Meelee combat in RPGs (unarmed combat related)

[Excidium]

What kind of question is that?

I was going by the setting explanation, guns and ammo were abundant in-game.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Because it is a post apocalyptical world and bullets don't grow on (dead) trees?

Have you even played Fallout?

We're talking about most of people here, not the privileged elite and a special hero that goes to extremely dangerous places and kills a lot of people.
Most of people can't afford firearms and can't afford ammo. We're talking people whose whole wealth is a house built out of scrap, some scavenged/easy to manufacture items and like 0-50 bottle caps.
In modern KWA there are 9 guns per 10 people. In comparison to that Fallout setting has 1 gun per 10 people or even less if we take the nameless masses not shown in game into account.
It's not an abundance of guns and ammo.
Similarly compare amounts of ammo to amounts of ammo nowadays.

 

[Destroid]

Giant cyborgs and werewolves can't fire guns if their hands are too big to use them.

 

[Paperclip]

I don't agree with the premise that ranged vs melee is like armed vs unarmed. The "problem" with unarmed combat is not that it's silly but because, like Johannes (and I in your original thread) said, it doesn't make good use of the loot system.

 

[mondblut]

But doesn't the same apply to meelee combat in modern-ish or futuristic RPGs?

Naturally. Melee weapons and shit like throwing knives are extremely niche use at best and a laughable waste of skillpoints at worst.

Unless it's some silly shit like KOTOR whose sole premise is "ZOMG JEDI LIGHTSABERS!!11 :drool:" and the rest of the setting is built from that foundation. Like, "what do you mean, my cool jedi with a cool lightsaber got his brains splattered on a wall by a silly sniper from a mile away? THIS SHALL NOT STAND! Cool jedis will automatically deflect all projectiles with their cool lightsabers, even if shot at by 1000 men at once, nyah!"

 

[Mastermind]

I don't agree with the premise that ranged vs melee is like armed vs unarmed. The "problem" with unarmed combat is not that it's silly but because, like Johannes (and I in your original thread) said, it doesn't make good use of the loot system.

Why is that a problem? Not everything has to be about the loot. Nor does the loot have to be primarily focused on the weapon.

 

[Paperclip]

Why is that a problem? Not everything has to be about the loot. Nor does the loot have to be primarily focused on the weapon.

In the end everything is about the loot and level because they are what define your character's progression. Why, because RPG is about combat. It's not The Sims or Monkey Island.

If you open up a crate at the end of the dungeon, what do you expect to get? I'm sure the answer is weapons or armors.

Now if unarmed fighting as an alternative and not the primary means, it becomes a different matter.

 

[Mastermind]

Why is that a problem? Not everything has to be about the loot. Nor does the loot have to be primarily focused on the weapon.

In the end everything is about the loot and level because they are what define your character's progression.

You can have hand to hand benefit from leveling in a lot of ways (though nobody really bothers with it, but that's a problem with the designer, not the concept). Plus, how many RPGs do anything really unique with weapons? Once the excitement of finding the latest cool looking sword is gone you're still left with swinging a piece of metal in the exact same way you've been swinging it all game. If needed be you can also allow for the possibility to augment unarmed combat with magical tattoos or gloves/gauntlets/boots. You can also have magic or powers that you have to find and which specifically affect unarmed combat. I think the main reason why we haven't seen a lot of good unarmed combat is because unarmed is usually an afterthought, even in high fantasy games which could take advantage of the setting to make unarmed a viable, fun option. Sure, it would piss off realismfags like mondblut and half the codex, but I'd consider that a feature, not a bug.

 

[G.O.D]

Why should people use cattle prods, crowbars, sledgehammers, spears, and even power fists in Fallout?

Because the vast majority of people in the Fallout setting can't afford guns or there wouldn't be enough functional guns for them.

Unarmed combat would be pretty important in any sensible setting where you can't just kill people left and right and where you need to deal with people in heavy armour which may require immobilizing before stabbing them into eye with dagger.

Then you have actual meelee combat happening in modern times too.

True, if you would view it in realistic terms.
But not only that.. Unarmed and Melee also get obsolete soon in virtual terms as soon as guns get involved (F1/2).
Its rediculous in NV where a melee build is quite effective against armed groups though.

My first play through of fallout was done entirely with melee combat. My only companion was dogmeat, who also used unarmed combat.

Yeah? Which glitch did you exploit?
Seriously though.. Not saying that it can't be done.. i never tried a full melee build in F1 i believe.
But it sure is not comfortable (not that it matters that much) to play melee, and can be restrictive at some phase in the game, and thus obsolete.. unless you avoid (some) combat.

 

[Paperclip]

You can have hand to hand benefit from leveling in a lot of ways (though nobody really bothers with it, but that's a problem with the designer, not the concept).

This is usually your only option for "weapon" progression which is kind of lame because you'll get it anyway.

Plus, how many RPGs do anything really unique with weapons? Once the excitement of finding the latest cool looking sword is gone you're still left with swinging a piece of metal in the exact same way you've been swinging it all game.

I think this is kind of red herring. Sure, the armed combat mechanism itself, like everything else can benefit from more creativity.

I'd like to mention though, the search for better loot is the point that drives you to keep playing. This is somewhat lessened when you don't need to find a better weapon or a better "weapon" will come to you automatically sometime in the future when you hit a certain level.

If needed be you can also allow for the possibility to augment unarmed combat with magical tattoos or gloves/gauntlets/boots. You can also have magic or powers that you have to find and which specifically affect unarmed combat.

Indeed, these are several ways to bring the loot aspect back to "unarmed" combat.

 

[Mastermind]

I'd like to mention though, the search for better loot is the point that drives you to keep playing.

Unless I'm playing an arpg in the diablo vein (which are actually pretty rare), if loot (and one specific type of equipment in particular) is what keeps me playing then the game has probably failed as a rpg. I like my characters to be defined by more than just their weapon.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Games tend to be silly either way so I don't really give a fuck. If you want to strive for realism then yeah, unarmed (or any melee in a modern-day setting) combat should be inferior to properly armed opponents in raw strength. But there could be some advantages in that you can start a fistfight where you can't carry a gun or don't have time to draw it, easier to knock someone out non-lethally, etc.

But fully unarmed combat is a bit boring because you don't get to choose any weapon, which makes the loot aspect of things a bit duller.

I've been decked once or twice when cane/stick sparring, when I managed to wrap the other guy's cane to disarm him, only for him to drop the weapon and hit me with a couple of hooks to the head (ouch - fencing helmets aren't really designed to weather impact damage from punches). But yeah, 9 times out of 10 you can just take a step back and adjust what you're doing so they can't get close enough to hit you.

Realistically, if you have a weapon - any weapon frankly - you actually have to screw up in order for an unarmed guy to stand a chance. I've seen tons of martial arts guys from various styles claiming that they can beat a knife or a cane/bat, but every time it's based around the weapon-guy being a complete retard and taking a big swing. I've never seen anyone convincingly counter someone who just uses conservative thrusts to keep the guy at range, small defensive cuts to the hand etc - not to mention the kind of psycho speed-stabbing you see in prison documentaries. Maybe against that kind of psycho speed-stabbing stuff you could take the guy out at the same time, but you're still going to be plugged full of stab-wounds.

This is mainly true, but look up Krav Maga disarming techniques on the 'Net. YouTube!

 

[GarfunkeL]

Only problem with unarmed/melee is when the designers are fucking retarded and want to "balance" everything around. Or they are weeaboos and want to scream KI! KI! and fireball-punch through walls or some shit.

 

[Esquilax]

Krav Maga and Asian martial arts are mostly bullshido. Not saying every single Krav Maga school sucks, but there isn't much quality control when any asshole can claim that they're some special forces guy.Those "disarming techniques" are reliant on the guy having a gun to your head execution-style or various other nonsensical situations that a person with a gun wouldn't realistically do. It's all hippy-dippy New Age bullshit. If I pull a gun on you, I am not going to do so while standing within reach.

Combat sports/Martial arts are great for getting in shape, protecting yourself from scraps at a bar, and providing you with focus and confidence in life through training and competition, but if a mugger pulls a gun on you, just shut the fuck up and give him your wallet.

Anyways, mondblut's arguments seem to boil down to "I don't like the idea of unarmed/melee builds being viable if there are guns in the setting" but it's all based on personal preference. The realism/verisimilitude argument is flimsy; when you have a game where a group of adventurers can take on a huge Dragon with swords and arrows, internal consistency flies out the window. "What provides the most fun/tactical options?" should really be question here.

I agree completely with this, though:

I guess it's one of those cases where, so long as it's balanced and makes a reasonable amount of sense, I see no reason to limit the player's options. You want to play as a monk or whatever, there should be a benefit to doing so... and even if not, well, more ways to fight is never a bad thing provided it doesn't throw the rest of the game mechanics off balance.

Of course, one thing most RPGs don't really bother with is trying to distinguish unarmed/melee combat from the rest, not just in terms of play-style but in terms of narrative effects as well. The option to, say, knock out enemies and then recruit them or get information out of them that you would have otherwise missed could make for a compelling way to get through a story, especially if that information leads to unique plot points, quests, encounters, etc. I guess it's probably too much to hope for, but even a little "hey, you didn't kill anyone, good work" sort of line can go a long way towards affirming your decisions in character building and play style.

 

[Esquilax]

Only problem with unarmed/melee is when the designers are fucking retarded and want to "balance" everything around. Or they are weeaboos and want to scream KI! KI! and fireball-punch through walls or some shit.

If it makes sense in the setting, it could work. It totally made sense in Bloodlines that Kindred could take gunfire and close in on an enemy.

I think that more options are better than less options. That stuff you mentioned is fucking annoying, but there are a few ways of making unarmed/melee play differently if you've got a modern world setting where guns are by far the best choice for direct combat:

* Stealth attacks. You can pick people off without attracting attention.
* It's more socially acceptable. If you pull a gun on someone in a bar, you could be facing time in prison. If you beat someone up who's giving you a hard time, you probably won't face any problems because a broken nose in a bar fight isn't a big deal.
* Environment. laclongquan made a good point; let's say you're in an airplane where using a firearm is extremely dangerous. Or say you're entering a building with a metal detector but don't have the required hacking/persuasion/sneaking to turn it off; you might just have to put your guns away so that you can get into the building. Once you're inside, maybe you can knock out a stray guard and obtain weapons that way.

This would allow melee/unarmed to play differently and still be plausible without all that goofy shit you mentioned.

 

[Mastermind]

Or they are weeaboos and want to scream KI! KI! and fireball-punch through walls or some shit.

That sounds great actually. It's how unarmed should be handled in high fantasy settings.

 

[PorkaMorka]

Unarmed combat in fantasy RPGs is dumb for at least two reasons: verisimilitude and it messes with the loot progression unless the devs go the way of certain JRPGs and just make a bunch of glove weapons (which works, but is extra dumb).

Melee combat in modern day RPGs is dumb for only one reason: verisimilitude. If you make a WW2 RPG and the best weapon is the entrenching tool or the K-bar then your combat model is probably producing some pretty ridiculous results. But in the right game it could work pretty well, for example in Odium/Gorky 17 where combat is really really abstracted with no pretense of verisimilitude.

In a future RPG you should probably have chainswords and power armor so...

Anyway, something like this is really more of a preference than an objective thing (duh), it's sort like having a topic about why RPGs should not have humanoid elephants[1] as a prominent race for player/NPCs. Specializing in punching dudes who're wearing metal armor is on par with having a race of humanoid elephants in terms of stuff that is (to me) just offensively stupid.

P.S. If people made more detailed and realistic combat systems then unarmed would have an important secondary role in medieval type combat and melee/unarmed would still have a role in modern combat as well. But of course we can't have detailed games anymore.

[1] Like in the RPG "Wizards and Warriors"

 

[Excidium]

Thread quickly reaching "What is an RPG?" levels.

 

[shihonage]

In short, this thread sort of confirms my idea of getting rid of unarmed combat as a separate combat branch.

There should be some unarmed moves you can do, but they should be tied to some generalized stats that affect both armed and unarmed combat, and melee should be treated more as a fallback/augment rather than a full-on replacement for armed combat.

Nobody makes a melee-only character except for lulz. And even if not for lulz, it's still semi-retarded to go around wastelands knocking out armored minigun carriers.

 

[Excidium]

That makes sense in the setting you're using.

 

[shihonage]

I wasn't aware that a function of Power Armor was to enhance the user's strength.

It could be kind of cool to run into a trash mob of inferior strength, and save ammo by watching their bullets ricochet off your armor while putting your metal fist through their unprotected skulls.

But still, my earlier point stands. As a path to seriously take through the entire game, non-firearm combat "specialization" doesn't make sense. Not even in Fallout. Even if you make it work in Fallout, it's still retarded.

It should be relegated to the status of "Duke boot" from Duke3D, where you saved ammo by kicking the windows open, yet it wasn't a serious enough weapon to fight with on its own.

 

[Johannes]

If trash mobs had a brain, they'd just run from a powerfisting powerarmor guy.

And it'd seem more economical to minimize damage to your power armour than save bullets, maybe you don't want to use your plasma rifle on any shit thug, but someone who owns power armor shouldn't have much issues getting himself a cheap backup weapon.

 

[Tycn]

Having a guy with no powers punching a soldier wearing metal armor should't result in someone dodging said blow, it should result in someone's breaking his toes.

I dunno, having toes on your hands could be considered a power in itself.

 

[ArcturusXIV]

Throwing an opponent off-balance in armor would be a better option in combat than ki-punches. Sorry...

Again, we come back to grappling.

As far as all this "chi" stuff goes, I've actually wanted to see a game where chi ties into psionicism for some time. Like a monk/psionicist who uses qi gong, or something similar (qi/chi/ki same word) to externalize power, as well as internalizing it into tremendous punches. Not everything needs to be real in an RPG setting--drawing on new age mythology, a lot of people make statements on highly trained yogis who can light fires with their mind, levitate, et cetera--in an RPG setting, this works perfectly.

 

[shihonage]

In gameplay terms ki would have to be narrowed down to an exact function.

Here are several ideas I had off the top of my head:

* ki shield - curves paths of incoming bullets
* ki-flect - opponent's own melee attack knocks him down
* ki fart - you travel much faster between towns

ok I'm running low on sugar, need to eat something to replenish my ki

Don't some martial arts like Judo use the oponent's weight against him to knock him down? This would be interesting in a setting with heavy armor that can't be penetrated by punches.

Looks like we've arrived back to the weird melee guy taking on power armor guys scenario... only this time with the power of LEVERAGE!

So you get close to him pretending to be his friend and then BAM he's on the ground... but if he doesn't let you get close, you're perforated by his gun, because good luck trying to do joint locks or anything while wearing a power armor yourself...

ok i need food