In fighting, you tend to wait for your opponent to make a move you can exploit. He will overextend, go off-balance, or choose a stance that you can take advantage of, or have training to counter.
Are there any RPGs that use something similar? Instead of "rolling to hit vs AC", I would like to try something like "I take a high guard and wait for him to attack." being a viable option.
Maybe failures to hit by a certain amount indicate a loss of balance = becoming vulnerable to certain kinds of attacks or combos?

>>96109020 (OP)
>In fighting, you tend to wait for your opponent to make a move you can exploit.
In real sword fights the guy who moves first will usually win.

>>96109207
Yes, but that fighter makes a choice based on his opponent's apparent defense. And that defender made his choice as well. Stances and tactics change during a battle. You learn to read your opponent.
I really like the idea of the intelligent or experienced fighter.
Imagine facing an opponent who becomes more dangerous the longer you fight him because he is figuring you out.
How about a system where you present the players with a battle that has specific strengths. The players have to figure out how to overcome that strength. They need to do something other than "I swing my sword".

>>96109239
>Yes, but that fighter makes a choice based on his opponent's apparent defense.
No they usually just go with whatever they're most comfortable using.
If they're more experienced, they'll try whatever they're most comfortable using and doesn't leave them overly exposed.

>>96109239
ust play speed chess if you want quick tactics

>>96109020 (OP)
>>96109239
Ill start punching you in the head and you candefend whenever you figure out what the counter to that is

>>96109020 (OP)
You think you want this but you have to realize that the average player is actually retarded and it will drag out combat even more than the slog it currently is.
>I want to attack
>Okay what stance do you take?
>What stances can I take?
>Well there is half-sword, full defense, reckless-
>Which one will give me a bonus to hit?
>Probably reckless assault
>Okay I pick that one and attack
>Okay are you sure you want to do a regular attack, he's in high guard which will give him a chance to attack back
>What's high guard?
>It means he has a chance to attack back if you roll too low
>How is he attacking back if Im attacking him?
>He can do that when in high guard stance
>Ooh well I want to go into high guard stance too then
>You can't because you're attacking and it's a defensive stance
>Okay whatever I just attack *rolls* does an 18 hit?
>Okay you hit and you knock him off balance, do you want to perform a combo?
>What combos can I do?
Rinse and repeat every single combat round for every single player forever

>>96109366
>>Okay are you sure you want to do a regular attack
And like that you've destroyed your GMing credibility.
Even a passable GM would just tell him to roll and then let him get fucked for being an idiot. A good GM would've told him he doesn't even get a stance for wasting time and not paying attention. And a Great GM wouldn't let a simpering idiot sit at his table and disrespect everyone else's free time.

>>96109366
That is definitely a problem. I was wondering if anyone has published anything along these lines, though.
Playing OSR, I've sometimes telegraphed certain attacks or defenses at players looking for a more cinematic fight.
I also remember a card game: Highlander, I think it was, where you got to simulate attack/defense of various kinds.

I think maybe a feats system would make the most sense based on what we're used to. A "Power Attack" lowers your AC by 2 while raising your damage by 2, for example. Simple and straightforward.
What about a "Power Defense" though? The exact opposite?
I want to see different kinds of armor and weapons used for different circumstances, and different opponents. I think we touch on that with blunt vs. skeletons, or light armor used by high DEX characters.

>>96109497
>Simple and straightforward
And... Awful. An AC and Damage system comes down to one factor: Who's going down first? And in most editions of D&D, +2 damage for -2 AC is a terrible tradeoff.

>>96109366
I'm not sure about that. It took my players a single telegraphed attack to the neck for them to figure out that "all-out-attacking" could get them fucked in gurps, so in a system with stances that leave the PC vulnerable, a single time they get punished for it should teach them properly.

>>96109020 (OP)
Original 3lbbs with chainmail weapon class rules. For a modern explanation check out Wightbox.

>>96109020 (OP)
You may want to look into Spellbound Kingdoms.

>Here's an overview of combat:

>1. There is no initiative. Players and GM choose actions simultaneously. A player's choice of actions is limited by his character's current maneuver. Some styles don't teach you how to follow a lunge with a parry, for example.

>2. Players and GM reveal actions simultaneously.

>3. Resolve all actions simultaneously. Each maneuver on the combat style sheet lists an attack die (on the left) and a defense die (on the right). Roll the attack die against your target. Roll the defense die against anyone attacking you. On a hit, the default damage is I Body. That can change, so know your maneuvers and weapons.

>More information follows, but that’s the basic idea. In other words: “Watch what your opponent is doing and guess what he’s going to do next. Then pick yourmaneuver, reveal it, and resolve it.”

>>96109839
This is what I was looking for. Thanks Anon.

>>96109020 (OP)
I know that GURPS Martial Arts has things like:
>Counterattack: technique for any melee skill. It gives your foe a penalty to defend against your next attack after you successfully defend against one of his own attacks
>Feint: action option that lets you roll a Quick Contest of weapon skill against your foe. If you win, then you penalize your foe's next defense by an amount equal to your margin of victory. There are also rules for Ruses which contest IQ-based skills, Beats which contest ST-based skills, perks that let you contest noncombat skills like Acrobatics or Sex Appeal, and Defensive Feints which penalize attacks instead.
>Stop Hit: action option for Attack/Wait. You declare that you intend to strike into your foe's attack, attacking him at the same time he attacks you. Both of you make your attack rolls at the same time. Whoever scores the higher margin of success on his attack roll gives the loser a penalty on his subsequent active defense roll.
>Stop Thrust: action option for Attack/Wait. If you attack a foe at the same time that he is charging you, then you might get a damage bonus depending on his current momentum.
>Riposte: defense option for Parry. Lets you take a penalty to your defense roll, and on a success, give your foe a penalty to his own defense roll against your next attack.
There are also action options like Evaluate, All-Out Attack, All-Out Defense, and so on.
If your foe gets desperate or overconfident and overcommits to an All-Out Attack trying to take you out in a single decisive gambit, and you survive his assault, then he'll be defenseless against your next attack.
Meanwhile, taking an All-Out Defense can help set up a Counterattack or Riposte by giving a bonus to defend.
For longer duels, taking an Evaluate over multiple turns can give a small cumulative bonus to both attack and defense that'll be useful for setting up any fancy trick you might have in mind.

>>96109965
This is a pretty cool list. I will check it out. Thanks

>>96109965
Have you used these? Are they player-facing rules for the most part?

>>96109020 (OP)
Palladium/Rifts usses an active combat defense system
Attacker rolls strike
Defender can then...
Parry
Dodge
Roll with the hit
Take it and do s simultaneous strike..ie trade blows
Or just get hit
The attacker still has to roll anything but a 1, get above a 5 total to hit, and get above the targets AC or the targets armor is damaged
Their are more advanced moves but yoi get the idea.
Generally you get 1 free parry a turn, and if you simultaneous strike you then have to get above the original attackers AC, as well.

>>96109942
Another WEGO option you may want to look into is the old Street Fighter system from White Wolf. There's a fan-made compilation of it here: https://sfrpg.com/wp-content/uploads/Street-Fighter-TSG-20th-Anniversary.pdf

And other useful resources on the same site.

The gist of its combat system is:

>each fighter has a pool of maneuvers purchased from within his chosen style
>in combat, maneuver selection is made simultaneously and in secret
>special maneuvers cost chi or willpower when executed
>speed is non-randomly determined by maneuver and attributes
>the slowest fighter must declare his action first
>fighters with higher speed may interrupt the actions of fighters with lower speed to act first
>can abort to specific maneuvers such as Block or Jump to change speed order or avoid damage
>if the target is in range when a maneuever is executed, it hits automatically
>conversely, if the target is out of range, it misses automatically
>damage is rolled based on maneuver and strength
>target's stamina and any defensive maneuver effect reduces damage
>causing damage greater than the target's stamina with a single attack dizzies the target, making him lose his current action if he hasn't finished it yet as well as his next turn

Thematically, it focuses strongly on a world of martial arts tournaments. There are Glory and Honor stats, which are influenced by the types of actions taken in combat; Glory functions as reputation while Honor is a sort of karma/morality meter that influences Chi and Willpower regeneration.

You can probably file off the setting fluff and use it for something else if you want, but the premade maneuvers focus strongly on unarmed combat. World of Darkness: Combat gave the formula for creating new maneuvers, which I'll post next.

>>96109942
The system in WoD:Combat is a bit different than the SF version, particularly in that it uses more dice rolls. I think it may have some unique maneuvers meant for vampires and werewolves not present in the SF version. More importantly, it also has rules for weapon reach, which were not present in SF for some reason.

>>96110015
You're welcome!
>>96110045
I've used them so much that combat in systems without them just feel dull in comparison.
As for whether they're "player-facing", that depends.
The way defense rolls work in GURPS is that if you succeed by any amount on your defense roll, then you avoid the attack, no matter much your foe succeeded on his attack roll. (The one exception are critical hits, which can't be defended against.) It can feel really awful when you succeed by a margin of 9 on an attack, but your foe successfully defends with a margin of 0.
Why not directly compare margins? That's because defense scores are calculated differently from attack scores. As for why this is, there are about half a dozen reasons:
>https://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=1015916&postcount=22
Combat between skilled opponents will require a variety of fancy tricks and maneuvers to try to lower the opponent's defense scores to get a successful hit in. The brute force method for lowering defenses is Deceptive Attack, which gives your foe a penalty to defend at a cost of a penalty to your own skill to attack.
As for unskilled opponents: Your average NPC combatant is not going to be a seasoned warrior. Chances are they'll be barely trained with cruddy combat skills and even cruddier defense scores. Likely, they're going to All-Out Attack for a sizable bonus to hit, but without taking any fancy options to lower PC defenses. This means they'll hit semi-often, but never defend. Which means PCs still get to make most or all of the rolls.

>>96109020 (OP)
>In fighting, you tend to wait for your opponent to make a move you can exploit
That's not true. In general, aggression and pressure snowball and it requires more skill and discipline to be an effective counterpuncher. Even in something like Judo where you can decisively punish aggression to a greater extent than other sports, the guy that gets grips first usually wins.

>>96109239
You talk like someone who has never been punched in the face, and is purely theorycrafting. Which is fine if you want to create an interesting game, but if you want your outcomes to resemble combat sports, you're just kinda wrong.

I am begging you to go watch some combat sports, especially at lower levels of skill like regional mma, golden gloves, or kickboxing that not ONE, Glory, or K-1.

>>96109239
Nah. At most they will try to nullify your strongest weapon while forcing you to play within their game.

>Spear? Cool, I'll get past the point and force a close ranged bat- Oh, wait, I'm already stabbing your chest!
More or less

>>96110258
NTA but sounded like OP was specifically referring to fights between highly skilled and trained melee weapon users. Not unarmed fighting.
All of your examples fall short if the other guy has a sword out and knows how to use it.

>>96110241
Because degrees of success/failure are also a big party of "player-facing" mechanics, I'll bring that up too.
Effective skill level (your skill level after all situational modifiers and modifiers for any tricks you're attempting) affects your chance of critical success/failure, which can have dramatic consequences in combat. You might try to go for a big Deceptive Attack, or a flurry of Rapid Strikes, but that comes at a greater risk of incidentally lowering your guard, breaking/dropping your weapon, hurting yourself, or worse. You could also just not try anything fancy and just attack at full skill for a higher chance to crit. Defenses can also critically succeed, which have the same consequences as your foe scoring a critical miss.
Although, your critical success chance always caps out at skill 16 (~9.3% crit chance), unless you have special perks to raise the limit. Crit fishing might not be the best strategy if your foe comes up with something better before you get lucky.

>>96110241
>It can feel really awful when you succeed by a margin of 9 on an attack, but your foe successfully defends with a margin of 0
Simple Fix: What I do is never make defense rolls for NPCs, but just tell players the minimum penalty for Deceptive-Attack/Prediction-Shot they need to get their target's best defense to 9 or lower. This way tougher NPCs are still harder to hit, but players never feel like their rolls are wasted.

>>96110308
You have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows. Even an amateur boxer of today with a few real fights under his belt could have torn anyone else apart in a sword fight.
If you look at medieval wrestling and unarmed techniques compared to modern day ones, they're a total joke and veteran HEMA spergs who have tried to use them get bullied relentlessly in sparring.

>>96110308
Nothing changes except the consequences of getting hit. This is especially apparent in HEMA, because most fighters are not very athletic, skilled, or defensively responsible compared to fencing or other combat sports.

If we take the points system out of it, there's a good chance your common HEMA double hit actually leaves someone dead or maimed before they get their """counter""" off. Who wins in live steel? probably the aggressor who initiated, not the counterpuncher who's in reality taking a hit he can't afford to get a hit

The problem here is part of the mindset of D+D's, person takes an action and then you resolve it. Trying to wedge in being reactive has always been kludgy. And how do you resolve a specific action dedicated to "I want to draw in a counterpunch"?

Also, consider by comparison a dice pool system, like say Shadowrun, where you decide how much to allocate to offense and defense at any given time. Or the concept of overwatch in games.

>>96109207
I think it's interesting that both statements are true. Initiative matters. Identifying and forcing openings matter as well.

t. 1 dan nitoryu.

>>96109355
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoIjViSPe58

It's both correct to sometimes go after someone's head until they prove they can stop you AND to be prepared for people who do nothing but go after your head. Any martial art with contact sparring covers that very early.

>>96110241
>>96110352

No, don't simple fix that. Margin of error not being a thing in combat is a large part of the dynamic of combat in GURPS:
>If you compare margins, the amount of hits would increase, meaning fights would end faster and the balance between armor and evasion would shift. Overall, your combat encounters would turn into one turn affairs.
>The fact that you can't rely on your margins in skill rolls to beat defense is what drives the tactical depth. If margins were a thing, then attacking without a penalty would be an absolute no brainer. If you actually look at the math, you will see that there is actually a sweet spot for scoring a hit on an opponent (you want a target number of 12 or better and you want their defense to be 9 or lower ideally). You want to pick the options where you can finish the opponent as fast as possible, which usually means some combination of feinting and deceptive attacking to hit this ideal number. Critfishing is really suboptimal in comparison as having a better crit number is a marginal benefit (and extending fights is bad! Thats how you get critted by NPCs).
>Finally, target number acts as a currency. Your option to deceptive attack is competing with your option to target body parts for more damage.

GURPS is overall a very nuanced system. Its modularity is mostly in what character options you want your players to have access to usually. Homeruling things without a nuanced understanding of the rules tends to detract from the system. Another good example of this is how all true back attacks allow no defense. A kneejerk reaction to this is that it might be a bit too harsh on the players, but it is actually one of the most important combat rules as it acts as a driver for all positional decisions in combat. If a monster or player is free to defend against attacks from behind, there is nothing stopping them from walking around melee specialists to hit the backline. BUT if that means a free back attack, this is not feasible.

>>96110394

In the context of real comvat, counterhitting serves a very specific purpose when using live steel. If you fight a newb, you really want to avoid accidentally trading blows, which is very likely to happen as the newb forgets to defend. In this case, you probably want to fence defensively (binding their blade) and then take a wait and see approach so the newb has time to make an exploitable mistake.

In competition, you usually fight people with similar experience and "stats" as you. In real life though, things aren't fair and most likely everythibg will be assymetrical, so if you are a skilled fighter you NEED to know how to approach fighting unskilled opponents

>>96109020 (OP)
Nechronica lets you store your Action Points for later use in the combat round if you want to play reactively

Ventangle has it where all rolls to hit result in damage to the loser, so long as the winner has a range appropriate weapon (i.e., a player with a blade equipped can successfully defend/dodge a sniper round but he can't counter attack the sniper with his sword)

Play better games, I guess

>>96109020 (OP)
Try Honor+Intrigue.

Riddle of Steel.

>>96112275
>>96112992
Any particular examples?

Some great suggestions in this thread. Thank you, gentlemen.
I’m considering, for OSR, a simple meta-mechanic: if a player can spot their opponent’s AC or attack bonus, and then defeat that number by 5 (opponent’s attack fails, or their attack roll) they earn a d6 “combat die” for use on any attack or defense.

>>96113148
H+I has a set of dueling styles and maneuvers which are simple to use and include things like anticipating an enemy maneuver to prevent it, doing stop thrusts to turn an enemy attack into a terrible wound for them, intimidating them with difficult stunts like cutting off their buttons, etc.

Dueling styles each have a combat bonus if you fight as described, and a final secret if you master all the maneuvers of the style. It's an unusual rpg melee system in that weapon selection will genuinely inform how you fight, and combat is not just 'hit the other guy until he falls down.-

>>96111270
What are you talking about? If you are in a competition with someone that is less skilled, you get them out of there as fast as possible so you have more energy for the rest of the bracket.

If someone is worse, just tech them out or launch them for ippon. Judo is particularly illustrative here because of how easy it is to instantly lose which makes the calculus closer to armed combat. Those highlight reel throws are usually from the best competitors smashing less skilled ones early in the bracket.

>>96113267
He's talking about the ability of button mashing noob equivalents to do dramatically unpredictable things that anyone with minimal skill would never consider.

Judo actually is very illustrative, but it's a demonstration of the difference in gameplans when you know you have a big advantage that doesn't necessarily transfer over to striking forms. Going on a full offensive in judo looks very different than most arts. Just watch a butt scooting BJJ specialist for an example.

In real life fighting isn’t cool to watch or cinematic. It’s quick and ugly. Physics is lethal as hell. It doesn’t matter how strong or muscular you are, a cure unassuming child can still stick a sharpened lolipop in your jugular.

It’s better to be smart and cunning, and reserved, than strong and cocky.

>>96109020 (OP)
>In fighting, you tend to wait for your opponent to make a move you can exploit

If you do that in sword-based combat, all you're doing is giving your opponent all the time they want to figure you out plus the initiative when they do decide to go in.
Against an incapable opponent you're best off using strong basic mechanics rather than hanging around. Against a capable opponent you need to actively pressure them in order to see a few of their responses, affect them mentally and either get them attacking how you want or opening them up for your attack.
I have seen systems try to do this and they're incredibly tiresome to play, but if you want to give one a go I'd say try Burning Wheel with all the bells and whistles. All in all though it's not an interesting thing to simulate on paper and requires years of training to experience in real life, so may as well just use a normal combat system.

>>96114437
>-t. pencil neck toothpick-armed nerd who's never been in a fight

>>96114990
Cunning prevents fights from happening or ends the fight altogether, retard.

I don’t care how well of a fighter you are, you’re getting wasp sprayed in the face because chemistry doesn’t care about fairness.

>>96115102
This is (You)

>>96114437
t. "I just see red, bro"

>>96109020 (OP)
>He will overextend, go off-balance, or choose a stance that you can take advantage of, or have training to counter.
Dzikie Pola, 1e.
Honor + Intrigue, if you squint
>"I take a high guard and wait for him to attack." being a viable option.
That's viable in 9 out of 10 systems. Have you tried not playing Dung and Dogshit?

>>96109020 (OP)
>In fighting, you tend to wait for your opponent to make a move you can exploit
lol free initiative thanks retard. try TRoS or any derivatives if you want melee autism
>>96114437
not every fight is a twitter gore video dude

Thanks everyone for your suggestions. I hope we can continue to encourage /tg/ to be a place for gentlemen gamers, and mutually beneficial discussion. I’m going to let this slide for now.

>>96109020 (OP)
Mythras

>>96113267

If you are in a competition, this already implies you are fighting someone who has some modicum of training. In the real world, especially before the information age, are very liable to run into people who have no training at all and who are just *doing what they think is a good idea*.

In unarmed combat, this is fine. There's quite a few videos of bouncers quickly taking the initiative to knock drunks on the ass. Once you add sharp steel to the equation, thinks get messier though. With just knives, you basically can't defend even, so then you should absolutely avoid a head on confrontation. With swords, old manuals do usually cover the dangee of untrained fighters and how they are liable to cause double KO:s by simply not attempting to parry when they get attacked.

>>96109447
>being a good GM means being an adversarial dickbag
Nogames take.

>>96116160
>That's viable in 9 out of 10 systems.
It's not even true in the examples you gave.

>>96114437
What about strong and smart and cunning

>>96109965
>>96110241
>>96111185
God! I miss playing GURPS so much.

>>96118564
This: Two sayings are particularly accurate when blades start getting involved:

First: The best swordsman in the world has less to fear from the second best swordsman in the world than he does from the worst. To wit: You cannot anticipate what a man will do when he does not know what he is doing.

Second is a joke: How do you tell the winner of a knife fight? He's the guy who dies in the hospital instead of on the floor.

Broadly most abstractions of fighting don't want to become too simulationist because if we're going to cover stances, footwork, environment, complex interactions between reach, height, arm and leg span, the condition and exhaustion of fighters, differences in equipment and protection and so on, we will be rolling until the cows come home instead of baking these ideas down into assumptions that cut down to 'does a 17 hit?' and lets us get on with the game.

>>96119908
There's nothing adversarial about telling players to read the rules, anon.

>>96136194
These are common sayings among people who don't fight and never will.
Similarly, your blathering about game mechanics reveals how inept of a designer you are.

>>96115170
His intelligence wasn’t superior if he let himself get that close to confrontation.

>>96109020 (OP)

Unironically the Witcher RPG by Talsorian games.

My table likes crunchy rulesets, so your mileage mat vary, but the combat rules in that game are both varied and straightforward. You have a variety of defenses and attacks available that cause different kinds of penalties and bonuses, which can get very tactical even before you add monsters. The critical hits and misses add enough chaos to make combat dangerous even to very experienced combatants. It's just enough not to be clunky for us.

The one problem is that the system is too generous with skill and ability points at creation. There is no reason for a player not to max both the main ability and the main skill right at the start. This makes the tactical bonuses tiny by comparison. You may want to houserule a maximum skill of 7 at start and reduce the ability points given, but if you do, be very cautious about monster encounters.

>>96137452
Anon don't be silly, I fight plenty with retards on the internet, kind of like right now.

>>96135175
There's a fairly active GURPS play by post trannycord out there, if that wouldn't scratch your itch.

>>96109020 (OP)
Some Exalted editions (and Scion 1e) have had stuff like this, since fighting game vidya was one of their inspirations. Ex2 gave each action a speed (how long it took to complete) and a defense penalty (how vulnerable you were during it). During the "ticks" of that action, your defense was lower. So it was possible to lure an opponent into launching a flurry of attacks, leaving themselves wide open, and then striking them before they recovered their guard. At least in theory.
In practice, most of the important character types had magical methods to negate this vulnerability, so the defense penalties rarely had much effect.

Exalted: Burn Legend, a weird little spinoff game meant to riff on Street Fighter, went a different route. All characters selected specific moves (the book even came with cards for them!), and for each combat round they would secretly decide what move to use and then all reveal at the same time. A flying kick might automatically defeat a grapple, or maybe an uppercut could win out against the flying kick. Otherwise, it would become a dice roll-off. So the goal was to determine what moves your opponent had, then try to play a counter-move to what you expected them to try.