Cinematic fantasy combat

[dragonewt]

For example most RPGs give PCs and VIP NPCs abilties than "Karl Kobold" or "Tom Trollkin" doesn't have.

It has often been pointed out in RuneQuest (2/3/BRP) combat that "Karl Kobold" or "Tom Trollkin" can take out "Ruric Runelord" or "Balastor Axe Master" on a lucky (unlucky) set of rolls.

Sandy Peterson wrote a good article: "Sandy Petersen on Runequest". The original location is gone, however it is worth finding (or we can host it on this site if we can get Sandy's permission).

But RQ's combat system is anti heroic. A mighty swordmaster of 90% is comparatively easy meat for a trio of 50% mercenaries. The huge bad troll with tons of magic and a 3D6 damage bonus was killed by my stinking players on the first blow of the combat, via critical spear impale to his face.

I like how the "anti-heroic" grit and 'reality' makes life tough. You could never go head on with an arch-typical fantasy dragon (forget real Gloranthan dragons). However, it gives the opportunity for players to be heroes because they have to think and out maneuver their foes. Compare this to the way heroes survive Norse Sagas and Ancient Greek tales (ignoring Deus Ex Machina, which could be fate points or in-game divine intervention).

I use fate points at a story level (meta-rules) to take the sting out a limited few unlucky roles in BRP for the sake of maintaining a story and for the game to be like a 'heroic' work of fiction (written in favour of the player). And as many have pointed out, these fate points (lucky dice, chips, etc...) need to be a rare commodity (subjective and based on taste) and also need to be used wisely and not taken for granted by the players. I guess a balance is hard. However, these are never a substitute for good GM'ing and creative playing (as many have pointed out), and with good GM'ing and creative playing most game session might not see fate points used at all.

Second Point is that some games restrict what can be done with Hero Points by the bad guys. For instance in Bond, Bad guys can only use HP defensively. This helps to enforce cinematic play, since it gives the good guys a reward for being good.

I like this (use Bad Guy evil points limited by a "Bad Guy" schtik), for some styles of play it maintains a genre. Examples are where a villain is slain, but the heroes never check the body, and he reappears later. Or the typical Bond villain who always has to explain the evil plan before killing Bond, where Bond always just escapes. Again, this can annoy those who prefer a more simulationist style of play. There are many levels of variety of mixing the two extremes. This topic again raises the difference between how people play a game compared to how a story is written. Both offer entertainment in two different ways: "kill them and take their loot" vs "suspense where a story character always goes down into the basement, when players would think of a more inventive solution".

Sandy's article can be found at the following link, under "Sandy Petersen on Runequest":

Dorkland!: November 2006

Edited March 31, 2009 by dragonewt

[soltakss]

As mentioned above, there are many rules tweaks that can be used to make combat, and action, more cinematic.

However, the main tule is to let the players try things and don't automatically say they can't do things.

So, steering clear of combat for a while, if a PC tries to jump across a 30 foot chasm, rather than saying "No, it's too far", give them a reduced chance, allow them to come up with a clever way of doing it. If the PC then fails, allow Fate Points/Hero Points/Whatever to be used to give them a lucky break. If they fall, then allow them the chance to catch a branch, if they think of it, or to land on a ledge. Make it dangerous so they don't think they can succeed automatically, but give them opportunities to succeed.

• In combat, allow the players to use complex tactics, but give NPCs simple tactics (it makes them easier to play). However, give powerful/important NPCs complex tactics to give the players a sense of danger.
  
• Allow PCs to be Heroic if they have lost a limb or lost the use of a limb - let them stand up and club the opponent to death with the bloody stump then pass out from their exertions.
  
• Allow healing and a lot of it.
  
• When facing many NPCs, "forget" to use all their attacks/parries - it makes the players happy that they have got away with something and lessens their load slightly.
  
• Don't use Encumbrance/Fatigue excessively - a PC should be able to fight non-stop for a couple of minutes without collapsing.
  

But, above all, if they want to try something then let them and always give them a chance to succeed.

[deleriad]

As mentioned above, there are many rules tweaks that can be used to make combat, and action, more cinematic.

However, the main tule is to let the players try things and don't automatically say they can't do things.

Just to echo this. Cinematic combat is a mindset and games fail when GMs and players don't share the mindset. As a nipper I remember trying to play a swashbuckler type who was forever jumping onto things, swinging off of things and so on. However, any type of swashbuckling was always counterproductive because either the GM gave me a negative but no positive or required me to make a series of rolls which represented how "hard" the act was. In the end, I was better off just standing there and rolling dice.

The basic mindset then is to reward players for "stunts." So, if someone wants to swing off a chandelier and attack an enemy don't require multiple rolls and strike ranks simply say something "ok, make a single roll that's under your attack skill and agility," your enemy has -30% to parry or dodge. Or say, ok it'll cost you a PP and your enemy has -20% to parry or dodge the attack.

To go back to the OP's original question. More Hit Points are the standard way of helping characters stay alive longer. Using some sort of Fate Point mechanic will enable characters to pull off stunts or survive damage. MOstly though it's about how you assign modifiers and getting into a "yes you can" mindset.

[frogspawner]

Just don't forget there are alternatives to giving PCs extra HPs (if you find that too unfair/D&D-like) and/or Fate Points (if you find them too intrusive/meta-gamey).

[Atgxtg]

One thing that I found very neat in another RPG, is to allow character to choose special effects after die rolls.

For instance, in most RPGs if a PC wants to try something "cinematic" like disarming a foe, tripping them, or such, they usually have to make some roll at a significant penalty. The net effect is that the character is usually better off just doing the standard attack & parry.

But, if the GM allows characters to do stuff like this after the die rolls with a special success (instead of the usually damage bonus), you can get players to do a lot more "cinematic" stuff, since they are not longer penalized for trying.

[Atgxtg]

It has often been pointed out in RuneQuest (2/3/BRP) combat that "Karl Kobold" or "Tom Trollkin" can take out "Ruric Runelord" or "Balastor Axe Master" on a lucky (unlucky) set of rolls.

Yes, and that is/was one of RQ/BRPS good points. Unlike D&D a fairly weak foe always poses some threat to an experienced character in combat. That means GMs can still use weak foes without them becoming only a minor annoyance. That is also why ther "escalation treadmill" isn't as bad in RQ/BRP as it is in games like D&D.

I like how the "anti-heroic" grit and 'reality' makes life tough. You could never go head on with an arch-typical fantasy dragon (forget real Gloranthan dragons). However, it gives the opportunity for players to be heroes because they have to think and out maneuver their foes. Compare this to the way heroes survive Norse Sagas and Ancient Greek tales (ignoring Deus Ex Machina, which could be fate points or in-game divine intervention).

I like it too. But remember RQ did have Divine Intervention. But if a GM want's to run a cinematic game, all that grittiness works against him. Superworld being a prime example.

Ideally, what the GM wants is for the players to believe that they have been in greater risk that they were, yet not make them so intimidated that they fail to try. Basically a good GM plays mind games with his players.

I like this (use Bad Guy evil points limited by a "Bad Guy" schtik), for some styles of play it maintains a genre. Examples are where a villain is slain, but the heroes never check the body, and he reappears later. Or the typical Bond villain who always has to explain the evil plan before killing Bond, where Bond always just escapes. Again, this can annoy those who prefer a more simulationist style of play. There are many levels of variety of mixing the two extremes. This topic again raises the difference between how people play a game compared to how a story is written. Both offer entertainment in two different ways: "kill them and take their loot" vs "suspense where a story character always goes down into the basement, when players would think of a more inventive solution".

Well, that particular method is from the James Bond RPG. The rationale behind it is simple, it keeps the big baddies from spending all their points to kill one PC. The group wins the battle, but each adventure or so someone would need to roll up a new character.

I really love the Bond RPG. It actually isn't quite so easy to "just escape" in the RPG. It has my favorite take on Hero Points too. 1 HP adjust the die roll one quality level (think wsuccess level in BRP). This grades of success approach also tones down the Hero Points, making their effects more subtle. Turning a serious injury into a minor wound, as opposed to turning a critical into a miss. The latter is possible, but so costly that even Bond can't do it very often. Since the damage inflicted is based party on the success level, a 1 level shift isn't as severe as in some RPGs.

Also once a point is spent, it is gone for good, so PCs don't waste them as with similar point systems. Instead they are more likely to save most of them until they need them. While characters can earn more points, they can't just get them "refreshed" next week. So PCs don't feel invulnerable when they have a lot of points. And players get worried when the points run low.

This method is great for handling the "series of bad die rolls" thing too, making the RPG my favorite for solo play. Less chance of losing a PC to that eventual fumble.

[Rurik]

It has often been pointed out in RuneQuest (2/3/BRP) combat that "Karl Kobold" or "Tom Trollkin" can take out "Ruric Runelord" ...

That is simply not true.

All myths and lies about the trollkin.

Really.

[Mugen]

What about the following rules tweak ?

Characteristics scale :

"Trash" NPCs : 4 to 8

"low level" PCs and NPCs : 10 to 20

Important PCs and NPCs : 20 to 30

Derived characteristics :

Hit Points : equal to CON

Number of actions per turn (including defenses and reactions) : DEX/10

Optionally:

Base Melee damage : (STR+SIZ)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon)

Base Ranged damage : (DEX+INT)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon)

It could also be possible to use "Healing surge"-like rules : allow one to spend Magic points to get Hit Points back.

[dragonewt]

I like it too. But remember RQ did have Divine Intervention.

All myths and lies about the trollkin.

Really.

Ok. Oh, wait...

Finally, on a quest to regain Power lost in a previous call for Divine Intervention, deep in the Pavis ruin known as the Devil's Playground, Rurik and long-time rival Jonathan Trollsbane led the party into another ambush, this time of well-prepared trollkin. One of the enemy unleashed a shade that drove Rurik's spirit from his body. Yelmalio heard his prayers and sent it back. Before he could rise, a lucky trollkin had plunged a spear into his leg. The shock was too much, and Rurik died again. This time, though, he didn't have the Power to plead to Yelmalio again.

More information via this link:

Personalities of Glorantha - Rurik Runespear

Boom! Head shot! :thumb:

Edited April 1, 2009 by dragonewt

[Rurik]

More information via this link:

Personalities of Glorantha - Rurik Runespear

Boom! Head shot! :thumb:

I'd like to point out the url for your "source":

http://www.glorantha.com/library/eurmal/personalities-rurik.html

Seems suspect to me.

And I believe the correct phrase would be:

Boom! Leg Shot!

>:->

Edited April 1, 2009 by Rurik

[dragonewt]

I'd like to point out the url for your "source" seems suspect to me.

I don't have a copy of Wyrms Footnotes #12 to verify against.

Can anyone confirm that the article is valid?

"I can dance all day!"

Edited April 1, 2009 by dragonewt

[frogspawner]

Can anyone confirm that the article is valid?

Odd that you should leave out the rest of that story. The self-same source says...

[This was in the summer of 1612.] ... Some priests think that Rurik now fights at the side of his god. Stories of a trader named Biturian Varosh, though, state that Rurik walks once again among the living, but how much trust can you hold in the word of a Goldentongue?

Well I prefer to trust that word, rather than believe the forked tongue of a dragonewt! Rurik Lives! :happy:

[Trifletraxor]

Rurik Lives! :happy:

He's limping along on these forums at least!

SGL.

[Atgxtg]

That is simply not true.

All myths and lies about the trollkin.

Really.

Rurrrrrik!!

Hey, I'd die too if my patron diety had his IO cut off and I didn't know Y. :innocent:

[frogspawner]

What about the following rules tweak ?

Characteristics scale :

"Trash" NPCs : 4 to 8

"low level" PCs and NPCs : 10 to 20

Important PCs and NPCs : 20 to 30

Derived characteristics :

Hit Points : equal to CON

Number of actions per turn (including defenses and reactions) : DEX/10

Optionally:

Base Melee damage : (STR+SIZ)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon)

Base Ranged damage : (DEX+INT)/6 in D6 (modified by weapon)

It could also be possible to use "Healing surge"-like rules : allow one to spend Magic points to get Hit Points back.

Can't say I'm keen. The concept of "Trash NPCs" probably being the worst aspect.

[Harshax]

As part of my 'everything I've ever needed to houserule I can nick from Savage Worlds' policy

Curious if you ever though of lifting the whole Toughness concept, wherein damage below your toughness means you are shaken, while damage rolls greater than your toughness makes you wounded. Major Wound = Toughness would seem like a quick way to test the concept.

[Al.]

Curious if you ever though of lifting the whole Toughness concept, wherein damage below your toughness means you are shaken, while damage rolls greater than your toughness makes you wounded. Major Wound = Toughness would seem like a quick way to test the concept.

No I haven't, but now you've mentioned it I may have a stab

I've previously only used Hit Locations for Major Wounds (to see which Location is incapacitated) and it works pretty damn smoothly so I can see that idea working to. I shall have a go and let you know.

Al

[dragonewt]

Odd that you should leave out the rest of that story.

The post included a link to the source and encouraged people to follow the link for more information. :innocent:

No matter how events turned out for Rurik, he did hit hard times. The interesting thing to question (if he really came back to life) is how he was allowed to come back. Was it the GM being nice for the player by allowing Rurik to be resurrected after serving Yelmalio for a period of time (role-playing creativity), or did it involve a hero quest (performed by others)?

The first example is a meta-mechanisms in the same way as fate points. If players know that the GM will always let their characters prosper via this degree of GM kindness, they can then take this for granted in much the same way they take fate points or "mooking" for granted. For the first 'event', players would not know in advance that they would receive some GM benevolence (as opposed to knowing about fate points up front), however, after a while the behaviour would become known.

Given the tone of most games I run, I like to keep player characters alive (creatively and in line with the game, no railroading or weak excuses). However the players often forget about this in the middle of the action, and so they feel the fear.

Edited April 2, 2009 by dragonewt

[Rurik]

Actually, I was ret-conned back into existence when the MRQ rules came out - there is no way one lucky blow from a Trollkin could have killed me under the MRQ rules.

Err, if such a thing had ever happened in the first place that is. I am still waiting for someone send me Wyrm's Footnotes #12 as proof (p.s. send any other issues you can spare as well). I'm still not convinced by links to pages attributed to Eurmal.

On topic though, it is worth mentioning to the OP (if he is still reading this threadjacked thread) to take a look at MRQ - though I know it is generally reviled around here.

MRQ is more cinematic than BRP by default. It has no total HP and a Fate point mechanic by default and is less lethal but still has a visceral feel to combat. Plus the SRD is free (on the downloads of this site) so all you stand to lose by checking it out is time.

[frogspawner]

Was it the GM being nice for the player by allowing Rurik to be resurrected after serving Yelmalio for a period of time (role-playing creativity), or did it involve a hero quest (performed by others)?

Plain old Resurrection from a friendly Chalana Arroy Healer would do the trick. No need for any Fate Points or similar story-bending machinations. Anyway, he was clearly very much alive and kicking again in 1614/15 (The Travels of Biturian Varosh).

Actually, I was ret-conned back into existence when the MRQ rules came out... MRQ is more cinematic than BRP by default.

No need for any such desperate measures, either (MRQ is poo, after all). Better by far to optionize (or tweak) the BRP Rules to suit your taste.

[Rurik]

No need for any such desperate measures, either (MRQ is poo, after all). Better by far to optionize (or tweak) the BRP Rules to suit your taste.

While that opinion is pretty common around here, there are some people who prefer MRQ to more traditional BRP. It's worth mentioning here because it is more cinematic out of the box.

With all the latest errata/revisions MRQ is quite playable. I prefer my houserules but I ran a Play by Post with pretty much all the rules as written (excessive armour penalties and all) and it worked fine and was fun.

Just sayin'. Some people's poo is a Dung Beetle's feast, or however the saying goes.

[frogspawner]

Just sayin'.

Fine. Likewise, I'm just sayin' the more common view around here: BRP is best.

[dragonewt]

Plain old Resurrection from a friendly Chalana Arroy Healer would do the trick.

This is why corpses are burnt, or desecrated, so that they they may not be resurrected (in RuneQuest Glorantha at least).

Anyway, he was clearly very much alive and kicking again in 1614/15

I am taking an educated guess that this is why the last part on Rurik questions the trustworthiness of a Goldentounge. I assume that the player character actually died in 1612, and was only used as an example character in Biturian's travels. However, this was an oversight on the part of the author because Rurik was already dead long before the time of the example encounters in CoP (verification needed).

Also, consider that lesser characters (not of Rune status) may have less of a chance to take resurrection for granted.

[Rurik]

Also, consider that lesser characters (not of Rune status) may have less of a chance to take resurrection for granted.

Talk about taking resurrection for granted. Must be nice knowing that you will be reborn every time you die.

Bitter me? Not at all. :mad:

[threedeesix]

The Actor asks: What is my Motivation?

The RPG'er asks: What is my motivation to kill him and take his stuff?

The need to make his stuff your stuff. >:->