Rules for unarmed close-combat fighting

[sheek]

Real life unarmed fighting is very random and dependent on all sorts of factors which are not represented in typical rulesets.

1/ Many different types of attacks are possible and combinations of simultaneous actions are common.
2/ Availability or efficiency of attacks is dependent on the state of the actor - eg, standing, knocked down, grappling, both combatants rolling on the floor, in an armlock, etc
3/ The course of unarmed combat is very dependent on context - the location you are in, for instance a bar with tables and chairs to maneuver between and throw, walls to trap your opponent or throw your opponent against; on a beach, sand to throw in your opponent's eyes, shallow water to drown him in, etc.
4/ Hit points damage does not simulate success in unarmed combat, which generally does no permanent physical damage until the finishing moves, possible when one actor has an overwhelming advantage. Also the effect of actions is much more anatomically sensitive
5/ Movement is much more important. Attempting to change the distance with your opponent, to make different actions available, backing away, or trying to prevent an opponent from escaping are all part of unarmed combat and requires more than fixed movement allowances measured in hexes and a single effective combat distance.

A different measure of advantage with degrees of advantage is needed. Unarmed combat is won by immobilizing or sufficiently hurting your opponent so he is less efficient at hurting you and you have a greater availability/efficiency of actions... eg, strangling, breaking limbs, bashing their head with maximum force.

The problem with RPG systems I'm familiar with is that they are designed primarily either for melee combat or for ranged combat which are quite different (exchange of blows/shots, success primarily dependent on skill/equipment) and these rules are adapted to unarmed fighting. Ranged, and to a lesser degree melee combat is better simulated by choice-of-one-action-per-turn, few state, hitpoint, context-independent rules than unarmed combat. Exchanging kicks/punchs with your opponent standing up, with a fixed distance between you is not particularly interesting.

Are there any existing rulesets that simulate any of this?

 

[Andhaira]

Sadly not in pc rpg's. (pnp rpgs are a different matter. Gurps for example has great MA rules)

Do note that in MOST pc rpg's there is a reason unarmed combat is not stressed: Its not worth it. See most players like getting new and shiny/glowy magick equipment like armor and swords. An unarmed MA wont need any of that stuff so devs figure who will play one?

Being a fan of MA's I would like such rules to be implemented. The closest in mainstream rpgs is probably the monk class in the IE games and in ToEE. The ninja and the monk in wioz8 also come to mind.

 

[Spectacle]

Unarmed and armed close combat is not really that different in their principles... rpgs do a shitty job of modeling both.

 

[sheek]

Sadly not in pc rpg's. (pnp rpgs are a different matter. Gurps for example has great MA rules)

Do note that in MOST pc rpg's there is a reason unarmed combat is not stressed: Its not worth it. See most players like getting new and shiny/glowy magick equipment like armor and swords. An unarmed MA wont need any of that stuff so devs figure who will play one?

True in practice. But RPGs are essentially about acting out your fantasies, normally based off fantasy or science fiction stories. You play characters who are heroes out of these kinds of stories. Look at any Hollywood action fiction movie and combat isn't how it is in an RPG. Even the best swordsman will have a scene where he loses his sword and has to grapple with the evil nemesis on a narrow ledge, trying to push the other guy off, meanwhile the enemy has got a stranglehold on him, and the hero to break that creative way to regain the advantage before suffocating.

Because RPGs neglect that they lose a lot of the drama that makes these stories interesting.

 

[The_scorpion]

in a cprg, you also face limitations in terms of animations. Outside of true roguelikes, there's no way you get all sensible unarmed combat moves into a game and then have an AI (or even the player) use it the way it is supposed to.

Also, Locks, takedowns, pushes etc. an AI will always have trouble using such context depending moves in a sensible way, even if we made them look the sme or similar animation wise.

Even if you integrate a beat-em-up minigame into your CRPG, the AI is still doing their moves based on things like speed and priority, not really according to the context.

instead of hit Point, breath points/ stamina in combination with critical hits (Ko's) can model acceptable HTH combat.

One big issue is that realistic HTH combat would be pretty dull/ boring, so many elements are simply not fit for games (like your hollywood movie comment shows, cineastic combat is a lot cooler than real combat)

Then you also get the issue of martial arts/ HTH combat not really fitting most RPG stereotypes. If you use them in a modern/ sci-fi context, you have to balance them with firearms, laserswords and what not, if you use that medieval based fantasy stuff you're doomed to not really finding fitting characters for these skills because the clischee dictates that at least a dagger or a staff must be used, and even the least of goblins has a crossbow/ bow...

 

[LCJr.]

6. Punching or kicking someone wearing full plate is probably only going to hurt you. Depends on the realism of the setting.

GURPS is the only system I've seen address this. I believe the samurai had a martial art that translating roughly to "wrestling in armor". The goal was to get your opponent into a position where they could be finished off with your dagger.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

The best way to handle unarmed combat I've noticed is to use a relatively open approach with the Storyteller system. But then again, in most Storytellre games (especially Vampire and Promethean), unarmed fights against other than goons are often more like actiony dialogues.

 

[Khor1255]

In principle unarmed combat is similar to a lot of armed combat. I could even see an offset to use the same animation (one with sword/daggar one without) twice or five times. As long as you are not looking for a dead on animatory representation why not use a similar animation for a variety of moves?

Of course the real problem comes with blocking and grappling. These would be very complex two sprite animations that would require a lot of work to represent all different weapons and gear set ups.

But if a system were to do this it could be integrated into any game with - of course - variable degrees of usefulness. In a medieval or even old west game such things as unarmed combat would be used excessively. In a more modern setting or a game with a lot of 'projectile' magic the close range system would not come into play nearly as much but could still offer a lot of possibilities you would never have with pure projectile based games.

In short, it is difficult but usually nothing worth much ever comes very easy.

 

[zenbitz]

Hmmm... interesting puzzle. GURPS (which I love) actually does a mediocre job of melee combat, armed or unarmed. But PnP has it's own restrictions (Uhh... I was told that there would be no math!). I agree with what others have said that armed/unarmed is not that much different, except you can't grab someone's hair/shirt/junk if you have a weapon in you hand.

So, I am going to assume a computer game, AND that you have some animation genius next door to make this look right. Also, we'll start unarmed and maybe add weapons in later. Lets also assume some kind of "turn based" thing, because whoemever clicks fast is probably not the best wrestler. Finally, we will not worry about martial arts "styles" - karate vs. judo vs. whatever - we will just have some generic moves. This was kind of like how HERO (champions) worked, I think....

The fight is a state engine, each state representing a "position" the combatants are in. Let's break it into 2 parts: Range A-D, and advantage +/- 5 (plus or minus representing who is favored)

D range: Must move to do anything - "out of range"
C range: Kicks only
B range: Punches (inc. forearm strikes) and Kicks
A range: Grappled.

So, if I have you in a head lock that would be like A+3 (A-3 for you, poor sap).

So the fight progresses back and forth, changing states, until someone hits +6, (submission/KO/stun whatever).

So, how do we change states - each combent, from each state, has a list of moves to chose from: for example:
close, jab, roundhouse, forearm smash, head butt, leg sweep, throw - whatever.

Just throwing ideas out - but a "combat round" could be something like each player creating a sequence of moves they are trying to execute (I would guess 3... it's a magic number). Some moves/combinatoins aren't allowed (can't head butt from range C!).

Now you just create a big transition matrix where you plug in the two sequences, their stats and abilities, physical size, reach whatever, and move from state X to state Y. Repeat until someone hits +6 or passes out from exhaustion.

The mod for weapons is that you will usually want to stay out of range A (can't using much other than a dagger or sword butt) and that actual wounds/damage would matter - but I think this would work to simulate a fight between two skilled opponents where there would be a lot of parrying and dodging. For example, you would only really score a good hit when you manuver to +5 advantage.

I would be happy to flesh this out further - but tell me what you think. The most obvious flaw is that there is no clear scaling to > 2 combatants!

As for punching plate armor... even broadswords don't work so well - that's why they went to maces and other mass weapons. Can't open the can - but you can crush it!

 

[crufty]

I would simplify.

AS hinted at, range is the big issue in hand to hand. So combatants are either looking to get in range, are in range, or trying to get out of range. Most punches and kicks do very little damage unless critical hit. Grappling is where real damage gets dealt.

So...what I would do is for pure hand to hand for X combatants,

each has a range to all others
faction determines who is trying to strike whom
people try to get within range or get out of range
then they either try to go for a critical hit or a grapple move
if successful damage is done. otherwise no damage and the fight continues.

 

[zenbitz]

I. Most punches and kicks do very little damage unless critical hit.

I think you are assuming "lethal" damage. As an (absurd?) example, boxers knock each other out occasionally - and they are wearing big pads on their hands!

 

[crufty]

lethal or non-lethal, I would say its the same. The big deal in hand to hand is range. The mechanics after that can be as complicated or simple as they need to be.

 

[zenbitz]

lethal or non-lethal, I would say its the same. The big deal in hand to hand is range. The mechanics after that can be as complicated or simple as they need to be.

Well, I don't understand why you call it a critical hit. Since non-criticals have no effect... just call them ... I dunno... hits?

 

[Castanova]

Real life hand-to-hand fights are usually won by the person who punches first (i.e., you win by surprising your opponent). Unless you're talking about some kind of weird situation where two people are approaching each other from a distance... In either case, turn-based seems like a poor way to model probably the most important aspect of a fist fight which is initiative.

 

[crufty]

exactly. Though I didn't address initiative directly--good point, excellent.

The reason why initiative is so important is that if you can catch your opponent off guard, your chance for that 'critical' hit is increased.

@zen I call them critical hits because I'm assuming in a crpg there is a universal modelling system of hits for swords, bows etc. w/a sword, any hit does damage. But in hand to hand, a normal hit doesn't really do anything. only the critical hit has real impact.

obviously you could model normal hits as sapping endurance or stamina or what have you, but in terms of actual damage you can take a beating all day and as long as nobody really connects for the knock out punch (critical), you'll be 'ok' (in game terms) at the conclusion of the combat.

one thing I've often wished for in crpgs is a 'sucker punch' option in dialogue. Hitting an opponent while they speak is the easiest way to win a fight.

 

[spectre]

I agree with some of the points above. I think it's a good idea overall to tie as much as possbile with a)awareness and b)stamina, fatigue, or whatever you call it, with the general idea being, that if you are aware of the opponent and in reasonable physical condition, you can defend yourelf effectively (for so long as there isn't a great difference in skill and you keep the distance).
Once you become fatigued, the chance to recieve a critical should increase a lot (or make it linear - more difference in fatigue and skill, more critical chance). Similarly if you are unaware (as in surprised, or have to divide attention between a number of opponents). This should reduce your chances somewhat.

This would make the fights closer to reality, making it so that the best way to win is a dirty surprise, as an alternative to the hard work of tiresome sparring just to create an opening. After that, the fight is decided through one to two critical blows max.

Also, I like that crufty draws the attention to talking in the fight.
I think this is underrepresented not only in the form of yielding, but also setting up attacks. Especially if a game is trying to portray a "bandit situation".
Sucker punches are one thing, but what about closing the distance, distracting the guy while letting friends get into positions. Not to count bluffs, diplomacy and intimidation.

It could actually work nice to dispell the D&D stereotypes that fighters need strength and endurance, sice now the fights could use a plethora of various checks. With Perception making a grand return here.

As for unarmed combat vs. armed opponents, this should depend on the circumstances. For instance, I wouldn't bet my money on a guy with a two handed weapon in close quarters. On the other hand, given some space, he should make mincemeat out of your brawler.
Armor should also make a whole lot of difference here, but I would stick to the general idea, that weapons beat unarmed, unless it is assisted by magic. Or the weapon user still tries to figure which side of the weapon is for business.

Given this assumption, it's hard to position unarmed combat as a valid gameplay element. It obviously needs a bit of thought.
First of all, it could be used as a means of warrior training.
Second, in campaigns that center around warrior cultures it could be used as one means of advancing the plot, winning favor, gaining quests or respect.
Third, in all those situations where we fight to subjugate and not really kill, because it would be unwise - during a tavern brawl, when we want to capture someone.
Finally, when the player is left unarmed and unarmored. The obvious context is right there - incarceration, but there's more.
This again requires good planning, so that the player accepts naturally that he or she does not run around in plate armor all day, and there are situations when carrying weapons is socially unacceptable. How many of you think it's rather odd when you take your lance and heavy shield into a pub? How many rpgs are guilty?

On the whole, it comes up a bit disappointing, unless the plot and setting are specifically constructed to cater for it.
Though I think it is a fair approach. There's a reason man started using tools after all.

 

[crufty]

spectre, that is very true. If rpgs let you walk around all day in armor / swords, there's no reason for unarmed combat.

one way to accomplish would be to have diff inventory builds, one for unarmed, armed, ranged. So your party enters a village, they switch to unarmed automatically..helmets off, swords put away etc. Go into a pub somebody steps on your shoes, its clobbering time.

I think pnps handle it a lot better. Well, the GM can. In HackMaster, or Whfrp, a good GM will require that armor (helmets) be taken off, that arms be left w/town guard, or that a weapons permit be purchased. Then there is the matter of getting weapons back etc, paying the holding fee and trying to find stolen items. The disappointing things about CRPGs is these actions could be more or less scripted so that they don't take that much time. Enter a town, party has different inventory layout. Leave town, 15GP are taken from party purse ("pay yer fee sir'"), roll d100, on 00 something happened otherwise things going on as normal. In pnp terms thats at least 10-15 minutes of scribbling and discussion each time.

maybe one day.

 

[zenbitz]

one way to accomplish would be to have diff inventory builds, one for unarmed, armed, ranged. So your party enters a village, they switch to unarmed automatically..helmets off, swords put away etc. Go into a pub somebody steps on your shoes, its clobbering time.

I like this idea a lot. Also prevents wholesale town slaughter.... although I think a "complete" game would alllow an attempt to bypass the weapon restrictions (if they can be hidden). Also makes sense for people to now have "hidden" armor (which is less effective, but useful in a bar fight). I wouldn't implement this without hit locations though - since it's very hard to conceal a helm.

Whether or not weapons beat grappling might not be an issue in general. It's a common fictional motif that the "Hero" grabs the the "Bad Guy's" gun arm/knife arm and wrestles him into submission.

So, it's not totally worthless to implement game mechanics that handle the "bad" situation of "fists" vs "swords" . Similarly "knife to a gun fight" situations.

Another thought is that you might have a fight between an expert dueler with high skill and dexterity vs. a bruising brawler. I think it make sens e (in some games) to "allow" the brawler a tactical choice whereupon he tries to close and strong arm the little weasel before he gets cut to ribbons.

 

[zenbitz]

one thing I've often wished for in crpgs is a 'sucker punch' option in dialogue. Hitting an opponent while they speak is the easiest way to win a fight.

I think players would just always sucker punch then. Probably better to just roll it into the surprise mechanic

Oh, hehehe.... it might be balanced if the NPCs had a non-zero tendency to sucker punch YOU.

Initiative is only of supreme importance in a fist fight if either
a) attacker is highly skilled (in your model, high chance of crit), or incredibly strong
b) defender can't take a hit.

It would certainly be the correct mechanic if you were doing a <a> Midnight Run</a> game!

 

[spectre]

I think players would just always sucker punch then.

We're not saying it should always succed, are we?
The game should provide engough feedback, so that the player can make an (semi) informed desision wether it's profitable to do it. If the other guy is alert and/or distrustful, this might turn out ugly.
Also, depends on many other things, such as how crime is handled in the current setting. If there are witnesses, sucker punch means you will automatically be fingered as the attacker.
There's also other tools to be used here, like reputation, karma, and the like. I am not saying Bethesduh model should be used (as in each sucker punch = -10 Karma, or whatever we're using atm), but if you openly play a thug for some time, people should start telling you to keep the distance.

And yeah, I think such features make sense only when NPCs can do it too. Where's the fun of confronting guys who do not use the full potential?

Initiative is only of supreme importance in a fist fight if either
a) attacker is highly skilled (in your model, high chance of crit), or incredibly strong
b) defender can't take a hit.

Hmm. It may be so that I am mixing surprise attacks with the simple concept of who goes when in the turn, but what the heck.
What "highly skilled" are we talking about? One doesn't have to study for 4 years under sensei Aye Fling Poo to know that knees have a nasty habit of breaking quite easily when kicked, or that a surprise punch to the back of the head can really, really ruin your day. I reckon all these things become quite important factors if you're ot the one to go first.

 

[zenbitz]

I am a little confused. One the one hand - you say that sucker punching should be allowed, but not "always succeed' - and on the other hand you are arguing that surprise unarmed attacks should be highly effective.

Now, the nuance of "always' is not important because from a game balance point of view - if sucker punching is significantly better than not, then a player will always take the option, unless the penalty for whiffing is huge. Which doesn't seem to make much sense unless you lose 2,500 honor points for not issuing a formal combat challenge...

As for effectiveness... I can see the argument going either way depending on the character in question. If some nancy boy scientist (or mage) in a white coat (pointy hat) punches someone in the back of the head- they might hurt their hand.

I do think you have a point - you don't to be HIGHLY skilled, but you need to have some fighting experience and/or physical prowess to cold-cock someone.

Hmmm.... I seem very argumentative. In any case - I think your ideas are good even as I debate some of the details.

 

[spectre]

Hey, that's the point. We take an idea and start asking questions to refine it. I am not saying all I wrote is perfect and working.

Ok, let me clarify, the way I see it, a sucker punch should really up the odds in your favor, if it succeds completely - meaning you manage to close your distance without arousing suspicion (may be a matter of sneak, but also smooth talk could be involved) then strike the sweet spot. As you can see, it can go wrong in quite a few places, but if it hits, you have an advantage. More specifically, the other guy is stunned, cannot run, or perhaps is even laying on the ground.
Thing is, streetwise individuals and experienced fighters should not allow you to do it, unless you're really good. The former will tell you to stand back, the latter may even lure you into attacking and give you some of the hurt back. Perhaps with a concealed knife.
Think about it, you see a 2 meter high monstrosity of a man, looking as if he were built ina dockyard rather than born. He approaches you on the street at 8pm and starts talking, what are your thoughts about letting him get within arm's reach?

Now, the nuance of "always' is not important because from a game balance point of view - if sucker punching is significantly better than not, then a player will always take the option, unless the penalty for whiffing is huge. Which doesn't seem to make much sense unless you lose 2,500 honor points for not issuing a formal combat challenge...

Well, as you can read above,I don't fancy it as a miracle kill everyone option. There should always be a risk that you'll bit more than you can chew.
Though it should be brutally effective when it connects really well.

This formal combat thing is a step in the right direction. If we're talking fantasy settings, and the player is bound by a sort of code of conduct (knight, samurai, paladin, nobleman), there should be repercussions for fighting dirty and unhonourably. If the player plays a thug, however (or is associating with such lot), it's a different game, though there should always be social "in game" effects for such things.

As for effectiveness... I can see the argument going either way depending on the character in question. If some nancy boy scientist (or mage) in a white coat (pointy hat) punches someone in the back of the head- they might hurt their hand.

Well, we can assume a nancy boy had no training, and does not really know what he's doing. If he had, it's another story. Anyways, I would still advise such a character to get a heavy club. It tends to make things a bit equal. Though in such scenarios, I would rely on overall difference in skill. If the nancy boy tries to pull this shtick on another nancy boy, I would assume there's a chance of success. If against an experienced soldier, not that much.

Now, let's turn the scenario around, a semi experienced thug tries to pull a sucker punch on the nancy boy. No, it all depends. If he is aware and suspicious, he would not let the guy come near and throw a surprise sucker (okay, I assume he's not a compulsive daydreamer/retarded). The attacker has to resort to threats (intimidate rolls or whatnot), or, in game terms, now has to initiate regular combat. The results are of course predictable, though the fight will now take two or three rounds instead of just one. That's assuming the attacked will not turn and run, as he should.

Now, this whole thing is different if we should talk about a sort of duel combat, whent the two combatants know the other guy is hostile, they assume combat stance, and it will now come to blows.

 

[zenbitz]

Ah, but if we are supposing complete surprise then the 'sucker' (who is gettin' punched) training and skill are of no consequence! Only his perception and streewise are. Not to mention his raw ability to suck up punches.

But no fair sticking the "club" in... that's a bait and switch. Although I would like to point out that all these unarmed concepts of surprise and sucker punching apply double to weapons - and TRIPLE to guns (as deadlieness of weapon increases... so does value of surprise, no?)

Re your last points - it's clearly that a game could have multiple states of awareness/waryness.

I guess some (most) cRPG games have a "attack while sneaking" mode.

 

[spectre]

Ah, but if we are supposing complete surprise then the 'sucker' (who is gettin' punched) training and skill are of no consequence! Only his perception and streewise are. Not to mention his raw ability to suck up punches.

I believe a lot of this whole training and experience business is about acting instinctively and "programming" yourself.
I've heard stories about people experienced in combat and streetfighting who would often overreact and smack their acquaintances around (subconsciously), just because they came to tap them on the shoulder.

I guess some (most) cRPG games have a "attack while sneaking" mode.

It's one thing, but it doesn't allow for a broader concept - you can make a surprise attack by being unseen, but also by distracting.
Look how a lot of muggings are done (okay, don't. Best read about them (-: , you distract the victim by talking, asking for the time or directions or whatever, then wham!

 

[zenbitz]

I've heard stories about people experienced in combat and streetfighting who would often overreact and smack their acquaintances around (subconsciously), just because they came to tap them on the shoulder.

I'll buy this. I think a game designer could go either way.

[/quote]

I guess some (most) cRPG games have a "attack while sneaking" mode.

It's one thing, but it doesn't allow for a broader concept - you can make a surprise attack by being unseen, but also by distracting.
Look how a lot of muggings are done (okay, don't. Best read about them (-: , you distract the victim by talking, asking for the time or directions or whatever, then wham![/quote]

Not just muggings - but actual pickpocketings. I sort of hated how fallout did this (walk up to guy, use "steal" skill - take anything, no matter how important or where it was stowed)

I am thinking it would be fine to just dispense with pickpocketing altogether - unless victim is drunk/unconscious/otherwise incapacitated. Maybe in a game that focused on urban crime. Even theif (IIRC) did this in a silly manner - without a crowd or distraction.