Topic: Dynamic Combat

[twh]

I want to inject my new RMC campaign with house rules to avoid the same old thing.  One of those things is the way combat is stagnant; two foes in adjacent hexes hacking away at each other until a good critical comes along.  The only place I can think of this happening in real life is arm wrestling.  Okay, thumb wrestling, too; but maybe that's more of a Static Maneuver.

I know that part if this is a lack of player initiative, but the rules do not seem to encourage creative thinking inside the combat round--but maybe that's just me.  As GM, I want to do my part to encourage such behavior.  I have the following idea.  I wanted to present a complete draft but I'm drawing a blank.

Dynamic Combat
1. In the upkeep phase of each combat round a die is rolled for each individual combat.  A result of 1-6 on the die roll means those foes shift together one hex in the indicated direction, "1" being the PC's front and going CW from there.  What die is rolled depends on what chance any movement at all is desired: d6 gives 100% chance of shifting each round, d8 gives 75% chance, d10 gives 60% chance, and so forth (rolls above 6 mean no shifting occurs).

An option here would be to also roll for a random rotation of the foes, but that would start to get complicated.

2. During the round, a foe may attempt to press his attack, pushing his opponent back one hex.  This is not to gain an immediate OB advantage but to gain position, say pushing his opponent into a corner, or off a ledge.  Part of such a strategy would be for the attacker to shift left or right, so he's pushing in the intended direction.  For an average person with BMR 50 that's a 10% move and thus a -10 on his OB; so, I think the attacker should put at least 10 points of his OB into a maneuver to push his opponent back.  Maybe doubling the required minimum to 20 would be sufficient.

The opponent being pressed must either attempt to hold his place or give way, stepping back one hex.  This is where I stumble.  I can't figure a mechanic to use to balance the decision to hold or give way.  Holding position should cost something, and giving way should provide some immediate benefit (perhaps at a long-term cost, though) but I'm drawing a blank.

3. This implies that, if a pressed combatant gains a momentary advantage by giving way, why can't a character who's not being pressed do the same thing?  I don't have a problem with that, except for the minor detail that I don't know how to figure it.

One thing I don't intend for this to do is to actually count as regular movement per se, though, as above, the modifiers used can be based on the movement modifiers to combat.  In everything described above, the foes move together, not separately; no one is running away or trying to disengage from combat.

Maybe some or all of this is covered by the core rules and I'm just missing it.  Suggestions, anyone?

[Antalon]

Those ideas sound good.

You could also try a more 'dynamic' environment - have lots of tables, rocks, trees, fallen comrades etc create tripping hazards and potential cover or offer OB bonuses to those gaining aheight advantage from jumping, climbing etc onto terrain features.

Have the enemies move around to take advantage of this terrain.

Make sure enemies fight dirty - and try to suround an isolated PC - encouraging them to move back to comrades or cover.

Enemies could also try more grapple or bash (unbalancing) attacks - forcing PCs down or back and gaining initiative and/or OB bonus.

Perhaps award players initiative advantage if they use the ground / terrain more tactically?

Cheers

John.

[Dax]

OK, one thing first:
I love the RM Combat system for its realism. But it is (for me) not an action-realism, it is a damage realism. (The Combat Maneuvers shows that it can be introduced.)
What do I mean, an example: Feinting.
The attacker moves to make his opponent think that he is attacking low, but strikes high.
But he sacrifice something (call it OB) to cancel opponents defense (DB).
Such moves are incorporated into the Combat System.

The GM tells a story based on the skills and luck. She can interpretate feinting, changing position into the dice rolls. Therefore the GM can roll for that position change. But the combatant should have the possibility to prevent this. Preventing means a movement maneuver roll or the sacrifice of something (OB).

...

Dynamic Combat
...

2. During the round, a foe may attempt to press his attack, pushing his opponent back one hex.  This is not to gain an immediate OB advantage but to gain position, say pushing his opponent into a corner, or off a ledge.  Part of such a strategy would be for the attacker to shift left or right, so he's pushing in the intended direction.  For an average person with BMR 50 that's a 10% move and thus a -10 on his OB; so, I think the attacker should put at least 10 points of his OB into a maneuver to push his opponent back.  Maybe doubling the required minimum to 20 would be sufficient.

The opponent being pressed must either attempt to hold his place or give way, stepping back one hex.  This is where I stumble.  I can't figure a mechanic to use to balance the decision to hold or give way.  Holding position should cost something, and giving way should provide some immediate benefit (perhaps at a long-term cost, though) but I'm drawing a blank.

3. This implies that, if a pressed combatant gains a momentary advantage by giving way, why can't a character who's not being pressed do the same thing?  I don't have a problem with that, except for the minor detail that I don't know how to figure it.

...

Maybe some or all of this is covered by the core rules and I'm just missing it.  Suggestions, anyone?

Keep it simple:
Someone want to press, she sacrifice OB, but the pressed opponent get the bonus.
This means if you are pressed, you let it be and move for the bonus, if you don't want to follow the lead, you have to sacrifice the same. (I hope it is clear what I mean  )

Such ruling might be possible for any of your desired Dynamics.

[twh]

Antalon, the dynamic environment concept will be used heavily.  Tables and chairs in a room, trees and rocks outdoors, stalagti...stalagmi...stalagmitites in caves, all these will affect combat.  I have other ideas in mind, too, and I'd mention them here except an industrious player might read behind me and I don't want to spoil the surprise.

These things are not to torture the PCs, of course, that's just a perk, but to encourage them to think.  And the best way to encourage this is for the NPCs to act that way, and then to reward the PCs for using their noggins for something other than airbags for blunt instruments.

Dax, I'm confused by the following:
I love the RM Combat system for its realism. But it is (for me) not an action-realism, it is a damage realism. (The Combat Maneuvers shows that it can be introduced.)
What do I mean, an example: Feinting.
The attacker moves to make his opponent think that he is attacking low, but strikes high.
But he sacrifice something (call it OB) to cancel opponents defense (DB).
Such moves are incorporated into the Combat System.
Is this something in RMC that you're referring to?

After reading both your comments and thinking on it some more myself, I think the dynamic combat concept can only be resolved with a MM.  For example, Jones is fighting Smith, and Jones wants to Press Smith backward toward a wall, hoping to pin him in (lose QU from DB).

First, Jones needs to move around Smith a little, by exactly 60 degrees coincidentally, to put Smith directly between Jones and the wall.  Since the adjacent hex where Jones wants to move is not occupied, he may slide over there while maintaining combat with Smith, and taking an OB penalty equal to the % move required for the shift (normally 10% for BMR 50).  Smith may elect to slide with Jones, taking the same OB penalty and effectively canceling Jones's move, or he may stay where he is.  If both move then they just shift one hex without any change in facing.  (Considering initiative, this won't exactly work.  I'm going to have to think about it some more.)

Let's say Smith stays where he is and now Jones has his foe where he wants him.  But, it's the end of the round and a d10 roll is made for a random shift for Jones/Smith: the die roll is an "8" so no movement occurs.

Next round, Jones puts OB 20 into a Press in an attempt to get Smith to back up one hex.  (Thinking while I'm writing: perhaps it would be more consistent with the rest of the combat rules to define a Press in percentages of action for the round.)  The 20 points are a mod to a Routine MM roll--results of 100% or over are mods (by percentage, not points) to Jones's OB, results under 100% are percentage mods to Jones's DB.  This reflects the fact that Jones cannot actually force Smith to back up, he is just making an aggressive move to encourage Smith to back up.  If the MM goes well Jones's OB goes up but if he goofs he has opened himself up to Smith.  Smith may elect to put some of his OB into Standing his ground; this would subtract from Jone's MM roll.

If Smith elects to Give Way and back up one hex (in response to a press or otherwise, like to lead Jones into danger, or just because he's getting whipped) that is treated as a Dodge with the following changes: it is a 110% move (100% Dodge, 10% move), and it is rolled as a medium MM.

This all assumes each foe elects to stay engaged.  If, as another example, Jones (not Pressing) decides not to follow Smith (who has Given Way) then Jones gets no attack, though Smith's DB bonus, if any, would still apply to anyone else in range making an attack.

This all sounds very complicated when written out, like a lot of things in RM, but at the game table would be more like:
     "New round, everyone declare your actions."
     "Jones Presses Smith with 20 points."
     "Smith Stands with 30 points."
Since Jones's Press MM roll may affect his DB, he must roll the MM regardless of who has initiative.  If Smith gets initiative he then gets the benefit of any DB mod from a bad Press, and if his attack results against Jones results in Jones losing his attack then Jones also loses any OB bonus he may have gotten from a good Press roll.

For evenly matched opponents a Press will hardly be worth the effort, and that's intentional.  It should not be easy for someone exercise such control over an opponent.  It will take a strong foe to have the OB to spare to get a high enough maneuver roll to make it worth while.  There will certainly be a point of diminishing returns; after sacrificing OB for a Press, you still need enough OB to be multiplied to good advantage.  In the extreme case, putting 100% OB into a Press serves nothing because even if the max Press result is attained, 150% of OB 0 is still OB 0.

This probably still needs tweaking as I haven't run the numbers yet, and it may boil down to a simpler mechanic more in line with what's already in the rules.

[Arioch]

1. In the upkeep phase of each combat round a die is rolled for each individual combat.  A result of 1-6 on the die roll means those foes shift together one hex in the indicated direction, "1" being the PC's front and going CW from there.  What die is rolled depends on what chance any movement at all is desired: d6 gives 100% chance of shifting each round, d8 gives 75% chance, d10 gives 60% chance, and so forth (rolls above 6 mean no shifting occurs).

IMHO this will only have the effect of drastically raising the number of dice rolls in each round, seriously bogging down combat. You already have to roll for initiative, attack, criticals and manuevers, I think that adding a roll for each combatant's group will make the fight seem more static since each round will take longer to resolve.
Surely fighters move around during combat, but why should this be done randomly?
RM already gives a lot of good reasons to move around and using terrain at your advantage during combat: flanking an enemies gives you bonus to your OB, standing on a higher terrain increase you initiative, you may use terrain to cover yourself and parry missiles, etc...
If you want to make your combats more "dynamics" (seeing fighters move around instead of standing still and picking turns in hitting each other on the head) just stress the importance of these elements!
If you're the GM make your NPC use terrain at their advantage, or manuever to gain the flank of their foe, your players will understand quickly the strategic importance of it!

2. During the round, a foe may attempt to press his attack, pushing his opponent back one hex.  This is not to gain an immediate OB advantage but to gain position, say pushing his opponent into a corner, or off a ledge.  Part of such a strategy would be for the attacker to shift left or right, so he's pushing in the intended direction.  For an average person with BMR 50 that's a 10% move and thus a -10 on his OB; so, I think the attacker should put at least 10 points of his OB into a maneuver to push his opponent back.  Maybe doubling the required minimum to 20 would be sufficient.

I don't see an entry for Conflicting Actions on my copy of RMC Character Law, so I think that this is a RMFRP rule, but it's actually very simple and it fits perfectly what you want to do.
When a character wants to do something and his opponent want to prevent it, both make a roll (using the most appropriate skill) on the MM table (GM choose the difficulty). The one who gets the higher result win.
I use this rule for handling pressing: Fighter A want to press Fighter B, pushing him back an hex, closer to a cliff edge. So he declare a press action with any amount of % he wants. Fighter B doesn't want to be pushed back, so he resist. Both make a MM: if Figher A wins he succed in pushing his opponent (the number on the MM table may also give you a hint on the degree of success).

[Marc R]

You might want to consider using natural attacks.

RMC AL did toss in "Martial Arts: Wrestling" to let you access the grapple table.

Using "Ram/Butt/Bash" as in "I ram my body into them" deal a lot of U crits, which often knock the target back. (Natural attacks will let you buy ranks in that table as say "Body Ram")

The mods for large vs small creatures to knockback will modify results so that large vs small results in a lot of tossing around or pushing back, while small vs large does little.

(Using those CT knockback modification rules, a large horse making a ram attack vs medium humans does an appropriately nasty bowling pin maneuver.)

[Dax]

I hope I can make this clear ...

...

Dax, I'm confused by the following:
I love the RM Combat system for its realism. But it is (for me) not an action-realism, it is a damage realism. (The Combat Maneuvers shows that it can be introduced.)
What do I mean, an example: Feinting.
The attacker moves to make his opponent think that he is attacking low, but strikes high.
But he sacrifice something (call it OB) to cancel opponents defense (DB).
Such moves are incorporated into the Combat System.
Is this something in RMC that you're referring to?

...

Feinting and other Combat Maneuvers aren't part of RMC (yet).
<Advertise for furture RMC products here>
There are feinting rules for RM2.
(I don't know how good these rules are because I didn't play RM much - one of our group just dislike RM and "saved us from playing"  )

But I think feinting is part of a normal combat (and don't need to be introduce as a skill).
Remember one attack roll doesn't mean you are only make one swing; the damage is the result of the one swing that goes through the defense or the sum of all strokes which make contact with the target.

Some systems like RuneQuest simulate combat based on actions: Weapon Attack, Shield Parry, Dodge. Each is a single skill with a percentile chance of success - it feels right.
It is normal that most parry would be done with the shield.

RM gives every combatant an attack value - this is abstract. The combat value (OB) can be used offensiv or defense or something in between (This is IMHO realistic). A shield adds a straight value to the DB. It is rather against the insight that the defense drops dramatically, if you take away the weapon because most parry actions are done with the shield. The trained fighter should still be hard to kill.
But Combat Maneuvers (like the one you try to introduce) help to handle such cases.

With RQ it might be easier to introduce new actions (with or without a new skill), with RM the GM has to think hard how to use the MovememntManeuver Table for similar things properly.
But I like to pay the price because of the damage system.

(With RQ I ask myself if they didn't think of damage effects because there is Healing Magic for everyone or if they introduced Healing Magic for everyone because they couldn't imagine the effect of damage.)

[Balhirath]

Like most other game systems, Rolemaster can and often will slow down as more and more rolls are added, so if you want to have fast dynamic combats, you need to keep things simple.