Grappling-based combat system

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

AsenRG

#FuckWotC #PlayNonDnDGames
Joined
Apr 28, 2018
Messages
17,242
Reaction score
22,509
Something I've been working on lately is my own combat system. Because of course Mythras and TRoS ain't enough...:thumbsup:

However, I want to base it on a slightly different principle from most systems out there.

See, most systems basically - in their basic mechanic - are based on striking. You attack, you hit or miss, if you hit, you determine effect, which might range from negligible at the moment to ending the fight. Then whoever acts next may take a turn.
But I want to base it on grappling. Or if you prefer, on "fencing from the bind".

See, the above is not quite a good representation of any kind of grappling (and I'd argue that this is exactly why it's so hard to make a decent grappling system). You act to gain an advantage that impedes the other party from both fighting back (efficiently, or at all*), and when you're happy with it, you use that advantage - and thus the damage-dealing might begin practically unopposed.
Similarly, in fencing you might engage the enemy's blade by using a combination of pressure, threatening damaging actions and footwork - and then, once it's out of position, you can drive your own weapon in. Practically unopposed, as above.


Thing is, I have to kinda simplify it, or I'd have to publish a grappling manual to go with the rulebook as well...:grin:
I'm thinking of basing it on a Clear-Control-Counter methodology.
If you don't know what this is, here's an article about it (courtesy of Google, I don't know these guys and had not visited their site until today):

But I'm not quite happy with this, either - though I've already got some ideas, which include situations under Clear.

So, for example, in the Clear you'd have Manoeuvre, Bind/Hook, Feint, Push, Beat, Grab, Strike/Counter, Parry/Block, Sweep, and Pull/Lift Weapon.

As soon as you establish contact (not necessarily via grabbing), you get to the Control phase, which offers other options: all of the above (except Grab can also be Switch/Improve Grab, and Manoeuvre gives you a huge advantage to other actions) and Unbalance, Lock/Strangle/Break, Disarm, Pummell/Fight for advantage, Break Structural Alignment.
And then, when you're confident in your advantage, you get to the part where your typical RPG system has you doing damage. But this time, you only get the Margin of success of your last action and the combined effects of your previous attempts. However, other than that, only raw physical ability (including weight) and weapons can help your damage. Well, that and good power generation, but I'm not sure whether this is going to be different from the stats. (Depends on what system I end up using, I guess).

But the goal is that a strong and heavy guy doesn't need to land a very good shot to do the same damage most of us would deliver (apologies to all the fitness experts and martial artists on the board:tongue:)! However, he might well be unable to do that if someone ties him up as a pretzel.
(As Geoff Thompson recounts in one of his books, it happened repeatedly to him after joining a wrestling club...including by people who were several stones lighter. And that's not a guy who's weak, or inexperienced. Granted, there were quite a few competitors in said club).

And then, when you get to Counter - which might happen from either Clear (less likely) or Control, but is supposed to happen from Control - you get Pin, Maim, Strangle, Break, Pound, Fall and Shank. Which, ideally, should also allow you to resist some of the effects - unless you've got a condition which prevents that.

So...anyone got other ideas? And would anyone - other than me, that is - think it's worth the effort of splitting it so many ways:grin:?
Let me just add that you'd have as many actions in a round as you have free, usable limbs. Yes, that means you can do more actions while on the ground, and explains why someone with higher Dexterity has more actions - being able to act with two hands and a foot at the same time would be a huge advantage:gunslinger:!

...or, basically, I could as well have a much simpler system (say, Cepheus Engine) which splits Melee between not weapons and unarmed, but between Clear, Control and Counter. A very good success on the Clear stage would get you straight to Counter stage, and an exceptional one would be worth a bonus.
And then I say "describe the effects however you want to" and call it a day:devil:. But it wouldn't be nearly as fun to dabble in!

*Someone who's out of balance simply can't fight back unless he knows how to use that state or has a blade/gun.
Someone who's next to a wall, with his hands crossed at the elbows in front of him and pointing to the side, his postural alignment broken and his balance compromised...has a lot of hurt incoming if the other guy is bad-intentioned. Or has a huge penalty to resist intimidation...which only increases, the more experienced he is. OK, maybe that's simply a Pin in standing position!
And you can get that under the above system in about three rounds, maybe even less. Granted, it requires that people fail all of their resist rolls, so not bloody likely unless there's an extreme skill difference.
 
Have you looked at GURPS Technical Grappling?

Anyhow, it's an interesting idea and could be applied to group strategy as well.
 
Have you looked at GURPS Technical Grappling?

Anyhow, it's an interesting idea and could be applied to group strategy as well.
Yes, and the other works from the same author, but it's not quite there yet, IMO:thumbsup:. Basically, it's hanging the same approach on a system based on striking, while I'm looking for the opposite.

Have you considered that grappling shouldn't be done RPG styles?
No. Why:grin:?
 
I definitely like the idea of imagining how you might structure combat in an RPG looking through a default grappling lens instead of the more typical striking lens, and building from there. It leads to different abstractions. From a game-y perspective I like the tension that gambling can add to a contest. Something like, anyone can attempt to make that decisive blow/choke/whatever just straight up, with a Hail Mary-like level of probability. The more reliable way is, as you propose, through accumulating some measure of control. The gambling bit, I imagine, is in how the one in control could possibly spend it to increase the likelihood of making their decisive maneuver, balanced against the desire to maintain the upper hand of maintaining the control. Like, in vague pseudo-rules... you have managed to obtain 6 "control" during a fight and can blow it all to make your all-out attempt, and if the opponent is still surviving that, it's a scramble. Or, you spend 3 "control" and make a solid attempt, while maintaining a solid chance of still controlling the opponent, etc. Vague notions on my part, but yeah, I could see fun & interesting things coming out of such a system.
 
Generally I'm satisfied with "grab, control, pin" staged system. The grapple attack and critical tables from Arms Law are fun but it doesn't really give the degree of options you're looking for, just results.

Still, maybe a Tunnels and Trolls style of combat resolution would work. Companion D&D basically did this with its grappling rating based on stat totals. Your moves would work like stunting and allow things like disengaging/escaping or immobilizing the target.

I have this notion of simulation by process verses simulation by results. It probably ties into my ideas on Snakes and Ladders in game design.
 
I'm thinking a wrestling or even better sumo rpg could be really cool.

There's a PtbA wrestling rpg World Wide Wrestling but as it is based on 'professional' wrestling I believe it is more about the theatre and characters than wrestling moves per se.

I heard about a supplement that spends more time on you travelling from town to town and between matches material which actually sounds more interesting to me, lol. Can't recall the title though.
 
I really feel like the idea of structuring around positioning and advantage in general is something that TTRPGs struggle with. Most fighting isn't whack whack whack whack, it's about setting up advantages and then pressing them.

Grappling is definitely a good example, but like you said, fencing also fits into that.
 
I definitely like the idea of imagining how you might structure combat in an RPG looking through a default grappling lens instead of the more typical striking lens, and building from there. It leads to different abstractions. From a game-y perspective I like the tension that gambling can add to a contest. Something like, anyone can attempt to make that decisive blow/choke/whatever just straight up, with a Hail Mary-like level of probability. The more reliable way is, as you propose, through accumulating some measure of control. The gambling bit, I imagine, is in how the one in control could possibly spend it to increase the likelihood of making their decisive maneuver, balanced against the desire to maintain the upper hand of maintaining the control. Like, in vague pseudo-rules... you have managed to obtain 6 "control" during a fight and can blow it all to make your all-out attempt, and if the opponent is still surviving that, it's a scramble. Or, you spend 3 "control" and make a solid attempt, while maintaining a solid chance of still controlling the opponent, etc. Vague notions on my part, but yeah, I could see fun & interesting things coming out of such a system.
Well...doesn't need to be a Hail Mary chance. Just not a really good one, unless you've got advantage (which, I want to point out, you should be able to achieved in my suggested idea rules, just via footwork, feints, set-ups, combo attacks, beats and just raw speed).
Like, I want to make a paradigm that encompasses both striking and grappling, not to screw over distance fighters:grin:!

But yeah, something like that...
Except you would only "spend" a fraction of what Control you're using. (In most cases attempting a grappling attack doesn't change anything even if you fail). But you "spend" all the Advantage you've acquired through positioning and stuff like that (without Control). You outmaneouver somebody to get an angle? Sure, but his first job is to recover it, as any boxing match can attest.

Hence why having control helps, and you really want to have it all.

I'm thinking a wrestling or even better sumo rpg could be really cool.
I don't think I'm qualified to write either, but I Like This Idea:shade:!

There's a PtbA wrestling rpg World Wide Wrestling but as it is based on 'professional' wrestling I believe it is more about the theatre and characters than wrestling moves per se.
It is:thumbsup:.

Generally I'm satisfied with "grab, control, pin" staged system. The grapple attack and critical tables from Arms Law are fun but it doesn't really give the degree of options you're looking for, just results.
Generally so am I.
But then generally I'm happy with Traveller/RQ2 levels of detail in the combat system. And sometimes I want more than that:tongue:!

Still, maybe a Tunnels and Trolls style of combat resolution would work. Companion D&D basically did this with its grappling rating based on stat totals. Your moves would work like stunting and allow things like disengaging/escaping or immobilizing the target.
Stunting is the point, yes.
Care to tell me more about the Companion D&D? T&T, T2K, Exalted 3 and GURPS: Tactical Grappling/Dragon Heresy is where I'm getting most of my inspiration for now.

I have this notion of simulation by process verses simulation by results. It probably ties into my ideas on Snakes and Ladders in game design.
Snakes and Ladders?
And yes, one of my proposed solutions is "simulation by process" while the other is "simulation by results". I generally like process stuff, but the results approach has the advantage of usually being much simpler.

I really feel like the idea of structuring around positioning and advantage in general is something that TTRPGs struggle with. Most fighting isn't whack whack whack whack, it's about setting up advantages and then pressing them.

Grappling is definitely a good example, but like you said, fencing also fits into that.
Actually Boxing also works. It's just that the advantages are fleeting and lost after an attack, but "getting an angle" and "setting traps" are topics that boxing fans like discussing...
And then there's Lomachenko's hand fighting for the most recent example. Which is exactly that, using the Control stage to deliver punishment.
Voros Voros might have something to say here?

Also, I suspect tenbones tenbones Certified Certified BedrockBrendan BedrockBrendan Fenris-77 Fenris-77 and some other people to have more to say on this topic.
 
Well obviously I’m supportive. I even wrote up several combat style traits to support grappling.

however, the web page you point to shows a Grapple->Grab->Trip->Take Weapon, and would just work in core Mythras (1 action on a crit too), so I’m wondering what’s not quite satisfying. even the small guy thing is represented in just having a higher Brawn skill and moving the fight to that.

Is it the proposition of moving from a disadvantageous position? That would be a primary reason to move into Clear and Control, and is shown there. Perhaps the premise that you are fighting is a fair fight? Perhaps the perception thar Advantageous positioning is not utilized enough because swinging a sword is easier and often works because people power through armor?

I might suggest something like cortex, which you could complicate someone out. Each disadvantage becomes a complication or a step up of a complication. I’m sure it’s not a system of your taste, but the concept would be the same to apply somewhere else. In Mythras that would be the Grab (cannot use the arm) then the Trip (formidable on all your actions), then the Take Weapon (remove their advantage) and withdraw (to maintain advantage)
 
The overall goal of representing wrestling and actions at the bind with weapons is terrific; everyone with relevant martial arts training knows these are at the core of skilled one-on-one close combat, and games tend not to represent them in any meaningful way.

The tough question is how to represent them in a system of rules that is not only playable but actually fun at the table. Good game design is not just versimilitude (though that helps) - it also has to consider the patterns and paces of choices and events that will be interesting and fun.

I have done a number of systems like this for home-brewed fantasy heartbreakers, and after having made a bunch of bad ones and a couple of good ones I have concluded that it is better to start with game-play constraints and see how well you can mold them to realistic representation of combat as opposed to the other way around.

Some questions I have about the system you are developing are:
1) How long do you intend it to take to resolve an encounter, from first contact to final result? Is this a system for playing out a grapple or sword fight at close range in 1 minute, 5 minutes, or longer? If you mean it to be part of a broader fantasy rpg combat system, the answer sort of has to be close to 1-2 minutes or these encounters will quickly take over the game (i.e., once you multiply them by the number of 1:1 contacts that occur between all players and foes in all fights). I.e., if you have 4 PC's who each engage in melee combat with 5 foes over the course of an evening (both modest numbers) and it takes 10 minutes to resolve each interaction then you are grappling for three and a half hours of your table time. If that is what you want then it is what you should do, but at that point you are designing a board- or card- or dice-game about grappling, not a module of a roleplaying game. This point is changed, of course, if your idea is that the system in question is used rarely for special interactions, like duels, rather than as part of a core combat system.
2) How many 'beats', or discrete combatant-turns do you want each fight to take? This obviously interacts with (1), i.e., if you want fights to take an average of 3 minutes to resolve and consist of an average of 10 'beats', then it has to be possible to have one player easily and enjoyably resolve one 'beat' in about 20 seconds.
3) Are movement and position abstract or concrete? If the latter, you need some sort of map representation of where people are and how they move.
4) How do players exercise choices? (Stating a choice from a list of options? Playing a card? Moving a counter on a game board?)
5) How does one player's choice limit or otherwise interact with another's? (is each 'beat' effectively independent, or does it depend on the preceding one?)
6) How do outcomes depend on choices?
7) How do outcomes depend on random chance? (i.e., when you try something, is the outcome deterministic, like in chess, or random, like an attack in D+D)
8) What sorts of consequences do you want to have occur during combat? (Injuries that limit abilities and choices? Exhaustion? Morale?)
9) How do you decide when the fight is fully resolved?
 
I wonder if a system that used positioning would work well? Like a take on Savage Worlds chase rules or something.
 
Some kind of push-pull advantage building mechanic could work. You could chose for a given action to work for advantage or try to execute the finishing move (submission, etc). The more you work for advantage the better your chances of getting the submission.
 
I like the idea and have some grappling rules in my system. But striking opportunities usually precede grappling. Since you have looked at Glory Road, you probably realize that there are few opportunities for grappling after strikes succeed. One of the characters got grappled by a centuries-old vampire recently but it wasn't much of a fight.
 
Some kind of push-pull advantage building mechanic could work. You could chose for a given action to work for advantage or try to execute the finishing move (submission, etc). The more you work for advantage the better your chances of getting the submission.

something like this?

Compel Surrender

Allows the character a chance to force the surrender of a helpless or disadvantaged opponent; for example someone who has been disarmed, is lying prone unable to regain his footing, has suffered a serious (or worse) wound, and so on. Damage is not inflicted on the target, they are only threatened. Assuming the target is sapient and able to understand the demand, the target must make an opposed roll of Willpower against the original attack or parry roll. If the tar- get fails, they capitulate. Games Masters may wish to reserve Compel Surrender for use against non-player characters only.

as well as my own custom traits
Grappler -
Treat as the Mancatcher combat style trait, but with unarmed. The style grants its user an advantage when entangling or immobilising opponents, making a foe’s opposed rolls to evade or break free one difficulty grade harder.

and
Chokehold
if you have established a grapple against an opponent's head, you may choose to apply 1d2 levels of fatigue instead of damage. These levels of fatigue recover very quickly (healing rate per round) once the grapple is broken. Does not generally work on Undead.

and
Grappling transition
When grappling, if you succeed on a grapple check to do damage, you may instead shift the location of your grapple to an adjacent location.

and
Ground Fighter
While prone and fighting against another prone opponent, you suffer a Hard penalty instead of a Formidable one.

and
Joint Lock
if you have established a grapple against an opponent’s limb (as determined by the GM), step up your damage mod one step when applying grappling damage. Does not work on things without bones.

and
Sacrifice Throw
When performing a Trip special effect, the character attempting may impose a Formidable penalty to his opponents attempt to resist. If the resistance roll fails, both end up prone.

and
Block and Catch
allows for the use of the Grip special effect as a defensive special effect.

and
(not mine, but good)
Takedown
Using leg sweeps or throws that use the opponent’s weight against him, rolls to resist your Trip Special Effect are made at one difficulty grade harder

I also toyed with a sleep

This is sort of why I'm asking about the viewpoint, because AsenRG AsenRG is pretty familiar with Mythras and it can do this, so I'm wondering about the core foundations and make sure I'm not making bad assumptions about the ask
 
something like this?



as well as my own custom traits
Grappler -
Treat as the Mancatcher combat style trait, but with unarmed. The style grants its user an advantage when entangling or immobilising opponents, making a foe’s opposed rolls to evade or break free one difficulty grade harder.

and
Chokehold
if you have established a grapple against an opponent's head, you may choose to apply 1d2 levels of fatigue instead of damage. These levels of fatigue recover very quickly (healing rate per round) once the grapple is broken. Does not generally work on Undead.

and
Grappling transition
When grappling, if you succeed on a grapple check to do damage, you may instead shift the location of your grapple to an adjacent location.

and
Ground Fighter
While prone and fighting against another prone opponent, you suffer a Hard penalty instead of a Formidable one.

and
Joint Lock
if you have established a grapple against an opponent’s limb (as determined by the GM), step up your damage mod one step when applying grappling damage. Does not work on things without bones.

and
Sacrifice Throw
When performing a Trip special effect, the character attempting may impose a Formidable penalty to his opponents attempt to resist. If the resistance roll fails, both end up prone.

and
Block and Catch
allows for the use of the Grip special effect as a defensive special effect.

and
(not mine, but good)
Takedown
Using leg sweeps or throws that use the opponent’s weight against him, rolls to resist your Trip Special Effect are made at one difficulty grade harder

I also toyed with a sleep

This is sort of why I'm asking about the viewpoint, because AsenRG AsenRG is pretty familiar with Mythras and it can do this, so I'm wondering about the core foundations and make sure I'm not making bad assumptions about the ask
That's more detail than I'd probably use, but the grappler in me thinks it looks very nice. A more abstract approach might look like this (I'll use OSR stats and rising target DCs) using something like 5Es grappling base ruleset (so prone and dragging etc):

DC to Submit an opponent is their STR +10 and they must already be grappled. A successful Submit check renders the victim unconscious for d10 minutes. At the players discretion, they may instead render one of the victim's limbs useless until healed (Healing check DC 20).

Prior to a grapple attempt, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Grip Fighting, with each successful strike adding +1 to a cumulative Grip Fighting pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Grapple roll.

Once you have grappled an opponent, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Transition, with each successful strike adding +1 to a cumulative Transition pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Submit roll.

Edit: I made this up as I was typing it, and I'm not totally sold on the math.
 
Grappling the Fenris Way, Version 2.0:

As an action, a character may attempt to Submit a successfully grappled opponent. The Submit requires a STR test with a DC of the opponent's STR +10. A successful Submit test renders the victim unconscious for d10 minutes. At the players discretion, they may instead render one of the victim's limbs useless until healed (Healing check DC 20). (Note, Submit is not an Athletics test)

Prior to a grapple attempt, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Grip Fighting, with each successful strike adding +2 to a cumulative Grip Fighting pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Grapple roll.

Once you have grappled an opponent, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Transition, with each successful strike adding +2 to a cumulative Transition pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Submit roll.
 
That's more detail than I'd probably use, but the grappler in me thinks it looks very nice. A more abstract approach might look like this (I'll use OSR stats and rising target DCs) using something like 5Es grappling base ruleset (so prone and dragging etc):

DC to Submit an opponent is their STR +10 and they must already be grappled. A successful Submit check renders the victim unconscious for d10 minutes. At the players discretion, they may instead render one of the victim's limbs useless until healed (Healing check DC 20).

Prior to a grapple attempt, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Grip Fighting, with each successful strike adding +1 to a cumulative Grip Fighting pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Grapple roll.

Once you have grappled an opponent, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Transition, with each successful strike adding +1 to a cumulative Transition pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Submit roll.

Edit: I made this up as I was typing it, and I'm not totally sold on the math.
yep, it's a higher detail for sure, and by design. I would not recommend this if you didn't have people who really wanted to have something that was a little meatier.

I've gotten to test much of this and it worked surprisingly well. it gave the player, who is not normally a combat person, a lot to do and he really enjoyed it.

i think the point is that if you want to go in this direction, you have to expose some of the aspects of combat that don't normally show up in systems.
 
For 5e, my main issue with the grappling rules is all the nonsense that stems from it being an Athletics test and not an attack. I think for future 5E games I'm going use the grappling effects, but call the grapple an unarmed strike rather than an athletics test. There's probably some trickle down changes to make on top of that, but it should work ok. I think it's way cooler for fighters and monks to be able to grapple as an attack rather than an action. Plus it axes that stupid Luchador Bard build. All good things.
 
Okay, Snakes and Ladders is a children's board game with no meaningful choices and wildly random results that can put you far ahead or far behind with a single die roll. Open ended rolls, critical hits, and random hit locations are very much in the Snakes and Ladders end of game design. Success and failure out of measure to capability. But any time you've got misrepresentation in ratings relative to randomness you're looking at a snakes and ladders situation. The hobbit with a +1 Strength bonus can win against the ogre with a +4 more often than their apparent size would suggest. The impact of player choice is minimized.

If I'm remembering right, Companion D&D worked out a wrestling rating of Strength + Dexterity + Level +1d20 for both parties with the winner grappling their opponent. I think it took two wins for a pin, I'll have to see if I can find my copy.

The problem with the core 5e grappling is that they are just immobilized and can still hit you with a halberd.
 
I don't use the 5E Grappling rules and haven't read them in ages, and it shows. I just reread them and apparently while is an athletics test (which I hate) it's also already just an attack and not an action. I'd still make it an unarmed attack straight up and not an Athletics test, as I don't think Expertise should be a factor. I'd probably have the escape DC be the initial grappling roll result, which makes the grip fighting bonuses a little more useful. I also agree that the grappled condition needs some work, like not being able to use weapons other than maybe a dagger. I would probably let the target make Transition attacks to buff their escape though.
 
Okay, Snakes and Ladders is a children's board game with no meaningful choices and wildly random results that can put you far ahead or far behind with a single die roll. Open ended rolls, critical hits, and random hit locations are very much in the Snakes and Ladders end of game design. Success and failure out of measure to capability. But any time you've got misrepresentation in ratings relative to randomness you're looking at a snakes and ladders situation. The hobbit with a +1 Strength bonus can win against the ogre with a +4 more often than their apparent size would suggest. The impact of player choice is minimized.

If I'm remembering right, Companion D&D worked out a wrestling rating of Strength + Dexterity + Level +1d20 for both parties with the winner grappling their opponent. I think it took two wins for a pin, I'll have to see if I can find my copy.

The problem with the core 5e grappling is that they are just immobilized and can still hit you with a halberd.
I quite like the Cold Iron rules. The person about to be grappled gets a pretty easy swing at the opponent coming in, but reasonably tough opponents won't suffer too badly. Once grappled, everyone must drop anything longer than a short sword. Great advantage goes to critters with bite and claw attacks. Things scale well enough that an ogre vs halfling is going to see the ogre win unless the halfling is significantly higher level than the ogre. There are rules for pinning (though I don't recall using them much). The rules nicely handle multiple opponents (there can be up to 4 on a side in a single pile). Spell casting is pretty limited. Lower level PCs really hated ghouls which liked to grapple...

The system doesn't have tons of maneuvers and stuff like that, but I'm not convinced such systems are always that great anyway.
 
The problem with maneuvers is that they require players to know and understand the rules.
It can also increase the GM's burden if NPCs get to choose maneuvers also since the GM is often making those decisions for multiple NPCs.
 
Any game where a halfling (of any level) is able to win a grapple with an ogre probably should re-think its approach!
 
Any game where a halfling (of any level) is able to win a grapple with an ogre probably should re-think its approach!
I'd settle for a decent system that allows two humans to grapple without my needing either a slide rule or a face palm. One thing the 5E rules have going for them is that Halflings can't grapple Ogres. So there's that.
 
The overall goal of representing wrestling and actions at the bind with weapons is terrific; everyone with relevant martial arts training knows these are at the core of skilled one-on-one close combat, and games tend not to represent them in any meaningful way.

The tough question is how to represent them in a system of rules that is not only playable but actually fun at the table. Good game design is not just versimilitude (though that helps) - it also has to consider the patterns and paces of choices and events that will be interesting and fun.

I have done a number of systems like this for home-brewed fantasy heartbreakers, and after having made a bunch of bad ones and a couple of good ones I have concluded that it is better to start with game-play constraints and see how well you can mold them to realistic representation of combat as opposed to the other way around.

Some questions I have about the system you are developing are:
1) How long do you intend it to take to resolve an encounter, from first contact to final result? Is this a system for playing out a grapple or sword fight at close range in 1 minute, 5 minutes, or longer? If you mean it to be part of a broader fantasy rpg combat system, the answer sort of has to be close to 1-2 minutes or these encounters will quickly take over the game (i.e., once you multiply them by the number of 1:1 contacts that occur between all players and foes in all fights). I.e., if you have 4 PC's who each engage in melee combat with 5 foes over the course of an evening (both modest numbers) and it takes 10 minutes to resolve each interaction then you are grappling for three and a half hours of your table time. If that is what you want then it is what you should do, but at that point you are designing a board- or card- or dice-game about grappling, not a module of a roleplaying game. This point is changed, of course, if your idea is that the system in question is used rarely for special interactions, like duels, rather than as part of a core combat system.
2) How many 'beats', or discrete combatant-turns do you want each fight to take? This obviously interacts with (1), i.e., if you want fights to take an average of 3 minutes to resolve and consist of an average of 10 'beats', then it has to be possible to have one player easily and enjoyably resolve one 'beat' in about 20 seconds.
3) Are movement and position abstract or concrete? If the latter, you need some sort of map representation of where people are and how they move.
4) How do players exercise choices? (Stating a choice from a list of options? Playing a card? Moving a counter on a game board?)
5) How does one player's choice limit or otherwise interact with another's? (is each 'beat' effectively independent, or does it depend on the preceding one?)
6) How do outcomes depend on choices?
7) How do outcomes depend on random chance? (i.e., when you try something, is the outcome deterministic, like in chess, or random, like an attack in D+D)
8) What sorts of consequences do you want to have occur during combat? (Injuries that limit abilities and choices? Exhaustion? Morale?)
9) How do you decide when the fight is fully resolved?
All good questions. I admit I need more time to come up with a consistent set of answers.
One thing I don't intend to do here, however, is "generic fantasy RPG". If you're fighting at a numeric disadvantage, you screwed up should be a default assumption:thumbsup:.

Well obviously I’m supportive. I even wrote up several combat style traits to support grappling.

however, the web page you point to shows a Grapple->Grab->Trip->Take Weapon, and would just work in core Mythras (1 action on a crit too), so I’m wondering what’s not quite satisfying. even the small guy thing is represented in just having a higher Brawn skill and moving the fight to that.

Is it the proposition of moving from a disadvantageous position? That would be a primary reason to move into Clear and Control, and is shown there. Perhaps the premise that you are fighting is a fair fight? Perhaps the perception thar Advantageous positioning is not utilized enough because swinging a sword is easier and often works because people power through armor?

I might suggest something like cortex, which you could complicate someone out. Each disadvantage becomes a complication or a step up of a complication. I’m sure it’s not a system of your taste, but the concept would be the same to apply somewhere else. In Mythras that would be the Grab (cannot use the arm) then the Trip (formidable on all your actions), then the Take Weapon (remove their advantage) and withdraw (to maintain advantage)
Man, the example is just that, an example - I'm only posting it because it was easier than copying the explanations and renaming "clear" to "jostling for grip/initial position":smile:.

And yes, I know you know I know it would work for Mythras:wink:.
But I want to see three things:
1) What I can do, respectively, with a detailed, and a much less detailed system.
2) Mythras only allows you to do these things on a crit or when the opponent fails. That's too dice-dependent - I'd prefer opposed rolls...but that would be a HUGE chance there.
3) As you said before, "exposing some of the aspects of combat that don't normally show up in systems" - while also "shifting the default viewpoint" from the "doing damage with my axe" to "getting advantage".

Also, this ties up with my not-quite-concrete-yet intentions of maybe publishing a game. (Just so I could tell you all "and in my game, that's done like this...", and possibly to have something to publish in Bulgarian:thumbsup:).

And I admit this was partially inspired by some training I've been doing lately, and from playing a PC in RobBadener's campaign, who is focusing on grappling. Basically, the usual reasons!
...I mean, we need reasons to tinker with systems? Since when:shock:?

something like this?



as well as my own custom traits
Grappler -
Treat as the Mancatcher combat style trait, but with unarmed. The style grants its user an advantage when entangling or immobilising opponents, making a foe’s opposed rolls to evade or break free one difficulty grade harder.

and
Chokehold
if you have established a grapple against an opponent's head, you may choose to apply 1d2 levels of fatigue instead of damage. These levels of fatigue recover very quickly (healing rate per round) once the grapple is broken. Does not generally work on Undead.

and
Grappling transition
When grappling, if you succeed on a grapple check to do damage, you may instead shift the location of your grapple to an adjacent location.

and
Ground Fighter
While prone and fighting against another prone opponent, you suffer a Hard penalty instead of a Formidable one.

and
Joint Lock
if you have established a grapple against an opponent’s limb (as determined by the GM), step up your damage mod one step when applying grappling damage. Does not work on things without bones.

and
Sacrifice Throw
When performing a Trip special effect, the character attempting may impose a Formidable penalty to his opponents attempt to resist. If the resistance roll fails, both end up prone.

and
Block and Catch
allows for the use of the Grip special effect as a defensive special effect.

and
(not mine, but good)
Takedown
Using leg sweeps or throws that use the opponent’s weight against him, rolls to resist your Trip Special Effect are made at one difficulty grade harder

I also toyed with a sleep

This is sort of why I'm asking about the viewpoint, because AsenRG AsenRG is pretty familiar with Mythras and it can do this, so I'm wondering about the core foundations and make sure I'm not making bad assumptions about the ask
Basically, that's great (except I'd make Sacrifice Throw "the PC ends on the ground, and if it succeeds, both are there with the PC in a somewhat advantageous position).

I wonder if a system that used positioning would work well? Like a take on Savage Worlds chase rules or something.
Positioning should be key...but I'm not sure the chase rules would be my example.

I like the idea and have some grappling rules in my system. But striking opportunities usually precede grappling. Since you have looked at Glory Road, you probably realize that there are few opportunities for grappling after strikes succeed. One of the characters got grappled by a centuries-old vampire recently but it wasn't much of a fight.
Well, yes, at least for strikes with weapons, that's usually true. But who says strikes would succeed (or "succeed well enough to defeat armour")?
And either way, it's meant to incorporate winning by strikes as well - perhaps even by strikes without any grappling (more likely with weapons)!
It's just that in many systems the fight looks like a boxing match: strike, dodge, the opponent dodges and strikes, next round you do the same...
I want to have a progression: Strike/grapple, then control, then (if one gets enough of an advantage) finishing moves. Which is, incidentally, much closer to my experience.

Cold Iron has some OK grappling rules, look at Hand to Hand Combat in this manual: https://ffilz.github.io/Gaming/MANUAL.doc
Can't download them here, but I shall look at them.
I quite like the Cold Iron rules. The person about to be grappled gets a pretty easy swing at the opponent coming in, but reasonably tough opponents won't suffer too badly. Once grappled, everyone must drop anything longer than a short sword. Great advantage goes to critters with bite and claw attacks. Things scale well enough that an ogre vs halfling is going to see the ogre win unless the halfling is significantly higher level than the ogre. There are rules for pinning (though I don't recall using them much). The rules nicely handle multiple opponents (there can be up to 4 on a side in a single pile). Spell casting is pretty limited. Lower level PCs really hated ghouls which liked to grapple...

The system doesn't have tons of maneuvers and stuff like that, but I'm not convinced such systems are always that great anyway.
Well...sounds good, except for the "easy(ier?) swing at the incoming opponent" part.
Also, weapons grappling has some interesting moves that are meant to be used with stuff as long as spears (though something no longer than a jo is usually preferred).

Grappling is important in any action-oriented game and I found this basic structure works for me.
Which is fine, it's perfectly serviceable! But then there's similar structures for striking with weapons, and then there's The Riddle of Steel...which is one of my favourite games...

That's more detail than I'd probably use, but the grappler in me thinks it looks very nice. A more abstract approach might look like this (I'll use OSR stats and rising target DCs) using something like 5Es grappling base ruleset (so prone and dragging etc):

DC to Submit an opponent is their STR +10 and they must already be grappled. A successful Submit check renders the victim unconscious for d10 minutes. At the players discretion, they may instead render one of the victim's limbs useless until healed (Healing check DC 20).

Prior to a grapple attempt, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Grip Fighting, with each successful strike adding +1 to a cumulative Grip Fighting pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Grapple roll.

Once you have grappled an opponent, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Transition, with each successful strike adding +1 to a cumulative Transition pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Submit roll.

Edit: I made this up as I was typing it, and I'm not totally sold on the math.
Grappling the Fenris Way, Version 2.0:

As an action, a character may attempt to Submit a successfully grappled opponent. The Submit requires a STR test with a DC of the opponent's STR +10. A successful Submit test renders the victim unconscious for d10 minutes. At the players discretion, they may instead render one of the victim's limbs useless until healed (Healing check DC 20). (Note, Submit is not an Athletics test)

Prior to a grapple attempt, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Grip Fighting, with each successful strike adding +2 to a cumulative Grip Fighting pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Grapple roll.

Once you have grappled an opponent, unarmed strikes may, instead of doing damage, be allocated to Transition, with each successful strike adding +2 to a cumulative Transition pool. This pool is cumulative over rounds, and may be spent as a bonus to the Submit roll.
That reminds me of a simplified Dungeon Grappling - which is a compliment in my book! I like it, and might well use your system if I ever get into a 5e game (that's not Dragon Heresy)...but then the odds of that aren't really high:grin:!
BTW, I'd say unarmed strikes should deliver damage and help the GripFighting/Transition pool:tongue:. I mean, seriously, punching someone in the face makes ko-soto-gari much easier!
Any game where a halfling (of any level) is able to win a grapple with an ogre probably should re-think its approach!
If it's meant to be a realistic game, yes.
Though if the halfling is using a dagger to grapple, I could see it.

Okay, Snakes and Ladders is a children's board game with no meaningful choices and wildly random results that can put you far ahead or far behind with a single die roll. Open ended rolls, critical hits, and random hit locations are very much in the Snakes and Ladders end of game design.
Sounds good!

Success and failure out of measure to capability.
Happens often enough, alas.
I mean, many people have died after a single punch by someone who hasn't got much of a punch (falling and hitting the back of their heads, usually).

But any time you've got misrepresentation in ratings relative to randomness you're looking at a snakes and ladders situation. The hobbit with a +1 Strength bonus can win against the ogre with a +4 more often than their apparent size would suggest. The impact of player choice is minimized.
Well, we get to basic mechanics here. If they're in D&D, yes, way too often...if the system is using 2d6, this difference seems about right (and almost guarantees insta-win, though some upsets are possible, as they should be).
If I'm remembering right, Companion D&D worked out a wrestling rating of Strength + Dexterity + Level +1d20 for both parties with the winner grappling their opponent. I think it took two wins for a pin, I'll have to see if I can find my copy.
Ghouls and hydras probably loved those rules:grin:!

The problem with the core 5e grappling is that they are just immobilized and can still hit you with a halberd.
Yeah, this lead me to conclude that in core 5e, "grappling" should properly be called "grabbing".
 
When you hug it out with someone, roll +WIS. On 10+, they melt in your arms. On 7-9, you hug, but choose one of the following:
-the hug is awkward (especially to a distant observer)
-the hug turns into a smooch. Someone didn’t like it (the GM will tell you who)
-the hug becomes competitive. Each of you takes Harm, but you sorta like it.

On a 6-, you completely miss each other and butt heads. Take 2 Harm and attempt a chokeslam.

How’s that?:-)
 
When you hug it out with someone, roll +WIS. On 10+, they melt in your arms. On 7-9, you hug, but choose one of the following:
-the hug is awkward (especially to a distant observer)
-the hug turns into a smooch. Someone didn’t like it (the GM will tell you who)
-the hug becomes competitive. Each of you takes Harm, but you sorta like it.

On a 6-, you completely miss each other and butt heads. Take 2 Harm and attempt a chokeslam.

How’s that?:-)
Yes, I've read that comic. No, that's NOT what I has in mind:grin:!
 
Man, the example is just that, an example - I'm only posting it because it was easier than copying the explanations and renaming "clear" to "jostling for grip/initial position":smile:.

And yes, I know you know I know it would work for Mythras:wink:.
But I want to see three things:
1) What I can do, respectively, with a detailed, and a much less detailed system.
2) Mythras only allows you to do these things on a crit or when the opponent fails. That's too dice-dependent - I'd prefer opposed rolls...but that would be a HUGE chance there.
3) As you said before, "exposing some of the aspects of combat that don't normally show up in systems" - while also "shifting the default viewpoint" from the "doing damage with my axe" to "getting advantage".

Also, this ties up with my not-quite-concrete-yet intentions of maybe publishing a game. (Just so I could tell you all "and in my game, that's done like this...", and possibly to have something to publish in Bulgarian:thumbsup:).

And I admit this was partially inspired by some training I've been doing lately, and from playing a PC in RobBadener's campaign, who is focusing on grappling. Basically, the usual reasons!
...I mean, we need reasons to tinker with systems? Since when:shock:?

this is all why I asked.

those grappling traits came out of my own training. I have some tai chi ones as well based on my time in tai chi. Absolutely a valid reason, I think.

on the crit and dice dependence - the dice here are really just measuring success or not and assuming some opposition, and in real fights, it’s not always as easy as in training. I honestly feel it’s pretty rational for a clear, control, counter to take 2 actions normally (and the appropriate time, which is the real measure) and training demonstrations are effectively crits all the time due to compliance.

I think the first thing to do is to make the goals of the grappling philosophy more important in your fighting system. This may mean to make threats more serious, to make fights unequal, etc.
 
Maybe something like the escalation dice from 13th Age could be relevant as a mechanic? So long as you maintain control, your bonus to turn the grapple into damage increases, and a similar penalty arises for the one being grappled. But the tables can be potentially turned, it just gets more difficult for the one who is losing the grapple.

Maybe an option for sacrifice techniques - a dangerous all out move from the one at a disadvantage, but an attempt to break the stalemate.

I agree that I haven't yet seen the platonic ideal of a roleplaying grappling system. Good luck with this :smile:
 
Something I've been working on lately is my own combat system. Because of course Mythras and TRoS ain't enough...:thumbsup:

See, most systems basically - in their basic mechanic - are based on striking. You attack, you hit or miss, if you hit, you determine effect, which might range from negligible at the moment to ending the fight. Then whoever acts next may take a turn.
But I want to base it on grappling. Or if you prefer, on "fencing from the bind".

See, the above is not quite a good representation of any kind of grappling (and I'd argue that this is exactly why it's so hard to make a decent grappling system). ...

Thing is, I have to kinda simplify it, or I'd have to publish a grappling manual to go with the rulebook as well...:grin:
I'm thinking of basing it on a Clear-Control-Counter methodology.
If you don't know what this is, here's an article about it (courtesy of Google, I don't know these guys and had not visited their site until today):

But I'm not quite happy with this, either - though I've already got some ideas, which include situations under Clear.

So, for example, in the Clear you'd have Manoeuvre, Bind/Hook, Feint, Push, Beat, Grab, Strike/Counter, Parry/Block, Sweep, and Pull/Lift Weapon.

.....

And then, when you get to Counter - which might happen from either Clear (less likely) or Control, but is supposed to happen from Control - you get Pin, Maim, Strangle, Break, Pound, Fall and Shank. Which, ideally, should also allow you to resist some of the effects - unless you've got a condition which prevents that.

So...anyone got other ideas? And would anyone - other than me, that is - think it's worth the effort of splitting it so many ways:grin:?
.....

After decades of trial and error there are only two approach's that I found work well to give the verisimilitude. I have some personal experience with wrestling and grappling martial arts, Hapkido and my old personal trainers jiu jitsu/MMA stuff. Verisimilitude is always my goal, a big part of that for me is pace of combat/speed of combat action resolution.

My first encounter with a system that felt good was Top Secret, basically secretly select (aka written orders, from my war game days) a few specific moves then simultaneously reveal cross compare you move to opponents move on a chart to get the effect...which usually is another chart/roll (which is where mass, size, relative strength and such may come in). In such a system more experiences fighters get more actions and/or different attack options. The latter was definitely a thing in Top Secret.

A very good feel, and good for one-on-one but slow. So this relies on taking the moves one can think of and categorizing them and then making an effect chart of attack vs defense and then also including range as if I choose for action #1 a "grapple" but my opponent choses a "step back" then they are out of range and my grapple automatically fails. I'll call this a bottom-up approach, done well it is very fun and when just one-on-one the pace of resolution and action give the feel of such a fight with back and forth, tactical choice etc.

My second encounter is with a a very much top down system, it is a count success system. Then you success can be applied to do any number of things. In this case you do not need to detail out all the attacks and defenses, rather just assign a base success cost to whatever action the player wishes to undertake. If it is basic and easy it takes 1 success, more difficult 2 success etc.

Thus, step back, strike, defend from front side, etc....take 1 success, more complex actins like grapple, block attack from rear, attack to rear, etc... take 2 success. Some actions may require multiple steps, like throw (although costing 1 success) may require a grapple first. Again some actions may not be possible without skill/training....such as using someone's own attack momentum to hip throw them (this was one of my favorite moves in Hapkido)..so such an advance move may only cost 1 success. These are just examples.

In this system to avoid written orders (which are fine for one-on-one but really slow things down and destroy the verisimilitude of face paced combat) I have the less experience combat declare their first action (how the spend success ) first, then the more experienced combat decides, and then alternate. This aligns well with my experienced that more less experienced fighters telegraph their moves, in fact not telegraphing you moves was a huge part of my sparring experience.

Nevertheless, written orders and simultaneous reveal add a lot to the feel and strategy...a good way to make this work is to use cards. Myself when I have done this is I take a deck of playing cards (an old incomplete deck)...and just write on them and use suits for categories, so spade may be attacks, hearts defense, clubs grapple, throws, diamonds moves, etc. Then write multiple actions I feel fall under a same category. Like 2 spades = punch, kick, etc. 1 success cost; Jack of Spades = strike behind, groin strike, throat strike, etc. 2 success cost. This system is tedious, requires a lot of decks :smile: if multiple opponents but have only had to use it in very one-on-one battles with a comparable opponent.

In general who declares their action first based on experience has worked well for verisimilitude and player fun in my experience (and what little feel is loss from not having written orders is counter balanced and more than made up for in the pace of combat resolution). In general PCs outclass (declare after seeing opponents move) in situations when they are outnumbered and the PCs are outclassed when they outnumber their opponent. It also provides that very real trepidation in a fight for the players when they find out they need to declare first and their opponent gets to decide, which it should when you go up against someone who known more about combat than you.

The above is why I have become a huge proponent of count success approaches, as it solved my perennial "grappling combat" problems (well since about 1978) and many other issues with combat, making the rules much simpler and shorter but providing much more player choice/ range for tactical action....it also solved my other problem of the value of a 1st level PC/NPC on an adventure with 9th level PCs....that is for another thread though.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking you could use a branching path system to do non-grappling combat. Each fighter would roll their attack and the total successes on each side would shift the status and provide branching options. I may have to do a sketch but basically:

Routed and Take a Casualty
Routed or Falling Back and Take a Casualty
Falling Back or Losing Ground and Take a Casualty
Losing Ground or Take a Casualty
Stalemate
Gain Ground or Work Around Flank
Gain Ground and or Work Around Both Flanks
Cut Off Retreat

Anyhow, something like that but with more branching options from stalemate.
 
I was thinking you could use a branching path system to do non-grappling combat. Each fighter would roll their attack and the total successes on each side would shift the status and provide branching options. I may have to do a sketch but basically:

.....

Anyhow, something like that but with more branching options from stalemate.

Is this something that could apply to a group as a whole ala Tunnels & Trolls?
 
Sure, just tie a range of results to the steps. So if you win by 15 or something you move one step and 30 you move two. It'd need some work. T&T parties' combat totals can vary widely.
 
Well...sounds good, except for the "easy(ier?) swing at the incoming opponent" part.
Also, weapons grappling has some interesting moves that are meant to be used with stuff as long as spears (though something no longer than a jo is usually preferred).
The "easier" is because someone attempting to grapple isn't using a weapon or shield to parry.

Using a longer weapon (haft or staff) in grappling certainly could be a technique (I've either seen it in movies or demos, but can visualize at least some of what you could do). I'm not sure how I would model that in Cold Iron. But Cold Iron isn't the game system to use if you want to do martial arts kinds of things. My impression though would be that using a staff (or haft) to grapple would have to be something you were prepared to do as the grapple was initiated. Hmm, here's an idea:

Here's the Pin and Disarm rule (Cold Iron calls grappling Hand to Hand or HtH):

It is possible to pin and disarm someone in HtH. After a pin attempt is declared, three consecutive HtH attacks must succeed by 5 or more, or one attack by 12. If the victim damages those attempting to pin, the attempt fails. Attacks rolled as an attempt to pin do no damage. A pinned opponent may be beaten into submission and tied. He may not attack or attempt to disengage. A pinned magician casts spells under the HtH modifier.

I think I could see allowing someone with a staff or hafted weapon could make an initial hand to hand attack with the weapon, and if they make the 5 or more to initiate a pin (or the 12 or more to one shot the pin), then they are engaging with this technique. The 3 attempts at 5 or more represents that it could take a few moments to gain complete control.

Cold Iron does allow holding onto a longer weapon in hand to hand, but there's a penalty for doing so. Maybe you could even use your hafted weapon later in the combat, but I think then you would have to make the pin with the long weapon penalty.

Normally Cold Iron hand to hand assumes the combatants are rolling around on the ground, which works fine for most animal hand to hand, but isn't always appropriate for human vs human hand to hand. If I really wanted to do a more martial arts game with Cold Iron I'd think about modifying that part. Usually in Cold Iron, PCs don't want to get into hand to hand so the "doesn't cover all styles of hand to hand combat" nature of the Cold Iron rules isn't a real downside. At least it has better hand to hand combat rules than some games (some of which basically don't have ANY such rules)...

In some games I dislike the grappling rules because they interact so poorly with the rest of the combat system that they either are useless or they can be overused because they actually make it too easy to bypass the combat system (a D&D-like attrition combat system doesn't do well with options that can end the combat in one round). Some combat option systems place too much burden on the GM who has to pick and choose from numerous options for multiple NPCs, either in the course of a single battle or just over the length of the campaign (the PC grapple or maneuver master gets to focus on how his set of maneuvers work and just has to adapt to different opponents, the GM has to figure out for a new critter just what the best set of maneuvers is).
 
this is all why I asked.

those grappling traits came out of my own training. I have some tai chi ones as well based on my time in tai chi. Absolutely a valid reason, I think.

on the crit and dice dependence - the dice here are really just measuring success or not and assuming some opposition, and in real fights, it’s not always as easy as in training. I honestly feel it’s pretty rational for a clear, control, counter to take 2 actions normally (and the appropriate time, which is the real measure) and training demonstrations are effectively crits all the time due to compliance.

I think the first thing to do is to make the goals of the grappling philosophy more important in your fighting system. This may mean to make threats more serious, to make fights unequal, etc.
...Amusingly, Tai Chi pushing hands is part of the idea. But then I call Tai Chi "internal backhanding and grappling":grin:!


I never said that real fights are easy, and I'd like to point out that the whole thing should take at least 3 actions in my (still very raw) system suggestion. Granted, you could do 2 of them at once, at times (as in "when you roll a critical"), but it would be real hard to do all of them at once. So if anything, my suggestion might be slower.

Now, care to clarify what you mean by "grappling phiolosophy" here? I'm not sure I can follow the last paragraph, sorry:thumbsup:!

Maybe something like the escalation dice from 13th Age could be relevant as a mechanic? So long as you maintain control, your bonus to turn the grapple into damage increases, and a similar penalty arises for the one being grappled. But the tables can be potentially turned, it just gets more difficult for the one who is losing the grapple.

Maybe an option for sacrifice techniques - a dangerous all out move from the one at a disadvantage, but an attempt to break the stalemate.

I agree that I haven't yet seen the platonic ideal of a roleplaying grappling system. Good luck with this :smile:
Yes, something like this is the idea. Well, except I would at least halve the penalties for attempts to turn the tables (as opposed to attempts to outright attack the guy who has more control than you right now).
A sacrifice technique could give you even better odds...but at the risk that if you fail, you're still down, it's just you're the only one (ouch, I say, ouch!)...or it could give you an improved damage - they allow you to really swing someone without great effort or even without much technique (which seems to be at least part of the reason why people who don't do kuzushi well are fond of them:devil:) - but still carries the same risk.
Anyway, I want to get the basics down first. Sacrifice techniques are an option that should be added later, IMO - many styles don't even have those!



After decades of trial and error there are only two approach's that I found work well to give the verisimilitude. I have some personal experience with wrestling and grappling martial arts, Hapkido and my old personal trainers jiu jitsu/MMA stuff. Verisimilitude is always my goal, a big part of that for me is pace of combat/speed of combat action resolution.

My first encounter with a system that felt good was Top Secret, basically secretly select (aka written orders, from my war game days) a few specific moves then simultaneously reveal cross compare you move to opponents move on a chart to get the effect...which usually is another chart/roll (which is where mass, size, relative strength and such may come in). In such a system more experiences fighters get more actions and/or different attack options. The latter was definitely a thing in Top Secret.

A very good feel, and good for one-on-one but slow. So this relies on taking the moves one can think of and categorizing them and then making an effect chart of attack vs defense and then also including range as if I choose for action #1 a "grapple" but my opponent choses a "step back" then they are out of range and my grapple automatically fails. I'll call this a bottom-up approach, done well it is very fun and when just one-on-one the pace of resolution and action give the feel of such a fight with back and forth, tactical choice etc.

My second encounter is with a a very much top down system, it is a count success system. Then you success can be applied to do any number of things. In this case you do not need to detail out all the attacks and defenses, rather just assign a base success cost to whatever action the player wishes to undertake. If it is basic and easy it takes 1 success, more difficult 2 success etc.

Thus, step back, strike, defend from front side, etc....take 1 success, more complex actins like grapple, block attack from rear, attack to rear, etc... take 2 success. Some actions may require multiple steps, like throw (although costing 1 success) may require a grapple first. Again some actions may not be possible without skill/training....such as using someone's own attack momentum to hip throw them (this was one of my favorite moves in Hapkido)..so such an advance move may only cost 1 success. These are just examples.

In this system to avoid written orders (which are fine for one-on-one but really slow things down and destroy the verisimilitude of face paced combat) I have the less experience combat declare their first action (how the spend success ) first, then the more experienced combat decides, and then alternate. This aligns well with my experienced that more less experienced fighters telegraph their moves, in fact not telegraphing you moves was a huge part of my sparring experience.

Nevertheless, written orders and simultaneous reveal add a lot to the feel and strategy...a good way to make this work is to use cards. Myself when I have done this is I take a deck of playing cards (an old incomplete deck)...and just write on them and use suits for categories, so spade may be attacks, hearts defense, clubs grapple, throws, diamonds moves, etc. Then write multiple actions I feel fall under a same category. Like 2 spades = punch, kick, etc. 1 success cost; Jack of Spades = strike behind, groin strike, throat strike, etc. 2 success cost. This system is tedious, requires a lot of decks :smile: if multiple opponents but have only had to use it in very one-on-one battles with a comparable opponent.

In general who declares their action first based on experience has worked well for verisimilitude and player fun in my experience (and what little feel is loss from not having written orders is counter balanced and more than made up for in the pace of combat resolution). In general PCs outclass (declare after seeing opponents move) in situations when they are outnumbered and the PCs are outclassed when they outnumber their opponent. It also provides that very real trepidation in a fight for the players when they find out they need to declare first and their opponent gets to decide, which it should when you go up against someone who known more about combat than you.

The above is why I have become a huge proponent of count success approaches, as it solved my perennial "grappling combat" problems (well since about 1978) and many other issues with combat, making the rules much simpler and shorter but providing much more player choice/ range for tactical action....it also solved my other problem of the value of a 1st level PC/NPC on an adventure with 9th level PCs....that is for another thread though.
Well... in practice, there are way too many types of techniques here (not to mention specifc techniques witihin those types) for a simultaneous reveal. Believe me, I've considered the option...:grin:
And frankly, I want to be able to play that both online and offline. Simultaneous reveal is hard to impossible in PbP.
That said, it could work nicely if it's tied to experience and "getting the drop" on the opponent (like suckerpunching), as you said. So I'm not writing off the idea of using a table. But still, that would be kinda clumsy...

As for "spending successes", I can simulate that quite easily without using a dicepool. For example, each +2 MOS on a 2d6 roll would be worth "one extra step".

I was thinking you could use a branching path system to do non-grappling combat. Each fighter would roll their attack and the total successes on each side would shift the status and provide branching options. I may have to do a sketch but basically:

Routed and Take a Casualty
Routed or Falling Back and Take a Casualty
Falling Back or Losing Ground and Take a Casualty
Losing Ground or Take a Casualty
Stalemate
Gain Ground or Work Around Flank
Gain Ground and or Work Around Both Flanks
Cut Off Retreat

Anyhow, something like that but with more branching options from stalemate.
Branching was part of the idea, yes!
Hmmm, those things I see in your list seem more like degrees of success. What am I missing?

The "easier" is because someone attempting to grapple isn't using a weapon or shield to parry.
That's only true if you don't have a shield or weapon.
But if you have one, you're usually going to reach for a grapple a) after parrying or being parried and before the weapons have disengaged, or b) while binding and/or covering off with the weapon/shield.
That's if you're not reaching with the weapon, which I like doing. Using a sword's pommel as a hook can make your overhook Very Bad News.

Using a longer weapon (haft or staff) in grappling certainly could be a technique (I've either seen it in movies or demos, but can visualize at least some of what you could do). I'm not sure how I would model that in Cold Iron. But Cold Iron isn't the game system to use if you want to do martial arts kinds of things.
To be honest, I don't know what people mean by "martial arts kinds of things". To me, those are just fighting moves.
Never managed to figure it out. (And it doesn't help that people seem to mean different things, and at least some of them seem to mean "impractical stuff"...)

My impression though would be that using a staff (or haft) to grapple would have to be something you were prepared to do as the grapple was initiated.
Yes/no. Like, you could, but it's not a requirement and actually happens more often when you're simply attacking or defending and know how to use certain opportunities...
Like, someone parries a trust from your poleweapon, the weapons stick together, your weapon passes on the inside of his forearm. You could attempt to strike from there, or you could slide it in under his armpit. If you do, that thing you've got? It's known as an "underhook" in wrestling.
Except it's an underhook that has both of your hands applying strength - and doing so via a long lever. Which might be a bladed lever as well.
Weapons grappling is nasty.
As an example:
fc0f13baad14e107e8e46b58aee5095b--medieval-armor-swords.jpg

As you can see, quite long weapons. However, they're using them to apply pressure via leverage, not to mention to make their own "pushes" more damaging - because you're "pushing" by swinging the pointy ends of the guard, or the heavy pommel, in the enemy's helmet. Which also helps to break the balance.
Oh, and regarding the pressure thing- he can't move too much to your right, not even to parry your swing with the guard, or he's opening himself for a stab from the point of the sword when you swing it back using his own reaction.
Is that "martial arty"? To me, it's just fighting moves. But they most certainly don' seem to put the armed guy at a disadvantage compared to an unarmed grappler.

In some games I dislike the grappling rules because they interact so poorly with the rest of the combat system that they either are useless or they can be overused because they actually make it too easy to bypass the combat system
Yeah, basing the rules on grappling from the get-go should avoid either of these problems.
Unless I screw it up, that is.
 
Branching was part of the idea, yes!
Hmmm, those things I see in your list seem more like degrees of success. What am I missing?

More branches? But the idea was specific to small melees like adventurers get into being treated as a whole rather than a specific grappling idea. It just drew on the idea of grab grapply pin and applied it to such.

You know, you could do grappling like a choose your own adventure book.
 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top