Tying Movement and Range to a physical attack?

[Sam On Maui]

So, anyone who has played a fighting game before knows that some special attacks are right in front of a player, and some travel a distance across the screen. I'm planning a Samurai Shodown inspired game, and would like to incorporate that into building powers/attacks thematically, but am not sure how to do it.

1. In a fighting game the farther a player is away from the target, the easier it is for the target to block, dodge, whatever. I was thinking the Range modifiers would work here.
2. To help with an element of risk/reward, I'd like it to do more damage if the target is farther away, or less damage if they're close up. I was thinking maybe having it have a Velocity-based modifier like Move Through/Move By.

 

Trick is, I'm not sure how I'd implement that simply. Looking over my 6e Champions Powers book, I know I over think things in terms of how it COULD be... thoughts?

[Surrealone]

You do realize that doing less damage up close and more at range … flies in the face of classical mechanics … wherein a hurled or fired missile has more time for gravity, wind, friction, etc. to act upon it and slow it the longer it's in the air… thereby reducing kinetic energy transfer (aka damage to target) at impact?  I figured I'd ask, since you're basically proposing re-writing the laws of physics in your game … unless, of course, your Samurai Shodown takes place in the vacuum of space outside of any/all measurable forces of gravity.

 

Just a quick sanity check to make sure that's what you're after … before actually trying to tackle doing it.  And, as a reminder, if the above is true for missiles, then you'll likely need to consider doing away with or adjusting gravity effects and the like for certain forms of movement, too -- unless consistency isn't important to the setting.

[Sam On Maui]

I'm wanting to make the change to help emulate video game fighting game mechanics, like Street Fighter, Fatal Fury, Samurai Shodown, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, etc. The increased damage isn't in most of them per se, but rather is a simpler way (I think) to reflect the chances you interrupted/counter-hit someone. In fighting games that often results in juggle/combo states, increased damage, etc. I need to keep it simpler rather than messing with OCV/DCV value because my group is large, hence looking to modify damage.

 

Very much an attempt at emulation, not simulation

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

1: Range modifiers should work just fine. 

 

2: Easiest method would likely to be to have everyone buy enhancements to their ranged attacks with the limitation that they only apply past a certain distance.  For example, Blast 6d6, and Blast +2d6 only against targets more than 8m away. 

If you wanted this to be a universal mechanic, you could also just declare that every -N OCV from range modifiers also confers +X to DC.  Likely a good idea to put some upper bound on it or even scale it back after a point, there's not much you can do with on confirm off a full-screen fireball in most games.  

 

If you're looking for a counter-hit mechanic, you could also assign DC bonuses to whoever wins the dex roll-off for simultaneous attacks. 

[sentry0]

Interesting idea, here's my take:

 

Hadoken:  Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); Increased by Range (8d6 @ 1-20m, 10d6 @ 21-40m, 12d6 @ 41+m; -1/4)

 

It's debatable if it's a limitation or not but I imagine in a martial arts themed campaign there's going to be a lot of up close combat so I would let it ride as a limitation.

[Sam On Maui]

3 minutes ago, sentry0 said:

Interesting idea, here's my take:

 

Hadoken:  Blast 12d6 (60 Active Points); Increased by Range (8d6 @ 1-20m, 10d6 @ 21-40m, 12d6 @ 41+m; -1/4)

 

It's debatable if it's a limitation or not but I imagine in a martial arts themed campaign there's going to be a lot of up close combat so I would let it ride as a limitation.

 

Well, I think the ranged attacks like Hadokens/fireballs would be fine as normal, but that is an interesting idea. I was thinking stuff like Terry Bogard's Burn Knuckle, E Honda's sumo-torpedo thing, Blanka's rolling ball, etc. And certainly, one trick with projectiles if you do them too close it can open you up to retaliation if it doesn't stun/knock down, so that arguably reflects that.

[sentry0]

Just now, Sam On Maui said:

 

Well, I think the ranged attacks like Hadokens/fireballs would be fine as normal, but that is an interesting idea. I was thinking stuff like Terry Bogard's Burn Knuckle, E Honda's sumo-torpedo thing, Blanka's rolling ball, etc. And certainly, one trick with projectiles if you do them too close it can open you up to retaliation if it doesn't stun/knock down, so that arguably reflects that.

 

Oh I see, I thought you were talking about projectiles exclusively...my bad.

 

Those moves are really just stylized move thrus/passing strikes IMO with maybe some extra dice from a HA thrown in.  I would just strictly enforce the acceleration/deceleration rules...that should address your needs.

[Sam On Maui]

2 hours ago, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

1: Range modifiers should work just fine. 

 

2: Easiest method would likely to be to have everyone buy enhancements to their ranged attacks with the limitation that they only apply past a certain distance.  For example, Blast 6d6, and Blast +2d6 only against targets more than 8m away. 

If you wanted this to be a universal mechanic, you could also just declare that every -N OCV from range modifiers also confers +X to DC.  Likely a good idea to put some upper bound on it or even scale it back after a point, there's not much you can do with on confirm off a full-screen fireball in most games.  

 

If you're looking for a counter-hit mechanic, you could also assign DC bonuses to whoever wins the dex roll-off for simultaneous attacks. 

You're speaking my language

 

We've got 8-13 players each night, so we've had to scale back how many rules we implement so we rarely ever DEX-off.

 

For the -N OCV gives +X DC, that's a nice idea. I'll have to think about that. Certainly easier than doing the math for Velocity calculations.

[Duke Bushido]

Neat!

 

Dueling gyrojets.

 

Love it.

 

 

 

[Christopher]

On 12/11/2018 at 1:19 AM, Sam On Maui said:

So, anyone who has played a fighting game before knows that some special attacks are right in front of a player, and some travel a distance across the screen. I'm planning a Samurai Shodown inspired game, and would like to incorporate that into building powers/attacks thematically, but am not sure how to do it. 

1. In a fighting game the farther a player is away from the target, the easier it is for the target to block, dodge, whatever. I was thinking the Range modifiers would work here.
2. To help with an element of risk/reward, I'd like it to do more damage if the target is farther away, or less damage if they're close up. I was thinking maybe having it have a Velocity-based modifier like Move Through/Move By. 

 

Trick is, I'm not sure how I'd implement that simply. Looking over my 6e Champions Powers book, I know I over think things in terms of how it COULD be... thoughts?

The source material is a game. The target material is a RPG. And not every mechanic can survive such a genre/medium transition.

These rules are there specifically because this is a fighting game. A game of reaction/planning. So the enemy reaction time/damage tradeoff works for the player using the maneuver. It is a meaningfull choice he can make.

 

The only comparable meaningfull choice I can think off is a bonus damage/self damage tradeoff. Like the Velocity based maneuvers have.

IIRC, there are actually rules to measure the acceleration over a specific (very short and from a standstill) distance, wich does affect the bonus damage from Velocity based Maneuvers. And the damage you deal relates directly to the damage you take. So that might be the closest match - picking your Speed for a Velocity based maneuver.

 

On 12/11/2018 at 1:25 AM, Surrealone said:

You do realize that doing less damage up close and more at range … flies in the face of classical mechanics … wherein a hurled or fired missile has more time for gravity, wind, friction, etc. to act upon it and slow it the longer it's in the air… thereby reducing kinetic energy transfer (aka damage to target) at impact?

That is not how it works. Missiles accelerate after leaving hte wing of the aircraft, often to speeds way exceeding that of their carrier.

And it becomes more pronounced with Ship based missiles. Or ICBM's. They definitely accelerate a lot from their launch point.

We just do not think about it that way, because the kinetic forces of a missile is usually irrelevant for the damage. A warhead does the damage.

But in this case, he is going for a kinetic impact.

[Surrealone]

40 minutes ago, Christopher said:

That is not how it works. Missiles accelerate after leaving hte wing of the aircraft, often to speeds way exceeding that of their carrier.

And it becomes more pronounced with Ship based missiles. Or ICBM's. They definitely accelerate a lot from their launch point.

We just do not think about it that way, because the kinetic forces of a missile is usually irrelevant for the damage. A warhead does the damage.

But in this case, he is going for a kinetic impact.

Missiles in the context of a Samurai Shodown (like, say arrows, crossbow bolts, thrown knives, shuriken, etc.) are not fired frim the wings of aircraft, they are thrown or launched from muscle-powered weapons and do nothing but decelerate after their release … in normal, Earthlike conditions.

 

Context, sir, is important … and in this case, everything when it comes to relevance.

[Christopher]

7 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

Missiles in the context of a Samurai Shodown (like, say arrows, crossbow bolts, thrown knives, shuriken, etc.) are not fired frim the wings of aircraft, they are thrown or launched from muscle-powered weapons and do nothing but decelerate after their release … in normal, Earthlike conditions.

 

Context, sir, is important … and in this case, everything when it comes to relevance.

Then why did you not provide the proper context for "Missile"?

 

We are talking about the conversion of a fighting game. Last I looked, no human can shoot fireballs from their hands or do most of the stuff in Samurai Showdown. So realism flew out of the window before this thread even started

[Surrealone]

3 minutes ago, Christopher said:

Then why did you not provide the proper context for "Missile"?

 

We are talking about the conversion of a fighting game. Last I looked, no human can shoot fireballs from their hands or do most of the stuff in Samurai Showdown. So realism flew out of the window before this thread even started

The original poster provided the context: 'Shogun Shodown', therefore I did not provide duplicative information.  At the time of my response, there was no indication that this pertained to a fighting game; that came AFTER my response, not before it.

Do you read these in a vacuum or something??

[Sam On Maui]

That's enough guys! No worries, okay?

 

Samurai Shodown (and most fighting games) do not have projectiles that decelerate or suddenly change speeds, although exceptions are out there I'm sure. Generally speaking they're a consistent speed selected by the player at the time of input, and either stop when they impact or go off-screen.

 

Gnome Body had a nice solution I'll be looking into, and I'll be checking the velocity rules later.

[bigbywolfe]

In most fighting games you are less likely to do damage to a character farther away as they have more time to react and either block or dodge the attack. Some character's self-projecting attacks explicitly do MORE damage to nearby characters, like Ken and Ryu's hurricane kick that hits multiple times and thus is stronger versus an adjacent foe than one that is half way across the screen and will only take the last hit.

 

Maybe I'm super out of date with my fighting game knowledge, but I can't think of a single example of this type of move doing more damage if the range is greater. From my POV this just doesn't emulate the type of attack/game you are wanting to emulate.

[Sam On Maui]

Its to discourage purely safe play. I will say that Garou: Mark of the Wolves and some other games encourage aggressive play, which is something I want to emulate. Garou/Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves would even cause counter hits to put hit enemies into juggle-states, something a projectile couldn't take advantage of. Killer Instinct (the new one) explicitly rewards higher risk choices with increased damage potential. Guilty Gear X onward actively penalized defensive play by reducing super meter over time.

[Christopher]

52 minutes ago, Sam On Maui said:

Its to discourage purely safe play. I will say that Garou: Mark of the Wolves and some other games encourage aggressive play, which is something I want to emulate. Garou/Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves would even cause counter hits to put hit enemies into juggle-states, something a projectile couldn't take advantage of. Killer Instinct (the new one) explicitly rewards higher risk choices with increased damage potential. Guilty Gear X onward actively penalized defensive play by reducing super meter over time.

If "more agressive play" is your goal, maybe you should have said so. I can not think of any translation of this mechanic that would work out like that in a RPG.

 

"Playing defensively" in Hero is "aborting to a defensive action".

 

The perhaps best deterent against Defensive Play is high defenses.

Bricks have high defenses, STUN, CON and the like so they do not need to use their SPD 5 to abort phases for defense. They can be on the offensive more or less 5/12 Segments of a turn.

Martial artists and speedsters in turn have to use some of their extra phases to abort to dodge. They lack the defenses to take many solid hits.

[Sam On Maui]

2 hours ago, bigbywolfe said:

In most fighting games you are less likely to do damage to a character farther away as they have more time to react and either block or dodge the attack. Some character's self-projecting attacks explicitly do MORE damage to nearby characters, like Ken and Ryu's hurricane kick that hits multiple times and thus is stronger versus an adjacent foe than one that is half way across the screen and will only take the last hit.

 

One other thing: its one of those arcane engine details from late 90's/early 2000's - some games feature damage scaling so the more hits there are in a combo, the less damage each hit does. Its supposedly an anti-infinite/100% health combo/balance measure. Sorry, completely forgot that detail.

 

1 hour ago, Christopher said:

If "more agressive play" is your goal, maybe you should have said so. I can not think of any translation of this mechanic that would work out like that in a RPG.

 

I'm sorry I didn't spell it out explicitly.

 

"Playing defensively" can take a number of methods, including staying away and pegging people from a distance. It'd be referred to as "zoning" (if projectiles are key to it) or poking/footsies in fighting parlance.

 

Anyhow, while I do appreciate your input, I'm really not sure we're on the same wavelength here? Which is fine/normal, but I'm not looking to get a 100% translation/emulation to HERO. Just "good enough" for my purposes. My group is too big (8-12 people every Saturday) to use Fight!, which is a game made to emulate the fighting game genre, and I can't focus much on 1-on-1 fights as a result. So, inspired by, not equal to.

[Duke Bushido]

Hi, Sam.

 

I've been wanting to wade into this since it started, but haven't had the time.

 

I'm not going to tell you that "this is the way" or anything like that, but we did the same thing several years ago for a short-lived (but thoroughly enjoyed) "Pit Fighter" campaign, inspired by several popular fighting games.

 

Here are some things that worked for us:

 

"Ring outs."

 Establish a maximum combat range.  You don't have to establish an actual arena (though you certainly can, and we often did.  Hence the title of the campaign), but you do need a range that any player moving beyond that range loses by default.  This does most of the work of avoiding the "safe" player.

 

Martial maneuvers.  

 

Build all powers as if they were martial maneuvers.  That is to say analyze them closely and assign bonuses and penalties to OCV and DCV that apply each time that power is used.  Don't be afraid to add "Open" on the really big ones.  "Open" simply means that you are at a default 0 CV until your next Phase.  This works best with an AOE: Cone" or "Line" type attack (and generally, you shouldn't allow other AOEs, as for a tight pit fight, they are really, really ugly) behind which the player can "hide" until his next action.

 

Generally, all ranged attacks should be assumed to land at the start of the attacking character's next Phase.  This provides the best simulation of something like launching Terry's Power Wave (Dude, Terry is my _dude_!  Excellent choice for an example if you wanted to goad me into joining. ).  Technically, he's wide open while the animation scrolls (up to the halfway point of the screen, anyway), but he is still "protected" by hiding behind his ranged attack.  To hit him, you have to get _around_ his attack, either over it or by moving to the side (which is why we found that "AOE: Narrow Cone" works as the idea model, power-wise, for most ranged attacks.)  However, do _not_ use the "Oh, it's AOE, you have to target the hex at DCV 3" rule.  Just ignore that, and target the player as if it were any other ranged attack.

 

Why?

 

For one, the CV adjustments for your opponent's (or your own) previous move are meaningless if you're both shooting hexes.  And frankly, I never liked that part of the rule anyway.   Seriously, though, you just won't get that mix-it-up frantic action feel if you're both knocking down DCV3 hexes.

 

More on ranged attacks:

 

As stated, they should be assumed by default to land 0-phase at the start of the attacker's next Phase, before anything else occurs.  This is a 0-pt Limitation all ranged attacks are assumed to have.  For an Advantage (we did +1, but you have to fit your group), you can build a ranged power that hits "normally."  This works well for characters like Stryker from Ultimate MK3 (also called "spray cheese") who's attack is pretty much unavoidable unless you happen to already _be_ blocking.  When you do allow this, however, I caution you to require at least an OCV penalty that lasts through the character's next Phase.

 

When purchased, all attacks-- ranged in particular-- should be defined as "Low / Sweep", "Mid / Torso," or "High / Head."  For an additional Advantage (we did +1/2, but again-- you have to suit your group), an attack could _also_ be used as "anti-air."  That is, it worked against leaping characters.  Looking back, this might not be important; it depends on the flavor you want your game to have.  Ranged Attacks, however, should be defined, as one of the most critical parts of the source-material feel is sliding under or leaping over a ranged attack.

 

Blocking:

 

We ended up using cards for this.  Players who wanted to block turned over either their  High Block card or their Low Block.  They were Blocking until their next Phase.  The cards were to discourage "oops; I meant..."  sort of situations.  However, if a player had not yet failed a Block, he could switch from High to Low or vice-versa on any Segment, even if he did not have a Phase (it kept him from being a complete sitting duck, and more closely modeled the source material).  However, he could not stop Blocking until his next action Phase.

 

Blocking cost END.  It cost the blocker 1/2 the END the attacker spent on his attack.  This was a late addition, to encourage "mixing it up" and dodging around attacks.  Honestly, you can make it cost whatever END you want; just make sure it costs something.   The player could block as many attacks as his END could afford.  As a side-effect of blocking, each successful attack that was blocked (yeah; you had to go ahead and roll to hit, just for this next part), forced 1/2" Knockback.  (I guess under 6e, it would just be 1".  Remember that Combos gave multiple hits.  (more on combos in a bit).  Additionally, a Blocking character _could_ Set and, depending on the situation, possibly even Brace (though rare) to get a bonus on a counter-attack when he came out of Block.  However, he could not Brace if he had swapped from one Block position to another between Phases).  A character who was Blocking gained +1 OCV per segment he was blocking-- _not_ to be used towards his Block (against which he was taking a penalty, but to launch a counter-attack immediately upon leaving Block.  However, he had to be blocking for more than one of his consecutive Phases to get this bonus.  Hard to do, and risky, but there was a pretty nice pay-off for managing.  This also applied for Charge moves (more below).

 

 

 

Guard Crush:

 

So, to discourage too much "playing it safe," we implemented Ring Out, Block costs END, and Block moves you backwards.  Every successful Block forced a -1 Penalty (in addition to the rulebook penalties) on the next Block Roll.  Any Blocking Character who succeeded and then failed (had to be both.  Starting with a fail meant you didn't block fast enough) had been Guard Crushed.  Any Character who had been Guard Crushed was _not_ Stunned, but was immediately out of Block and was a zero CV until his next Phase.  Any Set, Brace, or "Charge" (more in a moment) he had accumulated were gone.  

 

Charge:

 

One of the popular and genre-appropriate limitations for attacks was "Charge."  Essentially, this is simply the Limitation "Extra Time," bought by Segment.  The move was "charged" by blocking (and you know-- Ford Focusing his Kia or something like that. )  a certain number of Phases before being able to use the attack.  The Player would first define if it was simply a "Charge" move (any blocking would work.  Think Blanka's Roll or Balrog's Turn-around punch or Honda's Hairpedo) or if it had to be a _specific_ charge: High Or Low, like Terry Bogard's Rising Tackle (Charge: Low Charge) or half the original line-up from Eternal Champions.  The more Segment's required, the better the bonus.  If it was a _specific_ charge, the bonus was a little bit higher.  Once "fully charged," the Character had to either use the Power immediately or continue to Charge it.  He could not take other actions and then use a previously-charged attack.

 

 

Countermoves:

 

As mentioned under Block, a Character could at any time come directly out of block with an OCV bonus on any counter-attack he wished to launch.  Further, he could build a specific Countermove.  The primary element in a Counter move was a 15-point Phase.  Yes: He can raise his speed for 10 (oh, sorry; I use a much older edition than most people on this board; you may have to translate forward to apply this to 6e) and get an additional Phase every single Turn, that he can just hold.  And you're right.  And to be honest, I don't remember why we charged 15, but there was a good reason.  (Forgive me; it's been like twenty years ago)  At any rate, this power was available immediately, like any Held Action-- oh yeah; I remember-- because you could launch it in the middle of someone else's action.  Very handy for Combo Breaking, and for Combos.  Define the specific "countermove" attack or a tightly-grouped two-or-three attack multipower.  Treat "countermove" as a 15-pt element to that power or multipower (control cost only).  Add Skill levels as additional elements, if desired.  Countermoves got expensive _really_ fast, and were quite popular with the "Charge" limitation (for obvious reasons) Using a Countermove did not affect any Held Action you may have accumulated over the course of the Turn.

 

To use a countermove, treat as a Block-- that is, it's an OCV-OCV contest.  If you win, you successfully hit with your counter; enjoy.

 

Combos:

 

one of the things we had to do to really get the feel was get rid of that "an attack action ends your Phase" rule.  This allowed for Combos.  Any successful attack granted the attacker a +1 OCV his next attack against that opponent, so long as it was immediate-- i.e., chained as in a combo.  Your Countermove "extra Phase" could be used to start a Combo, but you couldn't add it after a regular Phase (we allowed that at first, but it became too war-gamey with meticulous planning slowing things down).  Held actions could also be used.  It could get pretty ugly pretty fast: open with a half-phase countermove, use the second half for a strike, then two more on a held-action then two more on your actual Phase.....  And of course, _no one_ wanted to commit simply because being successfully countermoved, or Blocked, or simply missing with any attack in the Combo left you Open (DCV 0 until your next Phase).  If you had a Held Action, you could Abort it to Block, or lose it all together.  Unless the countermove had a Juggle Element (expensive!  Think Mortal Kombat Uppercut).  If it had a Juggle Element, you just didn't have a Held Action anymore.

 

One thing to remember:   Each successful attack in a combo suffered reduced damage.  Each strike after the first lost 1/2 a DC, cumulative.  This was to both keep players from dumping two hundred points into the Flawless Combo, and to more accurately simulate the source material.  

 

Partly as balm for the reducing damage, and partly to make Combos viable, all Combo strikes after the second are 1/2 END for that Combo.

 

Now I have to move aside to say this:

 

Countermove vs combo:

 

One of the nastiest things in the Pit Fighter campaign (glorious though it was! ) was counter moving near the end of a long combo.

 

As noted, each successful attack in a combo granted a _cumulative_ +1 to the next attack, in addition to whatever OCV bonuses might be built into the individual maneuvers themselves (which were _not_ cumulative, but applied at the time of that strike).  Let's just say that you're executing a ten-strike combo on an opponent and your on move 9, which means you're at +8 for your combo bonus and you're going into the Finisher, which you've built with a +4 OCV, giving you a total of +12 right now--

 

and you get countered.  Somehow, you lose (as noted, Countermoves are usually pretty pricey, as most folks dump a lot of Skill Levels into them.  They tend to have a lot of Limitations, too).  You are now at the _lower_ of 0 DCV _or_ your current DCV minus your current OCV Bonus.  Yes; a really long combo can really bite you if it gets screwed up.

 

This wasn't even so much about the source material as-- again-- a deterrent against building a twenty-six-hit Flawless Combo.

 

 

More on Combos:

 

To keep things interesting and cinematic, require that all successful hits automatically do 1/2" Knockback.  Thus, you can get a 2-hit combo without too much trouble.  You will need to add an element-- a movement element or a range element-- to get the next couple of hits.   Remember that adding a movement element means that maneuver takes the full segment.  Adding a Range element (like a weapon or an inch of Stretching) does not: you can still get two hits in the next segment (if you have one).  However, your opponent will again be an inch away.  With a movement Element, you're still adjacent.  With a staff, you can't reach him any longer.  

 

Elements for maneuvers: 

 

Juggle: converts knock back or knock down into knock _up_.  Great for keeping combos going, as the target _sort_ of moves away from you, but he's coming right back.

Opponent still moves back, but at 1/2 the distance the dice indicate, and will not land until the end of the next segment (keeping him closer to you, and at a disadvantage.

 

Combo: implies that this maneuver can be begun from a wide number of positions or stances, and thus can be flowed into from a previous maneuver.  Short version: Any maneuver can start a combo.  Any maneuver with this 1-point element can be used to keep the combo going.

 

Finisher: This maneuver can be used whenever you want, of course, but it works as the Combo Element above, _and_ does double-Knockback based on the full damage dice of the attack (in spite of the mandatory damage reduction).

 

 

There were a few more, but it's your game; spice it how you like.

 

Once thing that we _very_ quickly realized was important:

 

Have your players pre-map all their combos.  ALL OF THEM!  Put them on cards.  When they are ready to play a combo, they must first drop that card, that play it as it reads.

 

We learned this by noticing just how quickly combos went to a pick-and-choose numbers-crunching, okay, I hit that time so I'm going to combo in another move.  Oh; I hit again.  Well I'll combo in another move-----"

 

You know: the "play it safe" thing that just flies all in the face of the feel of the source material.

 

There was so much more stuff....    We had talked once about possibly writing up an actual  "Pit Figher" genre book, but that kind of energy just doesn't stay with you at my age....

 

 

Any way, I hope some of this helps, and I hope you have at least one-tenth as much fun with this as we did.  Man that was an awesome game.
 

 

 

 

Duke

 

 

 

 

[Sam On Maui]

Wow... what a post! O_O

 

I'll have to copy all this down for later and look it over. I'd happily try this for a small group, but I think ours is too big to really do this, and only a few of us would really want a full-on emulation like this. But it sounds awesome! O_O

[bigbywolfe]

6 hours ago, Sam On Maui said:

Its to discourage purely safe play. I will say that Garou: Mark of the Wolves and some other games encourage aggressive play, which is something I want to emulate. Garou/Fatal Fury: Mark of the Wolves would even cause counter hits to put hit enemies into juggle-states, something a projectile couldn't take advantage of. Killer Instinct (the new one) explicitly rewards higher risk choices with increased damage potential. Guilty Gear X onward actively penalized defensive play by reducing super meter over time.

This seems like it would Encourage safe play, not discourage it. I can stay as far away as possible and am rewarded by having my "dash-attacks" do even more damage than normal? Yeah, I'm pretty much always going to try to stay at range, dash in for the damage bonus, and then get the heck out of dodge retreating back to the relative safety of not being toe-to-toe with someone.

I think I understand what you are trying to avoid, I just don't see how this solves the perceived problem.

[Sam On Maui]

1 minute ago, bigbywolfe said:

This seems like it would Encourage safe play, not discourage it. I can stay as far away as possible and am rewarded by having my "dash-attacks" do even more damage than normal? Yeah, I'm pretty much always going to try to stay at range, dash in for the damage bonus, and then get the heck out of dodge retreating back to the relative safety of not being toe-to-toe with someone.

I think I understand what you are trying to avoid, I just don't see how this solves the perceived problem.

If you're in close you've got more tools at your disposal ranging from throws, sweeps, etc, giving you more options to press your advantage. If you dash back out then you'd be open to be charged at yourself if you didn't stun them. At least that's the theory. And, if I use Gnome's suggestion, you'd be at full OCV after, unlike the Dash Attack.

[Killer Shrike]

Premise: either you adapt the source material to the existing game system and accept that some resolutions will play out differently using that system than they would in the source material, OR you adapt the existing game system to match the source material and accept that some resolutions will play out differently than they normally would when using the unmodified version of the game system in the interests of matching the source material.

 

It sounds like you want to do the later, adapt the game system to match the source material.

 

When I do projects like this, adapting ideas to a game system or vice versa, I first make a bullet point list of certain ideas that I want to cover to capture the "feel" I'm going for. Too few and its not worth bothering with, too many and maybe I'm overreaching or need to refine my scope a bit. Then I go down the list and for each bullet point I jot down how I think the existing system naturally handles that idea or could be bent to do so, if relevant. Any remaining bullet points that resist easy solution I then group into two categories...a) those that directly contradict or "go against the grain" of the game system in question and b) those that simply fall into a gap in the game system's coverage or are outside the scope of what the game system attempts to deal with.

 

Those bullet points that fall into a rules gap are usually simple to solve by just bolting on some custom mechanics. Those that directly go against the nature of the game system are trickier; too many of them and its a clear indicator that the game system is the wrong choice for the source material, one or two and maybe it can be worked around or possibly I might just decide to live without the problematic ideas the bullet points represent and drop them from the adaptation or tweak to a more solvable analogue. However, I might decide to hack the game system to work differently to allow for the ideas represented by the problematic bullet points.

 

 

Moving into this specific project...I played street fighter style fighter games a long time ago in the 80's and through the mid 90's, but they were never my favorite. I preferred the Tekken / Virtua Fighter / Soul Edge / Soul Caliber style of 3D fighter much more, and stopped playing that sort of game entirely sometime after the PS2 era because I stopped buying consoles and going to arcades.

 

 

With that preamble and disclaimer out of the way, if I were to make a punch list of bullet points that I would want to capture in an arcade fighter RPG it might look something like this:

 

• combos
• power meter of some kind; possibly tied to combo
• must follow block abilities
• every fighter should have at least one finisher move and / or signature ability 

 

 

 

If I were going to do this using the Hero System, I would consider...what feature of the Hero System lends itself particularly well to doing this as opposed to using some other game system? And are there any official or fan-based resources available for the Hero System that already cover what I'm looking to do?

 

The answer to these two questions is...custom Martial Maneuvers and Powers, and in 6e*, the Hero System Martial Arts (HSMA6e) book. In addition to offering a plethora of existing martial arts "styles"...aka packages of maneuvers and related abilities...it also offers a bunch of examples of made up styles and guidance to make your own made up styles (perfect for wackier street fighters), and of course Chapter 2 starts off with a subsystem to build custom maneuvers allowing unusual styles and signature moves to be easily defined.

 

*In earlier editions of the game, Ninja Hero, Ultimate Martial Artist, etc offered basically the same content. 

 

If you want something beyond maneuver based martial arts, it also offers copious guidance and write ups for abilities using the Powers rules. It also has deep rules coverage assessing how existing rules can be applied or reinterpreted from the perspective of a martial arts focused game, and extending the rules to cover certain concepts such as combos (which this book refers to more generally as "sequence attacks"). It also has a one-column write up on "video game martial arts" in the "martial arts subgenre" section.

 

So, personally, I would sit down with HSMA6e and write out 8-10 characters modeling street fighter type archetypes, or just direct conversions of existing IP characters from my favorite fighter game using the resources available in HSMA6e, and see where that got me. Do the characters match my expectations? If I run a few simulated fights using them am I able to capture the feel I'm looking for?

 

I kind of already know from past experience that all my bullet points except for one would be easily covered using the content in HSMA6e...but a power meter sort of build up mechanic as found in some fighter games would be a gap in coverage...HSMA6e has write ups for a "power up" or "rage meter" effect that fills a END reserve that can then be used to fuel certain abilities which is pretty close to the idea and would work for some characters, but doesn't quite do it for me as a general mechanic...however I wrote up a custom "Threshold" framework many years ago (http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHero/ThresholdFramework.aspx) to model abilities tied to a build-up or meter type mechanic and I would use that to cover the "power meter of some kind" bullet point.

 

So...in summary...I would strongly recommend you check out HSMA6e first and model some characters and just note any gaps or things you feel are missing before starting to tweak / rules patch / homebrew. I'm pretty sure you'll find that nearly everything you want has already been covered in HSMA6e.