Flavour in Combat over mechanics

[Photon1966]

The problem I seem to face is bringing out the elements of martials arts in a way that isn't simple number crunching. It has worked a bit with one player where I had a teacher show him a New maneuver called Soaring Lark Strike, basically a Move and an attack, with damaged uped by the movement. But overall I just don't seem to be getting the flavour of the game, just the mechanics.

 

Any thoughts on how to bring in more of the flavour and less of I bought two levels only for location hits so I always attack upper shots.

[sbarron]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

Here is a thread that discusses this...

 

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23250&highlight=combat+flavor

 

For me, I think you just need to focus on the role-play. Make the players announce the name of the move they are doing. Don't let them say "I hit him with my Offensive strike - 8d6." Make them say, "I rush forward to unleash my dreaded Soaring Lark Strike!" Or he's not that lively, maybe "I use my Soaring Lark Strike."

 

It is hard to get away from the numbers. Hero makes all of the powers that supers purchase have a "Name" now for that very reason. 10d6 EB is just a number. Focused Plasma Blast (10d6 EB) puts the focus on the image of the attack, and less on the numbers.

 

It sounds like you're on the right track with the teacher - student thing. You just need more of the same. Hope this helps.

[Barwickian]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

I think your idea of naming particular attacks is a good one, though it seems to fit the style of oriental martial arts better than western ones (Tallhoffer's 'murder blow' for the longsword is the only example I can think of).

 

More generally, I encourage players to describe their attack dramatically, rather than by the rules - at least initially. If they know the rules they want to use, they can add them after; if not, it's my job to interpret.

 

Note that this is a particularly useful technique when introducing new players (and it's system-independent).

 

Frex:

 

Experienced player: "I jab my sword towards his eyes, ready to pull back if he counter-attacks. Basically, I'm putting a two levels into a head shot, and the rest in defence."

 

He rolls his dice.

 

Me: "OK, he steps sideways out of the way and flicks his shield upwards to block."

 

Player: "Then I flick my sword tip downwards in an arc to slash his legs."

 

Me: "Hang on - before you do, you notice his eyes flick down and you see a backhand slash coming in at your stomach..."

 

Player: "I abort the slash and pull back to parry..."

 

Note that in this case, the player was trying to attack out of turn. I could have simply told him that, but dramatically, it's better to go with the flow.

 

Consider an inexperienced player. In general, they either go roughly half-attack, half-defence, or all-out attack. You might get something like:

 

Player: "I hit him with everything I've got."

 

Me: "OK. Do you want to really wind up a strong shot - that'll mean you don't hit him right now - or strike as strong as you can right now?"

 

Player: "No, I want to hit him now."

 

Dice are rolled.

 

"OK, your attack's pretty obvious, and he blocks with his shield, but he obviously wasn't expected something quiet that strong - your blow slams his shield into his arm and it staggers him for a moment."

 

Note that for an experienced player, I'd expect him to roll the dice and tell me what level of DCV he hits. For an inexperienced player, I'll do the maths.

 

For this to work, it's important to encourage the players to be descriptive. There are two ways to do this. First, be descriptive yourself; if you describe the action mechanically, so will your players. The second way is to reward creativity: give small bonuses for inventive or well-described attacks. +1 OCV or DCV isn't too unbalancing, but it's worthwhile striving for if you're a player.

 

There are a couple of problems to be aware of. The first is description burn-out: in a long combat, you can simply become reduced to "he blocks with his shield", "he steps aside" or "he parries with his sword". This happens far, far quicker if you're doing all the description (that's why it's important your players be descriptive - it gives you something to bounce off).

 

The other problem I've encountered is the experienced player brought up in the mechanical tradition. It's hard for them to break out of the mechanistic approach. I've found the best approach is simply to be blunt: ask them to describe the attack they're giving you the numbers for. They're usually a little clumsy at first, but it doesn't take long before they catch the drift - especially if you're giving out little rewards for good description.

 

Before you know it, all your players are making unusual, descriptive attacks, and you're reading up on the rules for dirty tricks and making judgement calls left, right and centre.

 

I have to add that it does help to have some understanding of combat. I've done some judo and karate, and although I've never wielded a sword, I'm lucky enough to live close to the Royal Armouries Museum in Leeds, where they have regular informative demonstrations and everything from 12th century tournament swordsmanship to Victorian cavalry tactics.

 

The web, the library and the bookshop are your friends here. Do a little reading about the fighting styles you're trying to portray. Find out how a knife-fighter works. Make yourself aware that two-handed sword isn't the slow, brutal technique we used to imagine, but fast, subtle and stylish.

 

For instance, I studied wado-ryu karate; it's quite a formal style, but reasonably flexible. As with most karate, in combat the mid-range punches are your most reliable attack, backed up with some quick kicks (round-house and front kicks are good). Leave the flash crescent kicks and spinning kicks for show; they're too damned obvious in competitive fighting.

 

I once fought someone who'd studied wing chung kung fu. This is a really close-in, lightning fast style, which values speed over power. She kept stepping inside my effective range and pelting me with knees and elbows; my only defence was to keep moving back and trying to hit with my slower, more powerful attacks.

 

I also fought someone who'd studied some older, more ritualistic form of kung fu. Not sure what style, but he kept his wide, long stance even in sparring. It meant he couldn't move his legs quickly. His kicks, if they'd landed, would have gained him winning points, because they were so powerful - but what actually happened is that I could step in and crotch-kick him and he couldn't do a thing about it.

 

Both examples illustrate the same important point: each style has its 'comfort zone'. I was used to medium-range fighting. The wing chung woman worked closer than my comfort zone. The ritual guy was used to long-range fighting; I worked inside his comfort zone.

 

This applies to most form of hand-to-hand combat, armed or unarmed. Dagger against sword? The dagger-fighter can win - but only if he gets up close and personal.

 

In an RPG, the best descriptive combat I've ever been involved in was when I was a player in a Traveller game at a convention. One of the other players had considerable military experience. I suspect, though I don't know for sure, that he'd been US Special Forces before the head wound. He did admit, over cigars and brandy with me and a few others (including C&S creator Ed Simbalist), to 'having done the training'.

 

Anyhows, when the pirate raiders attacked the village we were protecting, he took control: they're shooting from those bushes over there; three of you stay here, and just keep shooting at the bushes. Doesn't matter if you can't see anything, just keep bullets going into the bushes. It'll give them something to think about. The rest of you, come with me: we're going to work our way behind them while they're pinned down.

 

His tactics enabled us to capture a pirate howitzer - and, when one of the pirate ships landed in the middle of the village, his character went forward, and he began to direct the fire - in full, military technical language. We didn't understand a word of it (including, I suspect, the GM). But, for a moment, I wasn't playing an RPG: I was there.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

It's hard to get away from game mechanics ... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. One of the things that mechanics do is give us all a specific way of telling each other what our characters are doing, without (much of) a chance of misunderstanding. Take this phrase:

 

"I'm gonna run up and plow into the guy."

 

That is, most likely, a Move-Through ... but it could just be a half-move and strike. It could be a full-move-based Martial Arts attack. It could be a Move-By (though unlikely). However, if the player simply says,

 

"I'm gonna do a Move-Through on the guy."

 

You know exactly what's going on. In many cases, the correct thing for the GM to do is simply ask back what he thinks is going on ("Moving through?" "Yep.") but that often makes players just cut out the middle steps and say their maneuver in game mechanics. This is more likely in games where players aren't familiar with the mechanics of the game (to quote one of my players, "I'll tell you what I do, you tell me what dice to roll.")

 

When I'm playing, I'll often combine the two. "I'm going to jump off the ledge, grab the rope, and try to swing down at him feet-first for a Move-Through" or "I duck down, then attack with my Offensive Strike, the Machine Gun Uppercut!" or "I'm going on the defensive ... shifting my levels to one OCV, two DCV." So on, so forth.

[UltraRob]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

To break things down a little more...

 

Simple Combat Bonus Rubrick

 

 

Level of Description: 1

 

Player uses Mechanical Attack Names or very Simple Description.

 

Examples:

“I punch him.â€

“I use my martial strike.â€

“I fire my energy blast.â€

 

Possible Bonuses: 0 OCV/0 DCV/0 DC

 

 

Level of Description: 2

 

Player makes moderate effort to use descriptive combat and/or uses descriptive attack names.

 

Examples:

“I use my Three Dogs Biting attack on him!â€

“I drop to the ground and do a sweep attack.â€

“I bring my arms together, smile, and fire my god-bolts.â€

 

Possible Bonuses: +1 OCV/ +1 DCV / +1 DC (whatever is most appropriate)

 

 

Level of Description: 3

 

Player makes serious effort to use descriptive combat, and makes regular use of descriptive terms instead of mechanical terms. Player makes use of environmental elements as part of combat.

 

Examples:

“I leap up into the air, using my Three Dogs Biting attack to knock him back into the firepit so I can watch him scream.â€

“I jump over the table, do a double roll on the ground and bring my leg around to sweep him.â€

“I throw an apple up in the air to distract him, then dive to the side letting lose with my god-bolts.â€

 

Possible Bonuses: +2 OCV / +2 DCV / +2 DC (whatever is most appropriate)

 

 

Level of Description: 4

 

Player uses descriptive combat terms and descriptive terms for powers, player uses environmental elements in combat and also shows extreme cleverness or creativity in their combat moves.

 

Examples:

“Saying “you look a little under-doneâ€, I leap up into the air and use my Three Dogs Biting attack to hit him six times a second into the chest, knocking him back into the firepit and listen to him scream with satisfaction.â€

“I jump over the table, making sure not to disturb anything else so I don’t make the Duke mad, and then do a double roll on the ground and bring my leg to do a sweep on the guy while getting ready to lunge forward for an elbow strike to the chest for my next move.â€

“I snatch an apple from the table and throw it at his head since I know he’ll instinctively focus on it while I dive to the side and shoot him in the upper torso with my god-bolts while yelling “let’s see how you like this one boy scout!â€â€

 

Bonuses: +3 OCV/ +3 DCV / +3 DC (whatever is most appropriate)

 

 

Rob

[NuSoardGraphite]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

Giving out bonuses for use of descriptive license in combat is fine, but be careful. Roleplayers are naturally an imaginative lot, and when they find out something is beneficial to them they will take it to its logical (and sometimes illogical) extreme.

 

Also, be wary of individuals like myself and my old roleplaying group. We constantly watched anime and wuxia movies. When we weren't roleplaying or watching anime, we played videogames (Rpg's and Fighting games). Then we started playing a new game from White Wolf called Exalted. The combat mechanics in that game revolved around imaginative descriptions of one's actions in combat and gave generous bonuses to those who engaged in said activity.

Poor Blackrose had no idea what he was getting into with us playing that game. We were hopping on peoples heads, bouncing off walls to add velocity to our attacks. Using sweeps and roundhouse kicks and thrust kick combos to knock opponents into walls and barriers. Attacking in mid somersault. And never, ever forget to strike a pose after a particularly effective combo attack. The bonuses were simply rolling in.

 

So be careful on how much and how often you give these bonuses out. Definately award them when merited, but don't make it so easy that every action gets a bonus...unless of course your players are that good with their descriptions.

Also don't forget to have the occasional opponent show them up and get bigger bonuses...just to remind them that they aren't the only one's with imagination.

[tkdguy]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

I like it when people describe their combat maneuvers in detail. It sounds better than "I punch him." Of course, people don't always think in terms of "I do a spin kick to the side of my opponent's head," especially if they're not martial artists in real life. Keep in mind martial artists simply describe their attacks as punch/kick because they're not very descriptive by nature. I just try to encourge them and set an example for them.

[UltraRob]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

Giving out bonuses for use of descriptive license in combat is fine' date=' but [i']be careful[/i]. Roleplayers are naturally an imaginative lot, and when they find out something is beneficial to them they will take it to its logical (and sometimes illogical) extreme.

 

It depends on the group. I designed that little rubrick off the top of my head to be used with a group that is just not putting any effort into it or is pretty mediocre at it. (Like my group tends to be, not bad, just not very imaginative.) If you have a group likes yours that is majorly into it, then the GM would be better just winging it and giving limited bonuses when needed. The other reason I designed this rubrick was that I think it's best to make things very clear how much description will be worth what bonus. As a teacher I know the benefits of being able to look at a chart when an arguement comes up and say "here, this is my criteria". It can stop a raging mother at 20 paces, cold.

 

I am actually a person who is lukewarm on the whole combat bonus idea, mostly because the GM is then obligated to be better than the PCs at it if they want their villians to win. (Especially in those systems where to have any decent bonus a character MUST be descriptive.) It's a problem I ran into once when I ran a campaign based around magical dueling where the characters were wandering a pokemon-ish version of ancient China learning new magic symbols for a free-flow magic system that was essentially a stripped down homebrew CCG. My players were better at the CCG thing than I was, so once they started to develop some real combos the game started to fall appart because I found I was UNABLE to provide them with real challenges due to my own skill level, as opposed to the levels of my villians. (Ironically enough the group still wishes I'd continue the game since they loved it to pieces...)

After that game, I swore I would never run a system where my own skill was the major determinant of whether the opponents would be tough or not.

 

That said, I see nothing wrong with rewarding players bonuses for cool moves and creativity like you guys displayed, just basing it around such an open based system is too much. One other option for using this Rubrick style system I did think of was to reward the players "cool move points" instead of combat bonuses which they could later cash in for XPs at some predetermined ratio. Anything to reward players and encourage combat descriptiveness.

 

Rob

[UltraRob]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

I like it when people describe their combat maneuvers in detail. It sounds better than "I punch him." Of course' date=' people don't always think in terms of "I do a spin kick to the side of my opponent's head," especially if they're not martial artists in real life. Keep in mind martial artists simply describe their attacks as punch/kick because they're not very descriptive by nature. I just try to encourge them and set an example for them.[/quote']

 

Yeah, most of the "cool move names" you read about when it comes to martial arts are actually names handed down from the founders of the various arts. They named those moves so that when training the students they could specify what type of punch, or even specific movements they wanted the students to do. IIRC, Shaolin Kung-Fu had like 72 different "moves", but they're all just variations of the basics with slightly different hand/foot/body positions.

An amusing thing I have noticed as a reader of actual Chinese WuXia fiction is that the authors of such books are actually very un-descriptive of combat! When two characters face off, the opening moves will be described, then we'll get a line like "they exchanged 500 tricks (moves), neither able to get the advantage" and that will be followed by descriptive combat of them unleashing their really special moves which will lead to the end of the fight. Since fights really are a visual thing, the authors are full well aware that explaining the whole fight would be boring, so they condense it down as best they can and focus on the elements surrounding the fight rather than the fights themselves. WuXia novels are amazing for many things, but learning descriptive fighting styles is not one of them.

 

Rob

[Black Rose]

Re: Flavour in Combat over mechanics

 

Giving out bonuses for use of descriptive license in combat is fine' date=' but [i']be careful[/i]. Roleplayers are naturally an imaginative lot, and when they find out something is beneficial to them they will take it to its logical (and sometimes illogical) extreme.

 

Also, be wary of individuals like myself and my old roleplaying group. We constantly watched anime and wuxia movies. When we weren't roleplaying or watching anime, we played videogames (Rpg's and Fighting games). Then we started playing a new game from White Wolf called Exalted. The combat mechanics in that game revolved around imaginative descriptions of one's actions in combat and gave generous bonuses to those who engaged in said activity.

Poor Blackrose had no idea what he was getting into with us playing that game. We were hopping on peoples heads, bouncing off walls to add velocity to our attacks. Using sweeps and roundhouse kicks and thrust kick combos to knock opponents into walls and barriers. Attacking in mid somersault. And never, ever forget to strike a pose after a particularly effective combo attack. The bonuses were simply rolling in.

 

So be careful on how much and how often you give these bonuses out. Definately award them when merited, but don't make it so easy that every action gets a bonus...unless of course your players are that good with their descriptions.

Also don't forget to have the occasional opponent show them up and get bigger bonuses...just to remind them that they aren't the only one's with imagination.

 

Yeah, I really got played in that game. I pointed out to everyone, as a way of showing that Exalted really understood the anime/kung fu fan/gamer mindset, that you could get bonuses to your maneuvers by being uber descriptive. Big mistake: anyone will become Robert Howard if it gets them pluses to hit.

 

My advice? Based on the player - and let everyone know it will be different for each of them - determine what you consider their "standard description level". Anytime they go above this level, give out bonuses. When they reach a new standard, adjust upward; no longer is the old standby good enough. If you think a player has really done well at portraying a particular maneuver several times (thrown knives, sword disarms, acrobatic dodges, whatever) then they earn XP towards some CSL/PSLs. Thus there is a reward for not only being descriptive, but having a schtick - assuming that's your thing in your games.