How optional is Timing/Effect?

[castiglione]

Of course, you are right.

What I meant was that in a "realistic" combat damage system the
consequences of even minor wounds could make it rather unattractive
to risk a fight, and that this could spoil some fun.

I have a tendency to play RPGs the "simulationist" way, and in my current
campaign any kind of combat is extremely rare - almost as rare as in the
real world. The players obviously have decided that it is prudent to avoid
high-risk situations and to find other ways to achieve their goals.

I agree totally.

I was just trying to point out that there can be fun in the prelim to a fight (even if the fight doesn't actually happen).

Example - two groups are arguing. Heatedly. Over a business deal gone bad.

Some guys in one group slowly begin moving toward whatever bit of cover there might be...just in case this cold war goes hot.

Meanwhile, a couple of guys in the other group are surreptitiously putting their hands on their gun butts to draw down if they have to.

Some guys in the first group notice this (8+, DM for any appropriate skill) and start yelling poop at the other group - "WTF are you doing!!!! Are you trying to draw down?!?! Are you trying to draw down on us?!?!"

The other guys put up their hands and start trying to explain away their behavior - "Hey...look...it's just nervous tic I've got." Meanwhile, while all the attention is on them, two other guys in their group are SLOWLY moving to flank the other group.

Some guys in the other group notice this (8+, etc.) and slowly move to counter the flanking move...and in the process, bump chest-to-chest with the other guys.

A shoving match ensues. Tempers rise. Who's going to back down?

 

[rust]

Yes, the risk that a fight could start - and the characters' actions to avoid
it, or at least to gain a decisive advantage if it should turn out to be unavoi-
dable - often creates more "tension" and makes the game more interesting
than a fight itself could do.
It is a matter of personal taste, but in my opinion the role-playing part of ro-
leplaying often ends when the actual firefight starts, and the game often be-
comes more like a tabletop game then.

 

[castiglione]

It is a matter of personal taste, but in my opinion the role-playing part of roleplaying often ends when the actual firefight starts, and the game often be-
comes more like a tabletop game then.

It would be remiss of us to forget the humble beginnings of this hobby.

 

[Able Baker]

In non-D&D games, combat is usually roleplayed, too.

 

[Gallowglacht]

Sorry I don't get the point, why D&D specifically? Practically every game has detailed combat rules, and uses them for combat rather than roleplaying them out. Do you mean Dungeon bash type games rather than Sci-fi games? Even then Aliens, Starship Troopers, Traveller New Era, Dark Heresy, Battlestar Galactica, Rifts, Mechwarrior etc have plenty of combat. On the flipside T20 is a D&D (D20) type game and combat is rare, but still played out.

Colour me confused....

 

[sfchbryan]

Sorry I don't get the point, why D&D specifically? Practically every game has detailed combat rules, and uses them for combat rather than roleplaying them out. Do you mean Dungeon bash type games rather than Sci-fi games? Even then Aliens, Starship Troopers, Traveller New Era, Dark Heresy, Battlestar Galactica, Rifts, Mechwarrior etc have plenty of combat. On the flipside T20 is a D&D (D20) type game and combat is rare, but still played out.

Colour me confused....

In the very 1st version of D&D (The little brown books), there was no combat system. You had to use a set of miniature rules called chainmail.

I remember, because I had the first version, with all of the additional supplements.

And now you know...

 

[Gallowglacht]

And just about every RPG after it came complete with combat systems.
So why say D&D doesn't roleplay combat and nearly every other game does?

 

[casquilho]

In the very 1st version of D&D (The little brown books), there was no combat system. You had to use a set of miniature rules called chainmail.

I remember, because I had the first version, with all of the additional supplements.

And now you know...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I remember the little brown book was not a stand alone game, rather it was a way of adding a fantasy element to a wargame (Chainmail). In and of itself the brown book had not morphed into the stand alone idea of an RPG we think of D&D being today.

Daniel

 

[sfchbryan]

That could very well be true.

I got my "Little Brown Books" in the fall of 78 & I'd never heard of miniatures. So from my viewpoint, Chainmail was a (required) supplement to D&D. If one had been into miniatures before TSR released their little white box, then it would look different to them.

 

[Gallowglacht]

You could use it with chainmail or use the optional system included in the book, that later evolved into the D&D combat system.

 

[Sturn]

The first incarnation of D&D was only a "fantasy" supplement to Chain Mail. Later, the LBBs came about, which included their own combat system. So, I have to disagree that original D&D did not have a combat system. One version was a supplement to a combat system, and the first official D&D game did have a combat system.

 

[casquilho]

The first incarnation of D&D was only a "fantasy" supplement to Chain Mail. Later, the LBBs came about, which included their own combat system. So, I have to disagree that original D&D did not have a combat system. One version was a supplement to a combat system, and the first official D&D game did have a combat system.

That is how I remember it as well Sturn.

Daniel

 

[aramis]

You could use it with chainmail or use the optional system included in the book, that later evolved into the D&D combat system.

That optional system was added in later printings... it was not in 1974 printings.

 

[Gallowglacht]

Mine says '74 and has it. Was there more than 1 printing in '74?

Anyway, I still dont see how other games "roleplay" combat and D&D doesn't. They pretty much all have combat systems and use them to run combat. Unless its just a throwaway knock at the D&D game, I still don't get the point.

Doesn't really matter, it's pretty off topic anyway.

 

[aramis]

mine (78) mentions that it was added after 1st printing.

 

[casquilho]

Mine says '74 and has it. Was there more than 1 printing in '74?

Anyway, I still dont see how other games "roleplay" combat and D&D doesn't. They pretty much all have combat systems and use them to run combat. Unless its just a throwaway knock at the D&D game, I still don't get the point.

Doesn't really matter, it's pretty off topic anyway.

Good point. I too do not understand how one could say D&D does not roleplay combat while other forms of RPGs do. All the RPGs I can think of (Except one diceless system) use some form of combat rules to work combat out.

Daniel

 

[tbeard1999]

I believe the biggest killer of infantry is artillery. I think this is also why a lot of tactical WWII games kind of minimize it - otherwise, the game would just involve a bunch of guys getting blown up by artillery.

I believe 9 mm's loaded with decent hollow points have around an 80% stop rate (stop doesn't necessarily mean kill). .45's with decent hollow points have around a 90% stop rate. With hard ball ammo, those figures drop. I think .45's with hard ball have around a 60% stop rate.

There's a lot of research out there on hand gun ammo effects. Lots of stuff on experiments done on goats, gelatin, etc. as well as real world stats.

Frank Chadwick wrote an article a long time ago called "Lethality in Roleplaying Small Arms Systems", in which he analyzed a number of gun battles between US police and Mexican gangs on the US/Mexico border. They were using revolvers and a few shotguns. Most battles were at close range, in Traveller terms. Some interesting conclusions:

--US police fired 90 shots and hit with 29. This is a very low hit percentage compared with most RPGs, including MGT. Considering that these police would have the equivalent of at least level-1 in Pistol skill, they hit far less often than their Traveller counterparts. Of 8 shots fired at point blank range (i.e., standing over the target), only 4 hit.

--a "...total of fifteen officers and suspects were wounded ...and they were hit by a total of 32 bullets. Most of the injured men were struck by a single bullet; four were struck by multiple bullets, and of these one was struck by eight bullets. Of these fifteen casualties, 2 were killed almost instantly while the other thirteen survived and recovered. All of those who suffered multiple gunshot wounds recovered. That is, none of the fatalities were caused by a cumulative build-up of trauma, but rather were due to a single, almost instantly fatal, wound."

--In terms of fatality, only 1 of the 11 chest wounds were fatal (!), the single head wound was fatal, and none of the 4 abdomen wounds were fatal.

--Most of the folks who were shot were able to continue functioning. One of the few who was incapacitated with one shot was hit in the wrist and was incapacitated by the pain.

In the famous Gunfight at the OK Corral, about 25 shots were fired, mostly from pistols at 10 feet or less. There were 9 hits (not including the shotgun blast that hit Tom McClaury), implying an overall hit rate of about 40%. However, the real "to hit" percentage might be lower, as Billy Clanton was hit 5 times in rapid succession (he probably wasn't dodging effectively after the first hit) and Tom McClaury was shot once while collapsing from the shotgun blast. So the real hit proportion might have been as low as 20%.

And as Chadwick's study found, most single bullet wounds don't kill the target. Billy Clanton died after taking 5 wounds (though he might have died from fewer wounds). Tom McLaury was mortally wounded by a shotgun blast to the chest. Morgan and Virgil Earp were hit by one bullet each and wounded. Doc Holliday was grazed by one bullet. So, no one at the OK Corral died from a single bullet wound. And Doc Holliday, Morgan Earp and Virgil Earp were able to continue functioning after being shot once each.

So based on this admittedly limited sample, I'd say that a "realistic" RPG combat system should rarely kill or incapacitate a target with one shot. However, there should be some small chance of killing someone outright with a single shot (the numbers above imply that an 8% chance or so of killing the target would be about right). Also, some kind of morale check should be imposed on player characters, since most gun battles (including the ones above) were decided when one side broke and ran. The side that was able to stand and fight prevailed. (This, by the way, was one of Wyatt Earp's most outstanding qualities -- he was apparently extraordinarily cool headed under fire).

Since I run cinematic games, such a combat system wouldn't be terribly attractive to me.

 

[rust]

I would agree with almost all of it.

The only exception is the sentence: "Most of the folks who were shot were
able to continue functioning."
This is usually only true for very short firefights, where the fight ends before
the shock of being wounded hits home. However, many real firefights are that
short.

Another point is that the low fatality rate in the police - gang gunfight most
probably is due to a very efficient rescue and medical emergency service.
Untreated abdomen wounds normally kill rather quickly, and the same is true
for many chest wounds. So, without some very skilled medics on the spot
and a team of equally skilled surgeons not far away, the numbers would look
different.

By the way, as far as I can remember the sources, Wyatt Earp never was
hit - perhaps this helped him to stay cool ...

Edit.:
Hitting something with a pistol or revolver when one is under stress really is
far more difficult than it looks in the typical movie.
During my military training, most of us were rather good with our sidearms
under normal conditions, but after a run over a hundred meters in full gear
(approximately equivalent to being under stress) almost none of us managed
to hit anything somewhere near the target.

 

[Sturn]

I think the closest system to emulating what Tbeard posted that I know of is 2300AD's combat system.

There was a chance of instant kill (chest or head hit, and you rolled under the damage rating of the weapon), but most often there was cumulative damage that had more and more adverse affects on the target, until they fell unconscious and you moved on to another enemy. The target could be killed by multiple wounds, but from what I recall, it took a while and rarely occurred since the person would go unconscious before death by this method. Most deaths were from the sudden lucky hits on critical areas (head and chest) with a large weapon or a lucky damage roll (under the damage rating of the weapon).

I always liked 2300 AD's combat system (I did have a house rule that simplified it though, with the same net affects).

 

[Gallowglacht]

TNE had the same roll under dmg dice for instant kill thing.
D20 varients with low massive damage thresholds can model the same.