and get some more content. (Right now, all I have are the world names and overviews, player classes and species, a baker's dozen non-player species, a couple dozen templates, a couple dozen weapons, a dozen spells and half a dozen feats. Not exactly enough to work with.)

Are you interested in peaching?

I'm sorry, what?

[Carl]

Avianmosquito:

Piece of advice, do some research.

It's widely agreed by various experts that the choice of most dangerous melee weapon in military history falls down to two choices. The Late Medieval Pike. Or the Roman Gladius. (Occasionally the Halberd slips in too). Both are stabbing weapons and neither is regularly noted as having issues getting stuck in things or as especially easy to dodge.

Admittedly some of that comes down to how they where used. short jabs over very short distances, no one can react fast enough to get out of a jab coming from a foot or two away at the most. There simply isn't time to dodge a blow like that, Fencing is a really awful example to use of dodg-ability because it involves two opponents a fair ways apart who have to make major movements to get a touch on each other. Most military melee stabbing weapons would be used from much closer in where the other guy didn't have enough time to react, much less get out of the way.

Likewise neither weapon was known for getting stuck in people. Mostly because of how they where used. The Pike just had so much momentum it would punch through any bone matter in it's path leaving nothing for it to get stuck on on the way out, and the gladius was stabbed forward and upward going into the chest cavity through the stomach, (it could and was used for slashing where the preferred opening was not available however, it just wasn't it's primary employment method). Both where also more than capable of killing someone very quickly and easily. Don't let hollywood's depiction of knives fool you, or even what you've heard of knives in general. They often don't have the penetration depth, or wound width to cause a quick death unless you know where to strike with them because the only really quick way to kill is an injury so massive it causes fatal blood loss very fast, a serious internal head injury, a severing of a major artery, (very rapid), or a hit to the heart, (fastest), things the greater width and penetration depth of the Pike and Gladius where well equipped to do.

[Avianmosquito]

Avianmosquito:

Piece of advice, do some research.

Projection much? Because you didn't even bother to read the comment you're replying to, and that's as bad as a lack of research gets.

It's widely agreed by various experts that the choice of most dangerous melee weapon in military history falls down to two choices. The Late Medieval Pike. Or the Roman Gladius. (Occasionally the Halberd slips in too). Both are stabbing weapons and neither is regularly noted as having issues getting stuck in things or as especially easy to dodge.

And that's because neither weapon was used outside of packed formations or against plate armour on a regular basis. Outside of a packed formation, it's easier to avoid a thrust than a slash and it's definitely not harder to counter. And the reason you want a thrusting weapon in formation is because it's hard for formations to all swing en masse without your own men hitting eachother or getting in eachother's ways.

Admittedly some of that comes down to how they where used.

No. ALL of that comes down to how they were used. If you remove how they were used and put them into a small group or one on one fight, their performance flips right around.

short jabs over very short distances, no one can react fast enough to get out of a jab coming from a foot or two away at the most. There simply isn't time to dodge a blow like that, Fencing is a really awful example to use of dodg-ability because it involves two opponents a fair ways apart who have to make major movements to get a touch on each other. Most military melee stabbing weapons would be used from much closer in where the other guy didn't have enough time to react, much less get out of the way.

No, they had time to react. They just can't move because they're packed together in a formation. And HE was the idiot trying to use fencing as an example, NOT me.

Likewise neither weapon was known for getting stuck in people. Mostly because of how they where used. The Pike just had so much momentum it would punch through any bone matter in it's path leaving nothing for it to get stuck on on the way out, and the gladius was stabbed forward and upward going into the chest cavity through the stomach, (it could and was used for slashing where the preferred opening was not available however, it just wasn't it's primary employment method).

Oh, excuse me, did I say ANYTHING about these weapons getting stuck in people? No, no I didn't. I said they got stuck in PLATE MAIL. Which they DID. Because, see, the previous guy was trying to claim that thrusts not only did the most damage (which is incorrect) but also that they performed worse against armour (which is even more incorrect). What *I* said was that getting through plate with a thrust was not the issue, it was getting the weapon back out.

Both where also more than capable of killing someone very quickly and easily. Don't let hollywood's depiction of knives fool you, or even what you've heard of knives in general. They often don't have the penetration depth, or wound width to cause a quick death unless you know where to strike with them because the only really quick way to kill is an injury so massive it causes fatal blood loss very fast, a serious internal head injury, a severing of a major artery, (very rapid), or a hit to the heart, (fastest), things the greater width and penetration depth of the Pike and Gladius where well equipped to do.

1. I never said a thrust didn't kill quickly, stop putting words in my mouth. All I said was that a slash did more damage, and thus killed faster. If I say a thrust is less damaging than a swing with most weapons, it does NOT mean that a thrust does no damage or even that it does very little, just LESS. If I were to say nine was less than ten, would that mean nine is nothing, or very little? NO. What's with the all or nothing mentality the moment we get to weapons?

2. Knives work just fine if they're meant to. A common steak knife isn't a good killing tool, of course, for the reasons listed, but any knife built to kill can kill just fine, as can most not built for it. A good combat knife can easily pierce into vitals and leave a fatal wound that way, as can a dagger or even a nice big chef's knife. They're not ideal, but they work.

3. Just because a thrust can kill quickly, and not as quickly as you think by the way as the human body is extremely resilient, doesn't mean that slashing doesn't kill faster. Take a longsword, and run it through somebody's lung. They should take about three or four minutes to die, most of that time they'll be unconscious on the ground but for a minute or two they're still standing, and that's pretty damned fast as far as a real person is concerned. Certainly a faster death than a gunshot wound, I can tell you that much. But slash down the guy's chest instead, and you'll see the difference. If you're even trying, you've cut down through his collar, ribs, subclavian artery and lungs. The massive drop in blood pressure just put that guy out cold. He'll be dead in a minute or two, and he's out cold right now. That's a considerably faster kill. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not dismissing the thrust, but the swing just kills faster if you aren't dealing with armour.

Now can everyone stop derailing my threads? This happens every time I make a thread, and I'm getting sick of it. I make ONE comment about ONE thing in my game, and we get a hail of strawman arguments within a day. I came here to talk about a game, and asked very specific questions. It shouldn't be so hard to keep a thread that specific from derailing, should it? Can we get back on topic? Please? Oh, who am I kidding? Nobody ever stops.

[CombatOwl]

I've got an original system with EXTREMELY tactical melee combat where, for example, you have five useful forms of melee attack, five combat stances with different effects, position and terrain effects, a wide variety of armour and weapons that are meaningfully different, some weapons have multiple use methods beyond just the attack options, weapon selection is hugely important and when mismatched you may have to use bizarre tactics to accommodate.

Without a computer-assisted map and bonus tracker, complex terrain effects and piles of passive modifiers is usually a bad idea. D&D 3.5 is pretty much at the feasibility limit of that sort of stuff. Think about how many times people forget to add the bonus for being on high ground--then ask yourself if even more modifiers are a good idea.

The entirety of fighting revolves around how these things interact and you live or die less on the dice and more on gauging your opponent and environment, tailoring your strategy to them, and then gauging the flow of the fight as it's happening and changing your current tactics to fit the changing situation. This whole thing is then thrown for a loop with different enemy types that perform drastically differently when wounded due to their unique physiology.

I'm not kidding when I say this: I have only ever encountered one system that handles this sort of play well. That's Fate Core. And you have to run it in a very particular way to make that happen (piles and piles of aspects on scenes and zones, using notecards and different colored poker chips to indicate whether they're applicable and whether you have an invocation on it).

So my question is: How tactical can a melee system get before most players say "**** it" and just try to brute force their way through everything?

Personally? 3.5 seems like it's at the far edges of this.

Does it sound like this system is already past that point,

Yes.

After all, I want the system to be realistic and deep, but I also don't want it to be inaccessible to new or unskilled players. (Keep in mind that when *I* run a campaign, I wholly intend to start off slow and teach the new player(s) the ropes. I also expect anybody else who later picks up this system to do the same, of course. So that does make more complexity tolerable.)

Realism and depth is how you get rolemaster. Think about how often that gets played vs. D&D.

[Avianmosquito]

Let me start off by saying "thank you" for being on-topic.

Without a computer-assisted map and bonus tracker, complex terrain effects and piles of passive modifiers is usually a bad idea. D&D 3.5 is pretty much at the feasibility limit of that sort of stuff. Think about how many times people forget to add the bonus for being on high ground--then ask yourself if even more modifiers are a good idea.

For the most part, high ground is the only terrain advantage you need concern yourself with, if you can be bothered. Bigger elevation differences cause attack penalties, and they're larger for the combatant that's lower. The rest of the rules aren't there yet but will be listed as "optional", which translates to "if you can remember it and feel like the effort, go ahead". Right alongside disease and needs rules, they don't have to be paid any attention to if you don't want to and they say so.

I'm not kidding when I say this: I have only ever encountered one system that handles this sort of play well. That's Fate Core. And you have to run it in a very particular way to make that happen (piles and piles of aspects on scenes and zones, using notecards and different colored poker chips to indicate whether they're applicable and whether you have an invocation on it).

And have you read the rulebook as it is now? It's only missing the skills, and nothing in there is wrong as far as I know (might need to read through it again, and some sections need to be edited for clarity and readability, but I'm going to assume you're smart enough that's not a problem) and it's pretty good at providing you a lot of options. The mechanics themselves are actually very simple. Take the stances as an example. Offensive and defensive just trade some defence for attack or vice versa, full offence and full defence do the same while also trading saving throws for a higher attack rate or vice versa.

There's a very simple first order optimal strategy that forms from these most players will likely start off using in melee until they build up their character for some new strategy (or possibly never abandon and choose to buff, if the GM chooses not to shake them up with an enemy it won't work well on). That's simply to start each round in total defence, come up to defensive stance (takes one second), make one attack (time varies, but for a typical npc that's three seconds), drop back into total defence (one more second) and move back from the target (for the last second). Repeat until you're confident they're too damaged to fight back, then switch to a more aggressive stance and finish them off. Or just keep doing it until they collapse entirely and be completely safe. Your choice.

This means that when the enemy gets their chance to attack, they're behind total defence so their defence and guard save are much stronger, but they still get to make one attack each turn with only an attack penalty. Them moving back at the end isn't required, but there's not much one second is useful for and they can lure enemies to a position where they have the advantage. You could also use that second to shout for help or communicate with party members, of course, and some skill checks only take one second, instead of moving. This strategy also helps when the enemy has lost too much health to perform six seconds of actions per round and now has to pile on another penalty to keep up. Whether they stop switching stances, attack while moving, resort to flurry to get off one attack or some combination thereof, they'll be at a disadvantage and moving back away from them makes that disadvantage worse by forcing them to keep coming to you. This strategy is great when you can afford to take your time. (And frequently, these encounters allow for that.) This strategy also helps when fighting multiple opponents, or powerful boss monsters.

Personally? 3.5 seems like it's at the far edges of this.

3.5 is incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory, in my opinion. And in the opinions of one other poster here, my entire family and circle of friends.

Yes.

Have you read the system? It doesn't sound like you have if your above comments are any indication. Until you've read it, I can't take this seriously. Actually, if you think 3.5 is as complex as people can handle, I can't take this seriously at all. There are systems substantially more complex than D&D that get a lot of play. GURPS, for instance. And unlike GURPS, this system here is better balanced, more realistic, and has simpler individual mechanics that make it easier to get into without being so ungodly shallow due to the blatant balance issues that plague GURPS.

EDIT:
Actually, there's more wrong there than I thought, and there's also a set of damage types missing. (Negative energy damage, missing from the nonlethal section.) I just fixed the errors, but for now the missing damage types are still missing.

Realism and depth is how you get rolemaster. Think about how often that gets played vs. D&D.

I am not familiar with rolemaster, and D&D only gets the play it does because it's the oldest and most publicised, even if it is a really shallow system and the fights basically amount to just rolling dice at eachother until the fight is over.

[GGambrel]

It seems like combat is quite math intensive. I think it will result in slower combat than in other systems. Each time a character is hit, they need to worry about Pain, Bleeding, Health Loss, Shock, and Body Part Integrity, right? That seems like quite a bit to update to me, and is likely too crunchy for my taste.

I think a short combat example and a character sheet may make the system clearer overall.

[CombatOwl]

And have you read the rulebook as it is now?

You didn't explicitly link to it in the OP, so no. I don't make a habit of clicking on people's sigs.

it's pretty good at providing you a lot of options. The mechanics themselves are actually very simple.

Let me grab an example from your shot mechanics and put it into simple instructions.

"Roll a die with a maximum equal to the number of projectiles fired (1d10 for 10 projectiles, 1d4 for 4 projectiles) and add the difference to the result to determine the number of hits. The maximum is equal to the number of pellets, the minimum is zero. For example, if you roll 19 attack against 20 defence, you would land 1d10-1 hits. If you rolled 14, it would be 1d10-6. If you rolled 25, it would be 1d10+5. Armour rating is a percentage, with each point of armour rating deflecting 5% of the projectiles that hit. So 10 armour rating would deflect half the hits, and 20 all of the hits."

count(# projectiles) = $numproj
roll(die($numproj)) = $value1
find(Defense) = $tn
roll(die(20)) = $value2
subtract($tn, $value2) = $value3
subtract($value3, $value1) = $numhits
find(Armor) = $armor
$kvalue = $armor * .05
#numhits = $numhits * $kvalue
floor($numhits) = $actualhits

It's pretty complex. Humans do visual comparisons of a number of objects four or less far faster than they do any sort of mathematical operation. Your system has them referencing two numbers off the target's sheet, referencing a number off their own sheet, performing two subtraction operations, two multiplication operations, and a rounding operation. That's a lot of steps involved in firing some arrows--and I'm not even counting criticals which is another item to reference, two more multiplication operations, and another--separate--rounding operation.

It's pretty easy for people do do 10% and 25% in their head, but it's a lot harder for them to do 35% or 15% or 5% off the top of their head for numbers that aren't multiples of ten. Your automatic weapon rule adds additional complexity to this and isn't particularly intuitive. It's also not reflective of the actual tactical function of automatic fire. I'm not even considering your health penalties or encumbrance penalties either, which is yet another reference option and subtraction operation for each of them.

Each of these is a ready opportunity for people to forget a modifier or step.

Take the stances as an example. Offensive and defensive just trade some defence for attack or vice versa, full offence and full defence do the same while also trading saving throws for a higher attack rate or vice versa.

Right, those tradeoffs have to be referenced each an every time your defense or attack gets referenced. To put it in program terms, it's an additional operation that has to be performed every time you perform a reference operation.

There's a very simple first order optimal strategy that forms from these most players will likely start off using in melee until they build up their character for some new strategy (or possibly never abandon and choose to buff, if the GM chooses not to shake them up with an enemy it won't work well on). That's simply to start each round in total defence, come up to defensive stance (takes one second), make one attack (time varies, but for a typical npc that's three seconds), drop back into total defence (one more second) and move back from the target (for the last second). Repeat until you're confident they're too damaged to fight back, then switch to a more aggressive stance and finish them off. Or just keep doing it until they collapse entirely and be completely safe. Your choice.

That's another excessive layer of complexity. Either do one action per second (ala GURPS) or split the time into a simpler array of fixed units (like D&D). If most actions are one, three, or six seconds, just let people do a "full round action" or a "swift and standard" in the same round.

This means that when the enemy gets their chance to attack, they're behind total defence so their defence and guard save are much stronger, but they still get to make one attack each turn with only an attack penalty. Them moving back at the end isn't required, but there's not much one second is useful for and they can lure enemies to a position where they have the advantage. You could also use that second to shout for help or communicate with party members, of course, and some skill checks only take one second, instead of moving. This strategy also helps when the enemy has lost too much health to perform six seconds of actions per round and now has to pile on another penalty to keep up. Whether they stop switching stances, attack while moving, resort to flurry to get off one attack or some combination thereof, they'll be at a disadvantage and moving back away from them makes that disadvantage worse by forcing them to keep coming to you. This strategy is great when you can afford to take your time. (And frequently, these encounters allow for that.) This strategy also helps when fighting multiple opponents, or powerful boss monsters.

I don't see any mention of this as a recommended tactic anywhere, and assuming that players will recognize it as an optimal tactic (and that seems like a questionable assumption) strikes me as poor planning.

3.5 is incredibly shallow and unsatisfactory, in my opinion.

It's also about the limit of what's feasible in any but a very niche group of players.

Actually, if you think 3.5 is as complex as people can handle, I can't take this seriously at all. There are systems substantially more complex than D&D that get a lot of play. GURPS, for instance.

GURPS isn't nearly as complex to play once the character is actually built. Doing something is almost always "roll 3d6 and aim for less than (my own target number plus the aggregate situational modifier assessed by the GM on the spot)." You don't have to reference other people's sheets in GURPS, you don't have to perform lots of mathematical operations during play. Moreover, people don't have to juggle multiple actions in a turn--they only have to do one thing per turn rather than having to count out seconds.

Note: the basic combat system of GURPS is adequately summarized on one side of one sheet of paper. GURPS Lite puts a nearly complete rules reference into 10 pages out of a 32 page PDF. You've never actually played GURPS, have you? Like eighty percent of it is character creation rules and GM reference material.

And unlike GURPS, this system here is better balanced, more realistic, and has simpler individual mechanics that make it easier to get into without being so ungodly shallow due to the blatant balance issues that plague GURPS.

I do believe that you are absolutely wrong about both aspects of that statement. As universal systems go, GURPS is very well balanced. Because it's a universal system, obviously there are rules for how to make superman in a game where superman doesn't belong, but that's a matter of GM insanity for allowing an out of place character--not a flaw in the rules. I'm also quite certain that your system is not nearly so well playtested--unless your system is somehow a widely published and played system for going on thirty years now?

I am not familiar with rolemaster,

A game that famously takes the realism so far you're more likely to die from an accident travelling to a battlefield than you are in combat on the battlefield.

and D&D only gets the play it does because it's the oldest and most publicised,

GURPS is almost as old and here you are taking unfounded ****s all over it--with somewhat laughable claims that it lacks sufficient dedication to simulationism.

even if it is a really shallow system and the fights basically amount to just rolling dice at eachother until the fight is over.

Again, the only system I've ever encountered that didn't amount to rolling dice at each other until someone wins is Fate. And that's only for a very particular style of Fate. Note; I have also encountered and read your system now.

[ngilop]

so I read the PDF reference and this thread as a whole

and I got these thoughts

a) this game's combat mechani literally need you to have a calculator that can do scientific notation, you are going to need to do several complex mathematical operatikns to see if you hit and if you did any damage etc etc

b) the OP has a sub standard knowledge of real world weapons (understatement) and is basin weapon rules on that glaring lack of knowledge

c) has a hate-on for D&D and Gurps for no reason at all

d) dislikes games where you throw dice until you win, which is weird because her game is all about throwing dice then doing differential equations until you win

E) is very very demeaning and argumentative to those who do not think her ideas are perfect

f) realy has ZERO idea on the mechanics of the games she is deriding

[Avianmosquito]

so I read the PDF reference and this thread as a whole

and I got these thoughts blatant lies

Fixed that for you.

a) this game's combat mechani literally need you to have a calculator that can do scientific notation, you are going to need to do several complex mathematical operatikns to see if you hit and if you did any damage etc etc

Lie. You don't need a calculator for anything in this system, ever. Much less a scientific calculator.

b) the OP has a sub standard knowledge of real world weapons (understatement) and is basin weapon rules on that glaring lack of knowledge

And here we get another blatant lie from an ignorant troll who can't even be bothered to come up with an argument.

c) has a hate-on for D&D and Gurps for no reason at all

I gave my reason, and you ignored it entirely.

d) dislikes games where you throw dice until you win, which is weird because her game is all about throwing dice then doing differential equations until you win

If you can't get the difference between a game involving no strategy and a game involving strategy, you're beyond hope. D&D's entire block of strategy is "I make an attack roll" over and over again, with no variation or difference AT ALL, for six hours.

E) is very very demeaning and argumentative to those who do not think her ideas are perfect

When it comes to somebody like you, I have to be.

f) realy has ZERO idea on the mechanics of the games she is deriding

Another lie. Tied directly to lie C. I already explained why I hated those systems.

Also, only my avatar is female. My sex is marked immediately below it, I just have the avatar because I like Touhou.

[Avianmosquito]

It seems like combat is quite math intensive. I think it will result in slower combat than in other systems. Each time a character is hit, they need to worry about Pain, Bleeding, Health Loss, Shock, and Body Part Integrity, right? That seems like quite a bit to update to me, and is likely too crunchy for my taste.

Pain isn't tied to most damage types anymore, shock and body part integrity only matter when below a certain point (and have clear-cut penalties) and bleeding happens at the end of rounds so it's cleaner.

I think a short combat example and a character sheet may make the system clearer overall.

Alright. Two people, both human adult males, common grade. Level 1 nobles, longswords, no stat tweaks. (So, basically your bog-standard NPCs having a duel. So I'll also assume they don't have any relevant feats, as is usually assumed with NPCs.) Otherwise unarmed and unarmoured, so I don't have to choose secondary weapon and armour combinations.

Combatant 1
Human adult male
Medium Humanoid
Height: 180cm
Mass: 80kg
Character grade: Commoner
Experience: 0
Experience rate: 110%
Experience value: 100
Level: Noble 1
STR: 12
AGL: 10
CON: 10
PER: 10
CHA: 10
RES: 10
Guard: +12
Reflex: +11
Fortitude: +7
Logic: +7
Negate: +7
Will: +7
Base move rate: 2m/s
Skill points: 54
Skill rate: 8
Skills: (Irrelevant, most NPCs don't invest in combat skills, the grapple system isn't finished, there's no armour and they're not going to get their weapon skills up to 25 now.)
Feats: (NPCs don't have to have feats. Technically, everybody is supposed to have them, but the NPCs can be assumed not to have any relevant ones if you don't want to bother.)
Traits: None
Soul barrier: 1
HP: 200/200
Head integrity: 36/36
Torso integrity: 60/60
Arm integrity: 12/12
Leg integrity: 24/24
Natural armour: 1 medium
Defence: 2 innate, 7 active, 1 armour
Damage reduction: 1/--
Immunity: 5% (mental)
Attack: Melee +11, offhand melee +5, ranged +10, offhand ranged +4
Base reach: 100cm
Encumbrance: 82kg, unburdened
Inventory: Longsword
Status: None

Combatant 2
Ditto mark

For the record, I'm rolling dice. This is not pre-prepared.

Initiative:
Combatant 1 17, combatant 2 9. Combatant 1 wins initiative.

Round 1:

Combatant 1:
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 2, 2+6 vs swinging defence 9, miss.
Defensive to total defence.
2m back.

Combatant 2:
2m forward.
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 1, 18+6 vs swinging defence 9, critical hit.
Combatant 1 guards, longsword, 16+18, success+9. Critical negated.
Damage 9+6 slashing 6 bludgeon vs DR 20+9, 0.

Round 2:

Combatant 1:
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 2, 11+6, hit.
Combatant 2 guards, longsword, 18+18, success+18. Critical negated.
Damage 10+6 slashing 6 bludgeon vs DR 20+18, 0.
Total defence to defensive.
2m back.

Combatant 2:
2m forward.
Total defence to defensive.
Swing at combatant 1, 19+6, critical hit.
Combatant 1 guards, 3+18, fail. (Well, he's ****ed.)
Damage 6+9 slashing 9 bludgeon vs DR 1, slashing 14, bludgeon 9. Strength 1/12, agility -1/10, constitution -1/10. Health 67/90, shock 75%, torso 21/50, crippled. Slashing bleed 14/90 rounds, bludgeon bleed 9/90 rounds. Mostly dead.
Total defence to defensive.

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 53/90.

Round 3:

Combatant 1 is mostly dead.

Combatant 2 ends combat and walks away.

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 39/90, shock 50%.

Round 4:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 25/90, shock 50%.

Round 5:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health 11/90, shock 25%.

Round 6:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -3/90, shock 0%. Unconscious.

Round 7:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 bludgeon 9 to combatant 1, health -26/90, shock -25%.

Round 8:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -40/90.

Round 9:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -54/90, shock -50%.

Round 10:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -68/90, shock -75%.

Round 11:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 to combatant 1, health -82/90.

Round 12:

Bleed:
Slashing 14 bludgeon 9 to combatant 1, health -105/90. Dead.

Well, normally that takes longer, but there was that random unblocked crit with a solid damage roll in round 2, and longswords do kill unarmoured combatants really, really fast and these guys didn't even have clothes, much less armour. That fight took ten minutes, most of which was just writing out progress on dude #1 bleeding to death. Most GMs wouldn't even track that, that would have been a two minute fight in an actual game. Of course, most fights don't get a random crit followed by a fumbled guard roll, and take longer. And have more strategy than "luck out, win fight" because most people can change tactics as the circumstances change or the other combatant is weakened, and usually have both armour and additional items. But this example... Well, it's terrible, but it's what it is. Want another one, maybe without the random fight-ending critical hit?