Action vs. Reaction - System experimentation MkII

I have been working on a new way to do initiative for combat. I was inspired to do so by a discussion I had with +Kay Sakaue about Action vs. Reaction in actual martial arts. I came up with my first draft of the idea and its application in Savage Worlds, but it had some issues.

Benjamin Rose brought up a good point about the portion of the system where both sides are looking for advantage. He said, "Are they just staring at each other? If they make more than one roll, I can see it potentially getting a bit boring." and I agreed. I started chewing on the problem I came to a startling realization. The initiative system in Savage Worlds uses a card deck. Holy GLOB I am an idiot!

When I discussed the whole idea of Combat Advantage with Kay I thought that a lot of the way it worked seemed like a poker game. Trying to read your opponent, knowing when to hold, fold and bet. So I altered the system to reflect this point. Using the cards makes things flow a little faster and has a better conflict based feel.

+Djaii Pepper-Martens commented that it seems to break down with a great deal of combatants. I also agree. I am not sure that it's something I want to fix though. This is mostly intended for dueling and smaller scale conflicts. It's too detailed for a large scale brawl. I think I might just leave this for times where I want a specific kind of drama. I am pretty secure in saying that this is not a system that would apply well to all kinds of combat situations, but it could be very fun for certain dramatic situations where you want to ratchet up the level of detail and dramatic effect.

I had to alter the math a little, but I think it might work.  I am going to try to get some people together this weekend and play test it out a bit.

Combat System Discussion

I’m not sure if you are at all familiar with the Savage Worlds system, but it works on a dice step method. All Skills and Attributes are rated 1-5, see below. All player characters also get a Wildcard die (d6) along with every roll, taking the highest. This represents the Hero factor.

Step Range 1 – 5 (All stats are rated 1 to 5 die steps.  1=d4, 2=d6, 3=d8. 4=d10 and 5 = d12). Both the die values and the step values are used for different reasons.

New Derivative Statistic – Combat Fitness

Vigor (Vi) – Physical Body
Smarts (Sm) – Mental Readiness
Spirit (Sp) – Spiritual Development

Add all three stats and divide by two rounding down  = Combat Fitness (CF)

I went with Vigor instead of Agility for the calculation of this derived stat.  Agility will be an important factor later on, but this statistic is more designed to create a basis for gathering a Combat Awareness statistic for the new initiative system. As you will see further on, it more describes the ability to determine the appropriate time for a Decisive Strike and to determine opponent weaknesses and strengths.  Vigor to me represents physical conditioning instead of coordination and speed. I figured coordination and speed would become important when a maneuver is executed.

New Initiative System

The new initiative system is not designed to determine who “goes first”.  In my new vision for close combat all combat is resolved as opposed and simultaneous rolls.  The difference comes in who has determined the correct Decisive Maneuver first, executes that maneuver and whether the defender at that point provides an opportunity for the attacker to continue on to another maneuver in the chain until the defender is defeated or creates an Initiative Break.

The winner of the initiative simply gets a combat bonus depending on his situational awareness and how well he has sized up his opponent.  Combatants draw a number of cards from the Initiative deck equal to their CF. This will be the players CF hand and will be used to assess his situational awareness and ability to react to their enemies situational awareness.

Advantage

Instead of drawing for “Initiative” combatants draw for “Advantage.” Advantage determines a combatant’s ability to decide upon a Decisive Maneuver and act upon it. Each player draws a number of cards equal to their CF. The cards are used to determine Combat Threshold (see below) and gain the situational Advantage. Advantage is part race, part gamble, part strategic determination and possibly part bluff.

The cards values are a little different for the purposes of this initiative system. Aces count as 1 and all the “Court” cards (Jack, Queen and King) have a value of 10. Jokers have a value of your opponent’s highest card +1.

Before determining Advantage it is necessary to determine the Combat Threshold. The CT represents you defensive stature, effectiveness of footwork or the general difficulty of an opponent to gain an advantage upon you. Secretly place one card aside and add their value to your Martial Art Skill to determine CT.

• The Race: Each combatant is trying to reach his opponents Combat Threshold (CT) first.

• The Gamble: Opponents do not know each other’s CT, they have to guess at it. Players place cards face down in front of them simultaneously one card at a time. At any point after both players have laid down an equal number of cards, either player may call a Strike and the combat begins.

• The Strategy: After a Srike is called each side then reveals their Advantage Total (AT), which is the sum of all the card values put on the table before the Strike is called. Both players also reveal their CT value.  Each side then subtracts their opponents CT from their AT.  The result is their Combat Pool (CP).  Combat Pool is used to act and react in combat. The player with the highest total is said to have the Initiative. Players must be judicious in the use of their Combat Pool in order to survive the combat.  If both sides end up with an equal number of Combat Pool the combatant with the highest CF is considered the winner. If both sides have equal CF then use the suite of their highest value card to break the tie (Spades, Hearts, Diamonds then Clubs) If both high cards are “Court” cards of the same suit then prioritize King, Queen then Jack. The winner of the tiebreaker is considered to have a CP of 2 and the loser is considered to have a CP of 1. If both sides have negative CP this produces an Initiative Break and combat is reset. If one side has positive CP and the other has negative CP, the combatant with the negative CP is automatically hit and the difference between both CP’s is added to damage.

• The Bluff: When CT is determined a character can choose to draw a number of cards equal to their Bluff skill. They must then place one of these new cards on top of their CT card when CT is revealed. Their opponent will have a chance to spend CP to detect the bluff by rolling Perception. The combatant with the highest total (Perception die result vs. Bluff card value) of that contest chooses which card applies to the Bluffing players CT.

Spending Combat Pool

Combat Pool is a representation of comparative situational awareness.  These points can be used to give a combatant more options. Once you are out of options, you are probably out of luck. The character with the higher Combat Pool has more options and therefore has the Initiative. Combat Pool can be spent in the following ways.

1. Check for Bluff: If a player is bluffing their opponent can spend a CP to attempt to see through the bluff. (see above)

2. Mitigation: Players may spend one CP to remove an environmental combat modifier found in the regular combat rules in Savage Worlds. By using their superior situational awareness characters can overcome situational obstacles.

The Combat

Now that we know who has the Advantage in combat it’s time to strike. Each player must spend one Combat Pool to engage each enemy in the combat. Therefore, if a character is fighting three opponents he/she must spend three CP to engage all three. If a character does not have enough CP to engage all of their opponents, he/she cannot defend against all of them. All friendlies in the combat can split the CP cost between them as long as each enemy is engaged with at least one friendly character. All combatants that are in combat with an enemy they cannot engage can suffer from a free strike.  Free strikes are resolved before all other combat. Combatants can make a free strike by making a normal Martial Arts test against the victims Parry. The Margin of Success of this roll is then applied to damage directly.

Once engaged each combatant can spend 1 CP to add a die of the appropriate type to their Martial Art Skill to a pool. Once all combatants have decided on how many CP they are going to spend they roll their dice plus one Wildcard die. The character with the highest total (including the rule of doubles) can then choose to subtract one from their opponents Combat Pool or add one to their own Combat Pool. If both sides have 0 CP an Initiative Break occurs and the combat resets.  Once a combatant is reduced to 0 CP  and one or more of their opponents still have CP remaining then that character is hit and damage is applied.  If multiple characters are reduced to 0 CP characters engaged with them may choose to hit an opponent of their choice. If one combatant facing several is reduced to 0 CP and his/her opponents still have CP remaining, the victim is hit multiple times.

Damage

Weapons no longer have a dice value for damage.  They have a single damage value.  This damage value is added to the remaining CP of the attacker and compared to the victims Toughness and damage is applied normally.

Action vs. Reaction - System experimentation

For those of you who have been following my Action vs. Reaction article where I speak to Kay Sukaue, martial artist and general great guy about combat and game mechanics.  I had mentioned that I was trying to come up with a game mechanic that better interprets real martial arts combat as a hack for Savage Worlds.  Here is a very rough first draft of what I have in mind.  Please keep in mind that this is a first draft I drew up at work during lunch today and was meant to keep Kay up to speed on what I was thinking.

Combat Mechanics Discussion

I’m not sure if you are at all familiar with the Savage Worlds system, but it works on a dice step method. All Skills and Attributes are rated 1-5, see below. All player characters also get a Wild Card die (d6) along with every roll, taking the highest. This represents the Hero factor.

Step Range 1 – 5 (All stats are rated 1 to 5 die steps.  1=d4, 2=d6, 3=d8. 4=d10 and 5 = d12). Both the die values and the step values are used for different reasons.

New Derivative Statistic – Combat Fitness

Vigor (Vi) – Physical Body
Smarts (Sm) – Mental Readiness
Spirit (Sp) – Spiritual Development

Average round up = Combat Fitness (CF)

I went with Vigor instead of Agility for the calculation of this derived stat.  Agility will be an important factor later on as it determines the cap for Martial Arts skills, but this statistic is more designed to create a basis for gathering a Combat Awareness statistic for the new initiative system. As you will see further on, it more describes the ability to determine the appropriate time for a Decisive Strike and to determine opponent weaknesses and strengths.  Vigor to me represents physical conditioning instead of coordination and speed. I figured coordination and speed would become important when a maneuver is executed.

Note: When I refer to a "Martial Art" skill I am referring to any martial melee skill.  This would be anything from Fencing to Greco Roman Wrestling.

New Initiative System

The new initiative system is not designed to determine who “goes first”.  In my new vision for close combat all combat is resolved as opposed and simultaneous rolls.  The difference comes in who has determined the correct Decisive Maneuver first, executes that maneuver and whether the defender at that point provides an opportunity for the attacker to continue on to another maneuver in the chain until the defender is defeated or creates an Initiative Break.

The winner of the initiative simply gets a combat bonus depending on his situational awareness and how well he has sized up his opponent.  Combatants have the choice to attack after not only one but several initiative rolls to see if they can maneuver for a better initial strike.  It is possible for there to be little difference between the two combatants who are very evenly matched.

Advantage Roll

Instead of rolling for “Initiative” combatants roll for “Advantage.” Advantage determines a combatant’s ability to decide upon a Decisive Maneuver and act upon it. The Advantage Roll is a simple CF roll. Checking for Advantage may take several passes since the required number may not be reached in a single roll. Therefore, successive rolls are added together until someone reaches an amount equal to or greater than their opponents Combat Threshold (see below). Rolling for Advantage is part race, part gamble and part strategic determination.

·         The Race: Each combatant is trying to reach his opponents Combat Threshold (CT) first. To determine the character’s CT add his/her CF to the result of a secret Martial Arts Skill or Bluff Skill roll.

·         The Gamble: Opponents do not know each other’s CT, they have to guess at it. Players secretly roll their Advantage Roll and write down their totals. At any point (as long as each side has made the same number of Advantage Rolls) a player may call a Strike and the combat begins. No combatant may roll for Advantage more times than their CF. Therefore a character with a CF of three would be able to make a maximum of 3 Advantage Roll passes.

·         The Strategy: After a Srike is called each side then reveals their Advantage Total (AT) and their CT.  Each side then subtracts their opponents CT from their AT.  The result is their Combat Pool (CP).  Combat Pool is used to act and react in combat. The player with the highest total is said to have the Initiative. Players must be judicious in the use of their Combat Pool in order to survive the combat.  If both sides end up with an equal number of Combat Pool they may choose to call an Initiative Break and reset or continue with the combat with neither side having a clear advantage.



Note: There is an obvious hole here and I will shore it up as soon as I think of a way how. What if someone calls a Strike but their opponent has not yet met the CT? To me thats an iaijutsu or surprise strike kind of maneuver, but I have to think on that a bit more to come up with a solid solution.

Spending Combat Pool

Combat Pool is a representation of comparative situational awareness.  These points can be used to give a combatant more options. Once you are out of options, you are probably out of luck. The character with the higher Combat Pool has more options and therefore has the Initiative. Combat Pool can be spent in the following ways.

1.      Check for Bluff: If a character suspects his/her opponent of using the Bluff Skill to determine their CT he/she may spend a CP to force an opposed Bluff vs. Perception test. If the Bluff check is higher, nothing happens.  If the Perception check is higher and the combatant did indeed use the Bluff Skill to determine CT the character that used Bluff must subtract his/her opponents Perception Skill from their CP and CT until the next Initiative Break. This must be done before any combat is resolved.

2.      Mitigation: Players may spend one CP to remove an environmental combat modifier found in the regular combat rules in Savage Worlds. By using their superior situational awareness characters can overcome situational obstacles.

The Combat

Now that we know who has the Advantage in combat it’s time to strike. Each player must spend one Combat Pool to engage each enemy in the combat. Therefore, if a character is fighting three opponents he/she must spend three CP to engage all three. If a character does not have enough CP to engage all of their opponents, he/she cannot defend against all of them. All friendlies in the combat can split the CP cost between them as long as each enemy is engaged with at least one friendly character. All combatants that are in combat with an enemy they cannot engage can suffer from a free strike.  Free strikes are resolved before all other combat. Combatants can make a free strike by making a normal Martial Arts test against the victims Parry. The Margin of Success of this roll is then applied to damage directly.

Once engaged each combatant can spend 1 CP to add a die of the appropriate type to their Martial Art Skill to a pool. Once all combatants have decided on how many CP they are going to spend they roll their dice plus one Wildcard die. The character with the highest total (including the rule of doubles) can then choose to subtract one from their opponents Combat Pool or add one to their own Combat Pool. If both sides have 0 CP an Initiative Break occurs and the combat resets.  Once a combatant is reduced to 0 CP  and one or more of their opponents still have CP remaining then that character is hit and damage is applied.  If multiple characters are reduced to 0 CP characters engaged with them may choose to hit an opponent of their choice. If one combatant facing several is reduced to 0 CP and his/her opponents still have CP remaining, the victim is hit multiple times.

Damage

Weapons no longer have a dice value for damage.  They have a single damage value.  This damage value is added to the remaining CP of the attacker and compared to the victims Toughness and damage is applied normally.

Response from Kay

I like what I see so far.  You are going to have to explain the +/- 0 play on CP.  Sounds like CP is life blood in combat… without correctly applying CP then you may be overpowered or out maneuvered.  Am I getting that right?

My Reply

That is correct.  The whole thing boils down to getting the edge on Combat Pool over your enemy.  It’s a measure of your Situational Awareness and assessment of your opponent. At that point it’s up to you to employ that advantage in real terms. If you are aggressive and have a CP edge, you want to push that advantage by having a higher dice pool than your opponent and then using that edge to erode their Combat Pool, this simulates you attacking and setting yourself up for the follow up maneuver.  Once you lose all your dice, you have basically run out of options. It is also possible for both sides to run out of CP at the same time and therefore forcing an Initiative Break.

I plan on using edges that reflect different martial arts styles.  Like a Defensive Martial Art would grant you an edge verses an opponent that has a higher pool than you (or in other words an opponent that is very aggressive grants bonuses to a martial artist that is trained to counter that kind of move.

Let me know what you guys think!

Reader feedback

Since I started this blog I have managed to coax enough interest out of some people for them to post responses to my ramblings. For the most part, these responses have come from the several Google Plus Communities that I have joined. I have discovered that I have not only found kindred spirits on this social media platform, but a large group of highly intelligent peers who share a passion for gaming.

Communities like Savage Worlds Fast! Furious! Fans!, Gamecraft, Role Playing Game Designers and Board Game Design are incredible resources for feedback on story and design ideas.  I am in your debt and hope that you all continue to follow Plus Ten to Awesome and all of our strange ideas and ramblings.

In this post is all about the evocative and thought provoking responses I have gotten on Google Plus to my posts.  The title will have a link to my post and below that will be a reply to my post then followed by my further thoughts.

Action Vs. Reaction: A discussion about martial arts mechanics in RPG's

+Mark Brown: Love the interview!!! Extremely informative, too!!! But I probably would fiddle with fighting in Savage Worlds too much though..

+Ten to Awesome: Mark, I can see what you mean. More to the point, Savage Worlds is a fantastic system that does a great job of creating a fecund environment for storytelling adventure. As much as I do not want to “fix what ‘aint broken”, it simply provides me with a basis to modify instead of generating something completely new. The Savage Worlds basic die step mechanic and more narrative mechanics like the Wild Cards and Bennies give me a basic framework to work with as I try to experiment with a new style of combat system. Most likely this will end up developing into something that is completely unrelated to Savage Worlds, but for now I will just tinker with it to develop my ideas a little more fully.
--
+Erik McGrath: The only RPG I have made that I could call complete has initiative in combat being very fluid. If you succeed in your action you have it so if your attack works you get another one but if you successfully defend you take the initiative until eventually you are out of dice and must reset. You can check out Celestial Warriors…

+Ten to Awesome: I didn’t want to share your link here since it’s really not mine to share, but having read through it I like how the combat is based on opposed rolls.  I also like the way you allot for distance, especially since its supposed to simulate those wonderful aerial combats like we see in the Wu Shu movies. You have your initiative as a simple Agility roll though and thats one of the things I want to expound upon.  I also want to have events dictate a change in initiative instead of a simple tick or action/reaction determiner.  All in all this looks like a fun game and I particularly liked your Pairing Method for dice resolution.
--
+Stephen Gunnell - +Ten to Awesome: Stephen, your response was amazing and exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping for when I threw this out into the internet “ether.” Just to give you a little more background on Kay, he has been training primarily in Eibukan Goju-Ryu Karatedo and is an instructor 5th Dan. He is also a 1 Kyu practitioner of the Covina Kendo Dojo. Most of his training has been from close family. Since his practice of martial arts has always been from not only a Dojo perspective, but from a family perspective, his training has been extremely intimate and uniquely Japanese. That is to say that it has led not only to a practice of martial arts but very much a lifestyle within his close family circle.

Since this discussion was not originally intended to be a post, but was more of a discussion between a complete layman and his better educated friend, I had to edit it into something legible to a larger audience. Your response, was also very much in the same vain, so I had to do some working to continue as both a discourse and something digestible by the reader of this blog, so please bear with me. It is not my intent to create any kind of clash between Stephen and Kay, I just thought that the discussion was interesting and merited posting. (Besides these guys seem to know a lot more about this stuff than me and I wouldn't want to get caught between them.)

I won’t re-post your comment in its entirety here due to length, especially when I add +Kay Sakaue’s response, but will simply frame it in the same manner as the title of the post.

Action: Stephen

Very interesting. Your friend’s comments also match what I have heard from experienced SCA fighters. However there are some points to be aware of. Firstly is the difference between Kendo and Kenjutsu. Any Japanese martial art with a -do suffix is a display or sport skill. The movements of the sport skill are simplified and stylized over the corresponding -jutsu or combat skill. That said, over time the lines become less distinct as the top -do practitioners push the boundaries and the -jutsu practitioners are no longer honed by survival.

Reaction: Kay

I’m not sure how traditional you want to get. Yes… there is a big difference between Kendo and Kenjutsu… however I’d like to point out a flaw in his thinking about the suffix “do”. “Do” or the “Path” is comprised of two different characteristics. 1) Longevity and 2) Neck. Combine those two characters together you get the kanji “Michi” or “Do.” “Do” is the same for Tao in Chinese. It is to symbolize the dedication for your art. You would practice in the “do” but when it really needs to be used it is considered a jutsu. Longevity stands for just that…. And neck stands for your resolve. Meaning that you are willing to follow the path with your neck on the line. It’s not as simple as it seems. In Kendo’s sake the “do” came after the jutsu because of peace time. If no wars are being fought then there is no reason for actual use. People would get hurt… which is why Kendo was developed. I understand where he is coming from by talking about jutsu… but I think he’s looking at it too literally. While Kenjutsu is definitely older than Kendo… Kendo is not only practiced as a sport as the reply alludes to. It’s not only the point sparring… but there are definitely some areas that are derived from Kenjutsu. My style of kendo from the Covina Kendo Dojo practices Kendo with roots from the Hokushin Ittou Ryu Kenjutsu (Mori ToraoàHori SenseiàM. Sakaue/K. Chinen). Stephen needs to understand that regardless of it being Kendo or Kenjutsu… the art is alive and it continues to grow and mature as any living being. There always will be a question between the sport aspect and the “jutsu” aspect but believe me when I say this… there is no difference between the “do” and the “jutsu”, they are definitely interchangeable especially looking at it from a spiritual and philosophical view. (most kenshi spend hours working on Iai and Kendo Kata which is pulled from their kenjutsu roots.) The difference is definitely understood. Off note… there are definitely some Kenjutsu senseis left out there but most of the legacies have passed on to either Iaido or Kendo… their “jutsu” lives on. Just because there is a “do” doesn’t mean that they do not practice the “jutsu.”

Action: Stephen

The movements of the sport skill are simplified and stylised over the corresponding -jutsu or combat skill. That said, over time the lines become less distinct as the top -do practitioners push the boundaries and the -jutsu practitioners are no longer honed by survival.

Reaction: Kay

In Karate, what the replier is alluding to is more definitely realized. I have conversations and debates over this issue constantly with other practitioners over the world as well as people here in the US. (Goju Ryu Network) What he is saying is true… in sport, technique is flushed out, smoothed out, and speed becomes the driving force. However, speed is nothing without technique. Where is technique flushed out? Traditional training. Martial combat in the form of Martial Art… there is a balance of both. A true practitioner understands this and doesn’t debate the effectiveness until faced with it him or herself. I think this is what Stephen was alluding to… not between the “do” and the “jutsu.” If the above statement were true then juijutsu would have never lost out to Judo. Again… the evolution of martial arts.

Kano Jigoro, the founder of Judo declared that he would not lose to Jiujutsu. In a demonstration in front of the Emperor, Judo went undefeated against some of Japan’s best jiujutsu fighters who clung on to the classical training feeling that their techniques were unbeatable… again… the confidence that “jutsu” would never fall to a “do” (not exactly… but only using those terms to show the difference in stylizations) Yes… the root of the techniques are from jutsu… but they failed to realize that jiujutsu has evolved. Regardless to say we may have seen another paradigm shift in jiujutsu and judo with the evolution of MMA.

Action: Stephen

Secondly in Kendo and Karate the user completely dominates the "weapon" whereas with pole-arms or two handed swords the weapon dominates the user and the wielder must adapt all of their actions to the dictates of the weapon.

Reaction: Kay

We have to be clear of what Stephen is alluding to here. If we are going to lump in Katana and Nunchaku with Broadswords and Lances… then we are completely comparing apples and oranges. Looking at this from a eastern philosophy… yes… in Karate, better yet Kobudo, and Kendo… the karateka and kenshi is measured on the control of their weapon. Attacks are precise and calculated. Western philosophy is completely different as strategy and tactics were different. Both philosophies have polearm disciplines… again apples and oranges if you compare a Naginata or a Yari to a Halberd or a Lance. While they are all polearms they had complete different uses. One thing I do have agree with Stephen… for both Eastern and Western philosophies… the wielder is at the mercy of the weapon regardless of mastery.

Action: Stephen

The final outcome of a one on one battle can often be decided at this time before any blows are struck. Important questions are answered (or not) at this time. Does my opponent have restrictions about how they can move? Do they know their kill zone? Do they know my kill zone? Do I understand their weapon and its kill zone? Are any apparent weaknesses real or false? Can I sucker them with a false weakness? Can I maneuver to a position of advantage? I see this as a straight skill vs skill with bonuses for perception and style/weapon familiarity.

Reaction: Kay

I’m not sure if he knows… but he may already have an understanding of Zanshin. All the questions above are about Zanshin.

Action: Stephen

I don't yet have a good mechanism for reactive combat and I haven't described closing to effect, reversals, charging and other actions. My thought is that a single good strike will end a combat and the combat is about denying your opponent the opportunity to make that strike while setting up your own opportunity

Reaction: Kay

Reactive combat in game situation is hard to see because it’s a “chicken or the egg” kind of situation and how can you put that on to paper.

Summation: Kay

Overall… I understand what Stephen is saying however, I hope he understands that there is a place for the “do” and the “jutsu” Oh… and the argument of which is more effective for Kendo, traditional vs current… wish I could tell you… there haven’t been any sword carrying a-holes around so I haven’t been able to test my skill. For Karate… a balance of traditional training an evolved training has yielded the best results for me.

Helping PC’s create characters for an evil game

+David Berg: I dig the advice about identifying motives and traumas! I actually use something similar in my own supervillain RPG (if you'd like to read/play, just lemme know!), but I've found it handy to start with a Want, and then identify how the villain Suffers from not having what they want (needn't be trauma-based, but many players opt for that). So then it's easy to connect the dark psychological stuff to concrete actions (pursuit of the Wants).

Have you played any games using the approach in your post? If so, how'd it go?

+Ten to Awesome: David, you never sent me your info on the Supervillain RPG you have. Our next Gamex convention coming up here in a few weeks is comics superhero themed and I would love to maybe even run a one shot as one of our RPG events!

I tend to look at character creation from the point of view of an actor. Not that I am an actor per se, (not everyone from Los Angeles is an aspiring actor) but I have had some training in Drama. From that point of view I can tell you that there is some difference between a Want or a Goal and a Motivation. They both drive a characters actions but “Wants” can be more easily resolved than Motivations. When a character wants something, they can actively go out and try to attain that goal. A Motivation is much more internal. It’s an emotional lens by which you interpret interaction.

For example, if a character is motivated by Lust, it will taint their interaction with every person they meet. Can this person be seduced? What are these people’s proclivities? Can I manipulate them to sate my desire? Something like this cannot be a goal because there is no end to it. Unless they deal with the central reason as to WHY they feel this emotion they can never remove that motivation from their actions. They why can be a trauma or variable other reasons. If players develop a motivation behind a want, it gives the characters action greater gravitas.

If a player simply states that their character wants to have sex with every person they find interesting or attractive, it is a far more two dimensional statement. Without some sort of rationalization as to why they seek this “carnal knowledge” it becomes a robotic response to stimulus without any underlying motivation behind it.

I played an Aeon character that was a shape shifter, but the side effects of her powers were that her real physical appearance was hideous. Her primary motivation was to be appreciated for her physical beauty so much so that it became an obsession to find her “perfect form”. This took some villainous overtones as she became very similar to a Snow White Queen type character. When she started to fall in love with another PC, she started to lash out at him because he was getting to close and may actually ask what she really looked like. There was some intense roleplay as the two characters struggled to love each other despite her insecurities and hatred of herself. It was pretty intense and one of the most rewarding RP experiences I ever had for several reasons. I was really in her head and felt the way she felt because I identified with her motivation!

Damage Location Track for my King of Monsters vs. League of Righteousness!

+Mike McGannon: Is that the main board for the game or are there other monsters as well?

+Ten to Awesome: The main board of the game is actually a 4x6 table with 20mm scale buildings and a 1.5 foot tall Godzilla model representing the monster. Like in most Kaiju or Giant Monster films there is one singular monster, although I do plan on expanding the game to have a Giant Monster vs. Giant Monster element like in Godzilla vs King Kong. The Damage Location Track, which is what I posted here is a big 24 x 36 poster with a metal back so I can place the damage cards directly on the board with magnets on an easel. I could have easily made it much smaller or used a dry erase board of some sort, but I wanted everything about the Monster to be on a large scale. You can see the eight “Superheroes” cards which I have on a 6x3 inch handout card.

Breaking into narrative systems

+Stephen Gunnell: I've seen games flounder because half the players became too narcissistic and failed to make any attempt to drive the game forward. The GM and those of the players who did want to solve the problem got bored and the whole thing ground to a halt.

On the flip side of the coin most good GMs have the sense to let the physics slide in favor of progressing the story.

Narrative driven and physics driven rulesets are largely equivalent in the hands of a good GM.

+Ten to Awesome: I am quickly becoming a fan of Stephen Gunnell. If you are ever in L.A. look me up and I will buy you a beer. Truer words have never been spoken. It’s the GM that sets the tone for the game. Being a rules arbitrator and storyteller only skims the surface of the art of GM’ing. The real art of it comes in the careful balance of player needs, mechanical adjudication and being at the helm of the narrative. No one aspect can overcome the other or it will spell disaster. The most brilliantly concocted ruleset will never compensate for a poor GM, but a good GM can turn a game of Gangbusters into Shakespearian tale of triumph and woe.

+Shawn H Corey: Narrative games will not take over the industry. They appeal only to one segment of it. There are people who prefer the more mechanical versions.

+Ten to Awesome: I agree with you Shawn, but that really isn't the purpose of my post. +X2A isn't a proponent of any one style of play. What we are about is promoting the idea of exploration. If there is some element of a game style or system that would make you shy away from trying something new, we are all about providing ways for you to simply explore and see if that’s the kind of thing you would like to dive into more seriously. The game industry is constantly in flux and at the mercy of fad as any other, but as long as it evolves and provides new and interesting things to do, it will always keep the interest of old and new players alike.

+Winchell Chung: +Shawn H Corey more to the point, the majority of players would rather passively consume entertainment generated by the game master, only a few want to be narrativist and actually generate their own entertainment.

In fact, very similar to the proportions of people want to be game masters vs. people who want to be players

+Ten to Awesome: Many would say that this disparity is only right since you only need one GM per 1-6 individuals. I prefer to have the attitude of challenging people to do more. At the heart of every cynic is a disappointed idealist. Please don’t kill me, it’s just my opinion.

+Shawn H Corey: "Drama is anticipation mingled with uncertainty." -- William Archer

I would say some people prefer more anticipation and others, more uncertainty.

+Ten to Awesome: You can't have Drama without tension and you can’t have tension without some kind of unforeseeable outcome. Yet, I would rather have the unforeseeable outcome have meaning, unless the whole point of the story is that the outcome is meaningless, but I never got fully into nihilism.

Action Vs. Reaction: A discussion about martial arts mechanics in RPG's

Recently, as part of my Howard and Lovecraft. Timeless horror through ages undreamt of project, I have been thinking about some hacks I want to do the the Savage Worlds combat system. I wanted things to be a little more bloody and realistic. Not really knowing about fighting (really with me it's a lot of head butting and punching wildly) I decided to go to one of my trusted friends +Kay Sakaue who is not only a Karate instructor but has been training in Kendo for quite some time. My conversation ended up being so fascinating that I decided to edit it into a blog entry. There is a lot of philosophy and other ranting in this discussion so be wary, but it is damn interesting. This is by no means the end of this conversation.

+X2A: I have a question for you sir. As a martial artist, how much would you say that Karate or Kendo focuses on reaction vs. action? Meaning, out of all of the moves, training and drilling how much of it is focused on taking advantage of an attackers move to open up areas for attack and are the forms geared towards offense or defense as a focus.

Kay: Jim... this is a great question. However, this is something that is very hard to explain, even to blackbelts, unless you have trained in either art so bear with me. It’s funny that you chose to look at Karate and Kendo. I’m assuming because I am a practitioner of both... but I’ll be talking about them separately because the way they look at reaction/action is also completely different. One this is certain, due to Kendo being developed before Karate, you will notice some similarities behind their philosophies.

• Kendo 
• Action vs. Reaction 
• Kendo is primarily an offensive “martial” (martial = warlike; aggressive; etc.) 
• Mainly focusing on that “one true cut/strike.” 
• Rarely will they teach you to react to your opponent. Kenshi train to act first, to “steal” attack opportunities from their opponents. 
• While Kendo is looked at from mainly a “safe” competitive aspect... however it goes deeper than people realize. A good sensei will keep getting you to attack and will teach you to create openings with your attacks. It is truly an active way of looking at combat. 一心一剣translates into “1 soul 1 blade.” This philosophy translates well with 一期一会 which translates to “treasure each meeting, for it will never recur.” This is important because while we think that being “active” or initiating equates to being haste, kenshi are just the opposite… they are patient with the intent of striking first and striking last… one shot one kill. 
• While kendo is an “active/action” rather than “reactive/reaction” martial art… there are points, seldom, where technique is not preemptive… most of the time it is reacting off of missed techniques… but in general there are hardly any techniques where it is reactionary. 

Example of High Speed Kendo and how their technique is broken down real time vs slow motion.

• Karate 
• Action vs. Reaction 
• Karate should be a “reactive” martial art. While due to movies and the promotion of Mixed Martial Arts, it’s becoming more and more of an Offensive rather than a Defensive art. Most of the techniques were developed to react against an aggressor rather than to preemptively attacking one. 
• Karate was developed to block or deflect that “one true cut/strike” and then counter. To protect oneself was the main goal of a karateka. In the old days in Okinawa, I was told that even though karateka were taught how to strike and kick, they were never allowed to use it unless their life was in danger. They protected offensive techniques as much as they could however with modern day competition and entertainment they have gone away from that. 

(4:40 Kakie Training... reacting to opponent and taking advantage. This show is actually a comedy show… but it was to show how effective karate was if they were not a practitioner. Beat Takeshi has a couple of shows where he does this. Haha)

I guess for your question we can look at it two different ways… armed close combat and non-armed close combat to start with. I always had trouble with gaming systems because I always thought that they never took into consideration continuation of technique. Like you mentioned… you roll initiative, wait for your action, take your action, wash and repeat.

For Armed Close Combat I don’t agree with resetting initiative unless both opponents disengage. Most of the time if you are in close combat with a weapon, after the first attack you either reset because one of you miss or you are clashing with your opponent to see who gets the upper hand. In these kinds of instances, initiative should be decided who has the stronger mind and fit body… the x-factor would be spirit. Initiative should be based on physical and mental conditions alone… not training. Training should be an enhancer once initiative is determined. I’ve seen people who are not trained but naturally faster, smarter and nimbler give black belts a run for their money. But initiative can be negated when the trained individuals training kicks in. I look at initiative as an instinctual function rather than a trained one. A good fighter with good instinct and good training is what all martial artists aspire to become… but it’s something that is not always attainable.

For non-armed close combat, the biggest issue I have is the fact that player characters do not think about continuation of technique. And GMs allow PCs to attempt techniques that do not correspond to the technique beforehand. When going through my Trial of Position during our Mechwarrior Clan back in the day… that is one thing that I wanted to keep real when working it out with Mitch. I didn’t want to do anything that would not make sense. For example, If I lunge punch after my opponent and then follow-up with a thrust kick this would make sense especially if I have initiative over my opponent. The GM would have to realize that if this case I have my character pushing back my opponent so at that point my opponent would be in a retreating posture unless we were acting together (simultaneous). If my opponent is in a retreating posture, most likely he would need to be defensive… any instinctual fighter would be in a parry/blocking posture trying to find an instance where he can counterstrike or move to takedown. In the back of my head I was always miffed because game mechanics, again as you said… wash and repeat, would re-establish initiative. In a real life situation, initiative can change even in change of spirit or even a doubt in one’s mind.

+X2A: Thank you for your insights. There is an impressive amount of knowledge in your short dissertation, especially since it was meant for a total laymen such as myself. The few times I have been forced to fight, it was anything but pretty and technical.

To me it seems that in Kendo there is little defensive posturing, but instead analysis of position and decision on direct and fast attack. I am inclined to think that much of the art is a contest within yourself to focus on being the fastest to come to the most correct decisive action possible, then relying on muscle memory to execute the act with the utmost technical accuracy.

To translate this into a game, I think it would be more accurate to have players take passes on achieving a "Decisive Maneuver" most quickly in respects to finding the most correct action most quickly and then striking. Taking into account elements of physical, mental and spiritual keenness for finding the correct action quickly and then training to execute that action properly.

Would that be a more correct translation of the combat action?

Kay: Sorry it was a bunch of rambling… and I can talk about this kind of stuff for hours and hours.

+X2A: Not at all. Please do ramble on.

Kay: I wouldn’t say that there is no defensive posturing. That is why kenshi focus on establishing and developing their “zanshin” (literal translation is where the heart remains). Think of zanshin as situational awareness but with extreme focus. Posturing in kendo works in conjunction with one’s zanshin. If you zanshin is weak then your posturing is weak. As a kendo novice, my experience has shown me that no matter how big you are or how small you are it doesn’t matter.

I’ve had moments where I can’t act against my sensei because I can’t find an opening (analysis paralysis maybe?) At that point, my opponent has already stolen the initiative. Knowing this… sometimes I’ll rush into a technique where in turn I get rocked because in my haste I leave key areas open for my opponent to take advantage of (many of sensei have kicked my ass because of this).

Lower level practitioners will not be able to take advantage of these kind of situations… and hence they will turn to defensive parrying… but at this time it is certain that the person in retreat will most likely not have a chance to strike and would most likely have to tie up with the attacker or be in constant retreat.

Higher level kenshi will turn their offensive posture to maintain their defense… their posture or their guard (kamae) is their defense. A kamae can be used as a deterrent. The way they hold their sword and how they stand and use their footwork is how kenshi maintain their defense while maintaining their offensive mindset. 6th, 7th, and 8th degree masters have developed their own posturing and if you have a non-practitioner or a novice like me go against a high level kenshi… they can strike you at the instance you move. I’ve walked out of a dojo with bruised wrists because my sensei was trying to show me that I can’t strike if my arms are gone. True story… my uncle’s specialty. I think he made his point.

In game terms… It’s been really hard for me to combine elements that could really mimic or bring actual conditions into a game system. While most of the time the GM can set the tone during and encounter it’s hard to simulate the difference between a 1 on 1 (straight up duel) or 1 on many (Kill Bill Tea House) or a furball chambara (13 Assassins). But in any sense… yes… the elements of physical capability, mental strength and ingenuity including instinct (which I believe is both mental and physical due to it being a part of our natural/wild nature… understanding your zanshin or situational awareness), and spiritual development which includes combined physical and mental control… not only that but it covers control of all your emotions… in combat mostly your fear and anger. I think this drives a “decisive maneuver.”

How do you cover all of these elements that a combatant needs to have under control? I’m not sure where to start. It’s not that easy in the real world and sometime I always think during game that man it would be so much easier if real life combat were that simple. You know something like a small smirk can disrupt that split second you need to act on that “decisive maneuver.” Haha… I get it all the time when I practice with my old man. He has this grin on his face that pisses me off. This grin is the only thing holding me back because every time I need to make that crucial decision I have to question my … but when I ask myself and I ask him why it bothers me… he always replies that because I know deep inside that he’s taught me all I know; but in reality he hasn’t taught me all he knows. The only way to get around this issue I have with my old man is to surpass my old man myself.

I think you are heading in the right direction… sorry for the long winded responses.

+X2A: I always thought that initiative should be interpreted better as situational awareness. The order of combat doesn’t really matter, what does matter is who makes the correct decision first. A bunch of misses and fumbles are irrelevant. What is relevant is how well the character has analyzed the tactical situation and in turn what information he has available to make the correct Decisive Action.

Another element of initiative is pace. Deciding who directs the pace of the combat gives you initiative. So in essence a correct initiative mechanic would determine:

A) Who has the best situational awareness to come to the correct Decisive Action.
B) Once that action is initiated, if not immediately deadly will determine the pace of the follow up maneuver.
C) Once that pace is set, a logical follow up maneuver should be initiated by the player that controls the pace giving the opponent fewer options because they find themselves in a defensive posture.

As you indicated earlier, there needs to be a mechanic that determines the types of maneuvers that can be initiated after a first maneuver in a “combo” is initiated. The person with the initiative should simply have more options than the defender. Once the attacker runs out of options or the defender manages to lock or outmaneuver the attacker there should be a tactical reset.

This is part of situational awareness. Finding an opening in an opponent’s kamae is crucial to determining whether you can take Decisive Action. The thing about it is that here is where a Knowledge Kendo roll can be extremely useful in a combat situation simply because you know the kamae stances and sword grips and know what they mean tactically.

There should be something in the mechanic that will allow a player to make a Decisive Action roll even when they do not have superior situational awareness at an extreme penalty. It could very well turn into a strategy for a player with better stats.

I think that in a lot of ways this concept is abstracted to the point where it is unclear as to what exactly is represented. I always thought of Dungeons and Dragons combat not really being attack hit repeat. I always thought of the HP system as an abstraction of “Battle Mind” and the exchanges back and forth are not really attacks but the two opponents chipping away at weaknesses, psychologically faking each other out and fatiguing each other until someone got the master stroke. Really it’s a poker game. There is a buildup and only you know what cards you hold and there comes a time to show or fold.

Do you think that the one man versus 20 situation is a winnable one for even a master swordsman? I always find this type of scenario to be completely fantastic and should be mostly narrated than rolled out.

I have always defined instinct as the ability for the subconscious to absorb, parse out and organize sensory input in such a way that reaction becomes instantaneous without the need for rational thought. That is to say that it’s a program running in your brains background that alerts one to danger and reacts through muscle memory. It’s something that only comes from being in dangerous or strenuous situations over and over again, training the mind to react without thought. I think that many people who have claimed to have ESP simply have a greatly developed instinct that taps into a far greater variety of subconscious inputs than normal people. The trick is to not be interrupted by imagined sensory input that could be brought about by emotions like fear, self-doubt and rage.

Focus should also be an element and should have something like Bluff or Acting to counter. Being able to psyche out your opponent is a very tangible element to combat.

Or surpass the emotions that come with being a student. Perhaps the only thing that he hasn’t taught you is the knowledge in your own heart that will lead you to the fact that you in fact do know everything he does but cannot accept the change in roles between you and your father. Kinda hurts your head if you think about it too much.

Kay: I can agree on your interpretation of initiative. However initiative is determined by situational awareness through the ability to act by means of the physical body, mental readiness, and spiritual development. Relevance is the tactical situation… while order of combat might not matter in game terms it matters in real life as a split second can mean a clean strike, a clean block, or even a clash. The other thing is that even though a correct decision is made… it is not guaranteed that it will be the correct one. This is due to technique fluidity and instinct. There is a chaotic aspect of instantly acting upon the instinctual action or reaction that can affect motion and action. Simply… not everyone has the same cookie cutter technique. Also… while working on the concept of zanshin… while in combat your focus should be there… there should be penalties (because in real life if your zanshin lacks or you lose zanshin in the middle of combat you can get really hurt… I mean really hurt). Things where PC interaction in character or things that may blow their concentration… it is very important. As a kenshi and karateka… I develop my zanshin through situational discipline, meditation, and kata. Keeping focus for a period of time is not an easy feat.

The combatant that decides the pace of a combat absolutely has initiative. I never understood why in game if I had the technical upper hand, why I would have to wash, rinse, and repeat! It’s so frustrating when thinking about momentum. You can trade jabs… or trade exchanges… but the fun begins when you actually land techniques and see the effects on your opponent. This is what creates openings for your offense allowing you to keep the momentum. (also… find ways to evaluate their weaknesses to keep them on move and keeping you one step ahead.)

Yes your whole goal is to give your opponent few options meaning that technique should be manifested from a defensive posture. This is my specialization in Karate. My black belts hate it because I don’t mind being put in this position. I’ve learned to fight from this aspect from the get go… so my situational awareness is usually one step ahead of one who is offensively minded. Simply… I’ve learned to fight from that defensive posture for 1) this is what Karate should be about… its defensive minded and 2) I can lull them into a false sense of confidence because they are on a offensive posture. In game terms… a person who does not understand this and is at the mercy of the pace of the controller will have to find a way to block and parry or takedown the opponent to stop the momentum. Killing momentum is the primary objective in that kind of a situation.

When an attacker runs out of options the combat stalemates. This is what I call a “reset” when teaching kumite to my students. There are times when you rush into an attack because you see an opportunity… but that doesn’t mean you are going to be successful. Once the momentum is severed then a reset is validated. When I see my students getting into this situation I always let them know it’s not a bad idea to move to a defensive distance without turning your back to your opponent (my goodness… you should see some of the interpretations of this) and find a way to regain momentum. This distance factor is very important to this. It’s called ma-ai in Japanese. Every fighter should know the effective radius of their techniques. Again… there is no cookie cutter technique.

Technically finding an opening in an opponent’s kamae does technically lead to you being able to formulate a good attack. However there is a whole another aspect to this we don’t see. Just because we understand the kamae stances doesn’t mean that we’ll find openings in the individuals kamae. While a Knowledge Kendo roll should give the information about what the kamae can do and how to defend against them, we are overlooking a big thing about the situation. There are kenshi who practice a certain kamae because they feel it to be invincible. They know the ins and outs of this and train to be “invincible.” Miyamoto Musashi was one who mastered from all levels which is why he is so famous. Again… even in my limited experience, I’ve stood in front of a sensei and have frozen in place because I did not know where or how to move. It is the most frustrating thing in the world. You stand toe to toe with your opponent and analyze your situation knowing that any move you make you will be your last.

Having traits like overconfidence, etc. are often a good way to represent combatants that will misinterpret the timing of a decisive maneuver. Things like bluffing or psyching people out is another thing that should be played off of some traits to enhance or penalize depending on the situation.

I really never looked at D&D that way. It is an interesting rationalization of the system.

These kind of massive 20 on one combats in reality… maybe in a Chinese Kung Fu novel. Has it ever happened? Most likely not. On the battlefield… a little different. For game… I agree this could be followed in the sense of storytelling like the old Chinese Kung Fu novels. I’ve simulated 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 but nothing like Isreali Krav Maga 1 vs your Platoon. For training it is ok… but for a real life scenario… I think the master swordsman is not that stupid… he’ll look to be executed or look forward to seppuku. Western ideals would be to say the hell with it and go out blazing. Either way it leads to good storytelling.

Your interpretation on instinct is where the Japanese talk about mu-shin… or the classic no mind philosophy. Because of the rigorous training and building muscle memory, they let that sensory instinct and the natural/wild instinct take over. I used to coach football with an old Master Sergeant in the Marines who was at Iwo and he told me the most amazing WWII story. His unit was called in as reinforcements to the first landing and immediately his unit was enveloped in fire. Over the next 3 days he has no recollection of how he survived or managed to get off the island. It was only his radio operator and himself that got off Iwo. I thought about it a lot… but the only thing I can think of was mu-shin. All his basic training and his will to survive got him through that experience.

Haha…. Yeah that is my realization about me and my father too. I’ve also realized that I’ve come to a point that I need to take what I’ve learned and make it my own. Lately I’ve been working on my “karate” and have been developing it further and further. It’s funny… it’s like a sculptor… you always start out with the big chisel and the big hammer… and then you work your way down to a smaller chisel and a smaller hammer to the point where you start refining and until you just work on detail. My karate is the same way. My foundation is based upon many different philosophies… I will not grow until I have surpassed what I have taken to learn and make it my own. Again… there are no cookie cutter techniques.

Haha… I’m glad. Let me know if I lost you.

+X2A: I think I am keeping pace OK, but I will let you know if I get confused.

The matters in timing, execution, environmental elements, your opponent, the several attributes involved in executing technique/situational awareness and the general chaos created by the myriad different things that incorporate into combat are reflected in the randomness of dice rolls and the “opposed roll”.

All combat mechanics in games are abstractions of the real thing. I find that they key to making a convincing yet fluid mechanic is being able to identify the specifics that you want represented and to leave the abstraction to things that will ultimately be randomized due to the application chaos and random chance.

Therefore we need to identify and quantify certain things and develop a formula that takes these variables into account to produce a satisfying yet somewhat random set of results, while applying a certain structure to the variable elements of the formula that account for skill and natural talent to a greater degree than random chance.

These key elements and correct me if I am wrong here are “physical body, mental readiness, and spiritual development” which are in general terms abstract concepts, but concepts that can be quantified to a certain extent. If they weren’t this whole exercise would be moot.

You and I share a general frustration then about constantly loosing the upper hand to turn resets. I always thought that in combat once someone lands a move or generally gets an upper hand, the ability to follow through was generally limited.

When dealing with this mechanically we can go one of two ways in my opinion. The more complex option is something like Exalted. Several trees of maneuvers that link and have different effects to simulate “chains” of maneuvers. I find this method to be a little top heavy and overly complex. Alternatively, a system that develops modifiers for situations can be simpler, but you have to construct a formula to allow for the momentum of combat. It’s much more difficult to create since it is more abstracted and requires better narration to apply realistically.

This really gets me thinking about having momentum as a variable in the system as well as Defensive and Offensive posture. Sort of a stance mechanic that can be modified by combat as a way to damage an opponent without applying damage but instead changing their posture by enforcing your Initiative.

It reminds me of Italian/Spanish fencing that focuses on the concept of circles that represent your area of effectiveness and working within these circles as they intersect with others from different angles of attack/defense. I think that this can easily be represented in some kind of threshold within the momentum system that I was talking about. Once that threshold is reached it would cause a reset. Once again we need to identify the specific factors for the following.

1) How does follow through for a follow up maneuver affect that next maneuver and the kind of maneuver your opponent is forced to make.
2) How do we determine when a combat stalemates and needs to be reset.

I think that the no win situation is perhaps one of the most difficult concepts for some to understand. It’s a form of Kobayashi Maru don’t you think? The Know Kendo roll can very well just come up and tell you that there is no way to win. This would cause a rational character to try to find another solution, like fight it out and know you are going to die or run like a half crazed jackrabbit.

I have a few strong opinions about game mechanics. One of those is, if you don’t want to simulate something real, then don’t roll dice. There are two kinds of RPG’s, I call them Physics Driven RPG’s and Narrative Driven RPG’s.

In a Physics RPG, the goal is to create a decent simulation of environmental effects for the purpose of creating tension and drama from things like falling down, getting hit by a bullet or dodging a punch. They generate a relationship between your game persona and the physical world they live in.

A Narrative Driven RPG on the other hand provides limited tools to simulate “reality” pretty much delegating that to common sense. For example if a character is “Good” at jumping the GM narrates a jumping task and decides whether you have to be “Average”, “Good” or “Fucking Awesome” at jumping to generally pull that off. There is no, it’s a ten foot gorge and your Strength + Athletics is…. Generally something like this example wouldn’t even matter if it weren’t critical to the Narrative. The purpose of these games mechanics is to give you just enough feedback to write a story. If part of the story is Superduperheroguy goes into a room and a dozen schmucks with clubs attack him, he is “Fucking Awesome” at fighting and the mooks are “Average”. Just explain what happens in the fight and you got it. If it’s not reasonably possible, just narrate it instead of wasting everyone’s time with justifying it with endless dice rolls.

I very deeply believe in the concept of mu-shin. The speeds at which one needs to react to survive have to come from a place in the brain that can’t think in If/Then commands. I don’t know if it can really be represented in a game mechanic, but it could be some form of high level technique.

In Native American belief the Bear Totem is often depicted as a stylized bear with an arrow leading from its mouth into the center of the body. The basic philosophy is that all of the wisdom in the cosmos can be found internally through knowledge of self. The second lesson of the bear is that creation comes from the consumption of knowledge and the transformation of that knowledge through the self, thus creating personal truth and wisdom. You are following the path of the Bear and didn’t even know it.

Kay: Yes. physical body, mental readiness, and spiritual development should be the core of a combat attribute set.

I’ve been wrecking my head over this for years… but just food for thought. Momentum and Momentum Break… these are two categories we can lump these chains of maneuvers in.

We’ll have to talk more deeply about this… things can be interpreted in different ways. As for follow through on maneuver chains we’ll have to walk through some real life scenarios to flush it out… this can be based off of instinct. Again we’ll have to talk through this one as well. Stalemates and momentum resets are key so there has to be a mechanic that allows us to see when momentum ends or a momentum break.

I think of the no win situation to be an interesting aspect to 1v1 combat, don’t you think?

Being able to interpret RPG systems like that is one of your talents.

Mu-shin takes a lifetime and one still cannot master.

Go American Indian philosophy! Off tangent… funny… when I was young they used to call me the “bear killer” due to defeating this huge guy that growled like a bear. I watched him throughout prelims and wondered who this guy was. I eventually met him in the finals and was determined to defeat the guy regardless of his size. Put it this way… I was big and solid… he was bigger and more solid… must have had six inches on me. We met up in the ring and when the judge pulled the ropes I out growled the MF and countered everything this guy threw at me. The fact that I out growled the MF threw him for a loop and it hit me… he used his size and intimidation to beat his opponents… his offensive nature was his downfall… its one of those defining moments. When you brought up the bear… it triggered this memory… haha.

RPG Damage Resolution

John Wick, designer of L5R, 7th Sea and a slew of other games once told me, “If you get hit by the sharp edge of a Katana, you are going to die or at the very least wish you were dead.” Which is pretty much absolutely true for just about anything be it a Colt .45, Mossberg or bastard sword.  Sure you might get lucky and the bullet or sword might just wing you, but that is more the exception than the rule.  In RPG’s though things are more cinematic and lethality is far less immediate.  In some RPG’s it will take you an hour to kill something outright with multiple strikes from multiple PC’s. Dragon slaying ‘aint easy but it sure is necessary.
 
Adding drama to combat is one of the most difficult tasks for a game designer.  Setting a “lethality level” for a game is crucial to the basic feel.  Is it heroic and the player characters should be able to take out several enemies at a time or is it gritty and the players have to take care to not be killed by a single attack? It’s also a crucial choice for a GM looking for the right system to help tell his story.
 
This is a complex topic in general but I want to tackle one aspect that is of special significance to me.  That being damage resolution or simply, what formula is used to determine the level of damage that is done after an attack hits.
 
There are a lot of factors here.  How much potential trauma can your weapon inflict? How skilled is the wielder of said weapon? Is the victim able to mitigate some of this damage by blocking, evading or absorbing the impact? How or where was the victim struck? For the most part all of these factors can be simulated meticulously or abstracted in some way, but all of these factors will have an impact on how the combat is narrated and therefore how it affects your story.  The real secret is to have a balance between the cinematic value of your combat scene and managing the flow of the mechanic to match the pace of the scene. Just about anything in an RPG has to be assessed by determining how well or how poorly it allows you to craft the story you are telling.  Without that element it becomes more of a tactical game than a role playing game.
 
Some can argue that systems that create a very detailed combat system will allow you to create a higher level of immersion.  Knowing exactly where your character took a wound and determining if it was blunt, piercing or slashing damage gives you a good idea of how things are developing in a combat.  Others would argue that these particulars should be abstracted systemically and it should be up to those developing the story to come up with the particulars. 
 
In my opinion, they key here is pacing.  When a system attempts to develop too much detail, it tends to have a lengthy mechanic with a lot of rolling and book keeping. Some players love this kind of thing, but I tend to think that it detracts from the game. It tends to shift the focus of attention from the story to the mechanic which is something I abhor. A good combat system should allow players to drive the combat through their narrative choices and be transparent enough to let them think less on the numbers and more on the action. This means that the system should be simple and fluid, but be detailed enough to provide serious consequence in order to promote drama. After all, if the idea of impending death does not create drama, little else will right?

Sidebar-
Let’s look at it this way. One of the best ways to assess whether the focus of a game is the system versus the story is to ask someone about their character.  If they immediately start telling you about the characters statistics, special abilities or what kind of weapon it wields the game is about the combat mechanic to that player.  If the player tells you about its relationships, achievements and character quirks then the game is focused on role-play for that player. Listen to your players as they talk to each other or people outside the game about their character.  It can tell you a lot about what they are experiencing and what they value in your game.
 
I am a big fan of systems that resolve the hit and the damage in one roll.  This cuts down on any extra mechanic for damage and tends to lean on giving the accuracy of the hit as much bearing to the damage as the size of the weapon.  Thus, small weapons like knives can be just as deadly in the hands of a skilled assassin as a shotgun in the hands of a teenager.  Additionally, it’s far more dramatic for a character to be deadly because of his impeccable skills than because he could afford the best bit of gear.
 
Various systems use this kind of damage resolution, for example Shadowrun and White Wolf's World of Darkness.  They assign a basic lethality to a weapon and any additional damage is inflicted by margin of success and any reduction in damage is mitigated by armor and supernatural toughness.
 
I feel that systems that separate damage and accuracy are fundamentally flawed. I can’t tell you how many times I have rolled a to-hit that has nearly doubled the defense of my target just to roll minimum damage on the damage dice.  So you mean to tell me that I hit this Umber Hulk full on with the keen edge of my Dwarven steel right in the most vitally vital part of his monstery giblets and did 4 points of damage? It basically gives the player a second chance to fail or can potentially reward them for a marginal success. All in all, it probably balances out statistically, but it becomes harder to narrate with two varying and possibly contradictory outcomes. “I barely hit him, but I guess I hit a vital artery with that attack.” Or, “I hit him square in the face with my hammer but he seemed to keep his brains closer to his neck.”
 
Another thing these systems have in common is the damage track (well up until 4th edition SR).  Everyone has the same number of hit boxes and there are immediate consequences for taking damage.
 
Systems that reflect toughness by allowing the characters to mitigate damage the moment it is taken do not require variable sets of hit points. Their resilience is already factored into combat.  In the end, when you get hit on the head with a big rock you will be just as dead as the guy next to you that is hit with the same rock, unless he has a helmet. I guess it’s just a different philosophy that works out to be pretty much the same. To me it’s just less book keeping and having damage levels that are marked, Light Wound, Moderate Wound, Mauled or Crippled make it much easier to visualize exactly how bad the situation is.  Does the word “Bruised” give you a better idea about how bad off a character is than saying, “I am down a quarter of my HP’s.”
 
I don't mind a hit point system per-se but I really don't like systems where there is no negative impact on your actions after being hurt.  Characters with a lot of hit points have a tendency to walk into danger without even caring.  My Dwarven warrior used to take out traps just by springing them and taking it on the chin.  This really detracts from the tension of combat, up until the character starts running out of hit points.  A character should not start to worry about taking damage only when they are close to going down. They need to get nervous the second they are hit.  When you have a system that immediately impacts the characters ability to function the moment they take damage it in increases the tension of the scene and therefore the drama.  You know that once the character starts taking damage, he/she becomes immediately more vulnerable and that has a direct impact on his/her decisions further along in the story.
 
So what am I saying here?  Stop playing D&D and play more Shadowrun?  Not at all. The whole reason for this post is to expound upon how these kinds of mechanics affect your game. I want people to actually think about why combat encounters are important to the game and how it drives drama and story. Take a moment to inspect elements in whatever system you are using and think about how a character reacts when he or she takes damage from an enemy.  Are you getting the kind of dramatic response you want or are they simply going through the motions?  Elements like, making player characters more in charge of a combat by making things run off fewer random elements, bringing the characters abilities to the forefront of a combat, making players think more tactically because there is a price to be paid even if they are only slightly wounded and increasing the drama by making sure that characters understand and narrate exactly what is going on in a combat so they feel more immersed in the scene.  These elements can be applied to just about every system by creating detailed descriptions that have no mechanical value at all. Or by making simple tweaks that better describe injuries and the chaotic nature of combat, you may end up serving your players and your stories better in the long run.