Realistic Combat

[mmadsen]

The issue of realistic combat in games comes up regularly, and I thought I'd share some examples of what that might mean.

One-Shot Drops: Surviving the Myth, from the FBI's Law Enforcement Bulletin, shares a number of shocking examples of handguns not taking down a perp:

In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. The officer shot the individual four times in the chest; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, “The wounds felt like bee stings.”

In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras.

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition.

The Dubious Quick Kill, part 1 contrasts the modern sport of fencing against its dueling roots:

Take for example the case of the duel fought in 1613 between the Earl of Dorset and Lord Edward Bruce. According to the Earl's account, he received a rapier-thrust in the right nipple which passed 'level through my body, and almost to my back.' Seemingly unaffected, the Earl remained engaged in the combat for some time. The duel continued with Dorset going on to lose a finger while attempting to disarm his adversary manually. Locked in close quarters, the two struggling combatants ultimately ran out of breath. According to Dorset's account, they paused briefly to recover, and while catching their wind, considered proposals to release each other's blades. Failing to reach an agreement on exactly how this might be done, the seriously wounded Dorset finally managed to free his blade from his opponent's grasp and ultimately ran Lord Bruce through with two separate thrusts. Although Dorset had received what appears to have been a grievous wound that, in those days, ought to have been mortal, he not only remained active long enough to dispatch his adversary, but without the aid of antibiotics and emergency surgery, also managed to live another thirty-nine years.

Brutal? Consider this anecdote:

However, consider the duel between Lagarde and Bazanez. After the later received a rapier blow which bounced off his head, Bazanez is said to have received an unspecified number of thrusts which, according to the account, "entered" the body. Despite having lost a good deal of blood, he nevertheless managed to wrestle Lagarde to the ground, whereupon he proceeded to inflict some fourteen stab wounds with his dagger to an area extending from his opponent's neck to his navel. Lagarde meanwhile, entertained himself by biting off a portion of Bazanez's chin and, using the pommel of his weapon, ended the affair by fracturing Bazanez's skull. History concludes, saying that neither combatant managed to inflict any "serious" injury, and that both recovered from the ordeal.

Sometimes real life beats Hollywood:

While the previous tale seems amazing enough, hardly anyone can tell a story more incredible than that witnessed by R. Deerhurst. Two duelists, identified only as "His Grace, the Duke of B" and "Lord B", after an exchange of exceptionally cordial letters of challenge met in the early morning to conduct their affair with pistols and swords. The combat began with a pistol ball inflicting a slight wound to the Duke's thumb. A second firing was exchanged in which Lord B was then wounded slightly. Each then immediately drew his sword and rushed upon the other with reckless ferocity. After an exchange of only one or two thrusts, the two became locked corps à corps. Struggling to free themselves by "repeated wrenches," they finally separated enough to allow the Duke to deliver a thrust which entered the inside of Lord B 's sword arm and exited the outside of the arm at the elbow. Incredible as it may seem, his Lordship was still able to manage his sword and eventually drove home a thrust just above Duke B 's right nipple. Transfixed on his Lordship's blade, the Duke nevertheless continued, attempting repeatedly to direct a thrust at his Lordship's throat. With his weapon fixed in His Grace's chest, Lord B now had no means of defense other than his free arm and hand. Attempting to grasp the hostile blade, he lost two fingers and mutilated the remainder. Finally, the mortally wounded Duke penetrated the bloody parries of Lord B's hand with a thrust just below Lord B 's heart.

In the Hollywood swashbucklers this scene might well have have ended at this point, if not long before, but real life often seems to have a more incredible, and certainly in this case, more romantic outcome. Locked together at close quarters and unable to withdraw their weapons from each other's bodies for another thrust, the two stood embracing each other in a death grip. At this point the seconds, attempting to intercede, begged the pair to stop. Neither combatant would agree, however, and there they both remained, each transfixed upon the blade of the other until, due to extensive blood loss, his Lordship finally collapsed. In doing so, he withdrew his sword from the Duke's body and, staggering briefly, fell upon his weapon, breaking the blade in two. A moment later, the "victorious" Duke deliberately snapped his own blade and, with a sigh, fell dead upon the corpse of his adversary.

From a realism perspective, the problem is not that a high-level D&D fighter can survive a dozen sword cuts and spear thrusts but that he cannot die by any one attack.

Of course, the physical aspects of combat are just one source of unrealistic elements. All RPG characters are, apparently, psychopaths, as described in Psychiatric Casualties in War :

Swank and Marchand's World War II study of US Army combatants on the beaches of Normandy found that after 60 days of continuous combat, 98% of the surviving soldiers had become psychiatric casualties. And the remaining 2% were identified as "aggressive psychopathic personalities." Thus it is not too far from the mark to observe that there is something about continuous, inescapable combat which will drive 98% of all men insane, and the other 2% were crazy when they got there. Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of the effects of continuous combat.

It must be understood that the kind of continuous, protracted combat that produces such high psychiatric casualty rates is largely a product of 20th-century warfare. The Battle of Waterloo lasted only a day. Gettysburg lasted only three days--and they took the nights off. It was only in World War I that armies began to experience months of 24-hour combat and vast numbers of psychiatric casualties were first observed.

Actually, it's in resistance to killing that RPG psychology and real-life psychology diverge the most:

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the official U.S. historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his postcombat interviews, Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Specialized weapons, such as a flame-thrower, usually were fired. Crew-served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always were fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.

[the Jester]

Fascinating.

[Victim]

Originally Posted by mmadsen

Indent]Actually, it's in resistance to killing that RPG psychology and real-life psychology diverge the most:

One major modern revelation in the field of military psychology is the observation that this resistance to killing one's own species is also a key factor in human combat. Brigadier General S. L. A. Marshall first observed this during his work as the official U.S. historian of the European Theater of Operations in World War II. Based on his postcombat interviews, Marshall concluded in his landmark book, Men Against Fire, that only 15 to 20% of the individual riflemen in World War II fired their weapons at an exposed enemy soldier. Specialized weapons, such as a flame-thrower, usually were fired. Crew-served weapons, such as a machine gun, almost always were fired. And firing would increase greatly if a nearby leader demanded that the soldier fire. But when left to their own devices, the great majority of individual combatants throughout history appear to have been unable or unwilling to kill.

This seems to come up alot in RPG discussions and I've seen posters on other boards state that others had debunked Marshall's research in this area. I don't recall the author or article though. This is all I could find: http://hnn.us/articles/1356.html

[mmadsen]

Originally Posted by Victim

This seems to come up alot in RPG discussions and I've seen posters on other boards state that others had debunked Marshall's research in this area. I don't recall the author or article though. This is all I could find: http://hnn.us/articles/1356.html

From the original article:

Marshall's findings have been somewhat controversial. Faced with scholarly concern about a researcher's methodology and conclusions, the scientific method involves replicating the research. In Marshall's case, every available, parallel, scholarly study validates his basic findings. Ardant du Picq's surveys of French officers in the 1860s and his observations on ancient battles, Keegan and Holmes' numerous accounts of ineffectual firing throughout history, Richard Holmes' assessment of Argentine firing rates in the Falklands War, Paddy Griffith's data on the extraordinarily low killing rate among Napoleonic and American Civil War regiments, the British Army's laser reenactments of historical battles, the FBI's studies of nonfiring rates among law enforcement officers in the 1950s and 1960s, and countless other individual and anecdotal observations all confirm Marshall's fundamental conclusion that man is not, by nature, a killer.

I don't think it's an issue for PCs, or for ordinary people raised in say, a quasi-Mongol horde, but modern middle-class city-slickers don't like to shoot people.

[jmucchiello]

Of course, these are all edge cases. Many people drop when hit with just 1 bullet. Most people die quickly after a sword enters their chest. All this does is show that abstract hit point models are probably no less accurate at portraying body mortality than any other system used in RPGs. That does not mean that any RPG system's method is more realistic than other ones. Only that the ability to accurately portray "damage" is nigh impossible.

[mmadsen]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

Of course, these are all edge cases. Many people drop when hit with just 1 bullet. Most people die quickly after a sword enters their chest.

The evidence seems to point to most lethal weapons really only having a fairly small chance of killing someone -- like 10% for a pistol shot, much less for a knife wound.

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

All this does is show that abstract hit point models are probably no less accurate at portraying body mortality than any other system used in RPGs. That does not mean that any RPG system's method is more realistic than other ones. Only that the ability to accurately portray "damage" is nigh impossible.

It's not the abstractness of hit points that makes them unrealistic; it's the predictability. Ablative hit points make it very, very hard to kill someone in one blow -- or very, very hard to not kill someone in two. From a realism perspective, the problem is not that a high-level D&D fighter can survive a dozen sword cuts and spear thrusts but that he cannot die by any one attack.

Hit points tend to model injuries poorly because characters either have an "unrealistic" number of hit points and can't be killed by a single good sword stroke, or they have a "realistic" number of hit points and can't survive three or four stab wounds.

If we eliminate ablative hit points and instead give each wound a chance to end the fight, then we end up with a "realistically" random system, where one shot can mean one kill, but a dozen shots might not mean a kill.

For instance, instead of having 10 hit dice, a great warrior might have a 1-in-10 chance of falling to a spear thrust (via, say, a Damage Save). By either set of rules, the great warrior should expect to survive roughly ten spear thrusts -- he's equally tough under both sets of rules -- but the two systems play out differently.

[Griffith Dragonlake]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

Of course, these are all edge cases. Many people drop when hit with just 1 bullet. Most people die quickly after a sword enters their chest. All this does is show that abstract hit point models are probably no less accurate at portraying body mortality than any other system used in RPGs. That does not mean that any RPG system's method is more realistic than other ones. Only that the ability to accurately portray "damage" is nigh impossible.

I wouldn't call them edge cases. I would argue that the fencers in question were high level fighters. My experience in the martial arts and the SCA is that highly experienced fighters can sustain a lot more punnishment than novice ones. Those same "high level fighters" have more determination to win in spite of injuries than the "lower level" ones.

I think the reason many peple drop when hit with 1 bullet or 1 sword hit is because they are not experienced in receiving damage and overcoming the pain. For all the complaints about D&D hit points, I think that when combined with critical hits it does a pretty good job of modeling highly experienced, i.e. high level combatants. I'm also reminded of a passage from Mallory's Morte d'Arthur where 2 knights fought each other all day long, their armor in tatters yet surviving the fight. So I'll also add 'pretty good job of modeling highly experienced literary combatants.'

Thanks for the info!

[Yair]

Interesting finds. Thanks

[Numion]

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

Of course, these are all edge cases. Many people drop when hit with just 1 bullet.

I prefer my characters to be edge cases.

[shilsen]

Originally Posted by Numion

I prefer my characters to be edge cases.

Bingo!

[Klaus]

Originally Posted by mmadsen

The evidence seems to point to most lethal weapons really only having a fairly small chance of killing someone -- like 10% for a pistol shot, much less for a knife wound.
It's not the abstractness of hit points that makes them unrealistic; it's the predictability. Ablative hit points make it very, very hard to kill someone in one blow -- or very, very hard to not kill someone in two. From a realism perspective, the problem is not that a high-level D&D fighter can survive a dozen sword cuts and spear thrusts but that he cannot die by any one attack.

Hit points tend to model injuries poorly because characters either have an "unrealistic" number of hit points and can't be killed by a single good sword stroke, or they have a "realistic" number of hit points and can't survive three or four stab wounds.

If we eliminate ablative hit points and instead give each wound a chance to end the fight, then we end up with a "realistically" random system, where one shot can mean one kill, but a dozen shots might not mean a kill.

For instance, instead of having 10 hit dice, a great warrior might have a 1-in-10 chance of falling to a spear thrust (via, say, a Damage Save). By either set of rules, the great warrior should expect to survive roughly ten spear thrusts -- he's equally tough under both sets of rules -- but the two systems play out differently.

Of course, Vitality Points and Wound Points end this problem. A character may survive dozens of minor stabs (depleting his VP), but fall to one well-placed blow (a critical hit, whose damage goes straight to WP).

[RFisher]

Originally Posted by mmadsen

The evidence seems to point to most lethal weapons really only having a fairly small chance of killing someone -- like 10% for a pistol shot, much less for a knife wound.

Of course, while the chance of killing is important, there's also the fact that you can be taken out of a fight without dying.

A combatant can be:

• Fully effective
• Partially effective (rare)
• Alive but out of the fight--survives in the long run
• Alive but out of the fight--dies due to injuries
• Dead

Overall, I think D&D doesn't do too badly handling all of these things. Just that it simplifies "out of the fight" to "unconscious". Plus, it's usually too easy to recover, but that's a concession to fun.

The "anything can go down in one hit" problem is easy enough to fix, but doing so doesn't necessarily make the game more fun.

[Wraith-Hunter]

If you want to read a very interesting book about killing and the psychology behind it there is this book: "On Killing" by Dave Grossman http://www.amazon.com/Killing-Psycho...e=UTF8&s=books

There is alot of evidence that the VAST majority of the population is very resistant to taking life, even in defense of their own. The book details many battles and the %'s of people who were fighting or faking it. Most of the human race is incapable of killing for several reasons.

It also talks about modern combat and the need to allowing troops R&R so that they don't go nuts.

On a D&D note it is ALOT different killing members of another race than of your own race. In situations where large numbers of people are killed, say the holocost or other government sponsored genocides, first the people to be killed have to be dehumanized in the killers mind before they can do the deed. Again the holocost is probably the most documented account of this happening, though one of the smaller genocides in the 20th century. 6 million compared to the 180 million world wide during the 20th century. But in all the situations the murdered people are first dehumanized buy the killers long before the killing starts. In D&D terms it is going to be ALOT easier to kill and owlbear, goblins, orcs or Dragons than killing members of your own race, or members of another race you see as people (easier mentaly )

This is anedoctal can't remeber where I heard or read it was that there out of 100 soilders 90 of them are useless and should be someplace else. 9 are fighters and fight well and 1 is a true warrior.

After all the martial arts I have taken I gave up on trying to model realalistic combat. I just look at it as an abstract. The biggest thing I hate is that you can get somebody from behind that has any kind of level and hold a dagger to his thoat and threaten his life. I also don't like how if you have 100 hit points you are 100% effective at 1 hit point as you are at 100 and then you are OUT! But I can live with the abstract system. Anything even slightly more realalistic is going to take EVEN LONGER to resolve, and in the end make players die more often. Anything random ALWAYS favors the DM/enemies in D&D, becaue there are an unlimited number of them.

Being into firearms I know LOTS of stories about people that have taken multiple shots from serious weapons and lived and were fine physically after wards. I have also read stories about people dieing after being shot with a BB gun, happened in FL in the last 6 months. I've been shot with a BB gun a few times being a stupid kid and though they hurt I never came close to dieing. Drugs also can play a big role in the outcome as well. Many block pain or give you a 'rage like' ability, akin to temp hitpoints. This is why pepper spray is useless on some attackers. (I even know a dude who uses it on chicken wings - yuck).

In the defensive firearm classes I have taken, shot placement is KEY. In a defensive situation you aim for a inverted triangle made up from the collar bones to the sternum to STOP the attacker. Unfourtunately IDPA and IPSC scoring does not use this location system, for them it is either a head shot or center of mass where it would be most effective in between

There are also many accounts of thick clothing greatly slowing down or stopping smaller caliber ammunition or certain hollow points. Also in firearms the ammount of energy transfered to a target is key. A fast moving round of ball ammunition (think .40 & 9mm) might hit and go through the body without transfering its energy to the target. Where a large hollow point say a .45 might expand to much on thick clothing and loose too much energy before hitting the target. Other less powerfull rounds have been known to be stopped by leather jackets, .32 and .38

Contrary to popular belief a bullet must be optimal to its target. There is no perfect gun and no perfect bullet. Some bullets penetrate more some less. Depending what you are shooting and WHERE you shoot is is all factored into bullet choice. .223 is not even recomended for medium game like deer, but on a similar size human our military uses it against men. There is even ammunition now that is very high tech that will cut through body armor and not through soft targets. Cool stuff, this was developed because of increased criminal use of body armor. Serious hunters also match bullet calliber, weight, characteristics etc for what animal they are hunting. Even in the same caliber and the same gun 2 different bullets can have VASTLY different characteristics. Self defense ammunition tries to be a generalist in a specialists world. And if you go to a gun board there are endless arguments over big and slow (.45) and small and fast (9mm and similar) as to what is better. This topic will come up at least once a week and last 300+ posts. And is never resolved. Probaby won't be untill we have plasma rifles

[RFisher]

Originally Posted by Wraith-Hunter

The biggest thing I hate is that you can get somebody from behind that has any kind of level and hold a dagger to his thoat and threaten his life.

It used to always bother me that (A)D&D didn't handle this situation. These days I see that as a perfect situation in which hp should not be honored. But it was a flaw in the game that it didn't even make me realize that, much less tell me specifically how to handle it.

Originally Posted by Wraith-Hunter

I also don't like how if you have 100 hit points you are 100% effective at 1 hit point as you are at 100 and then you are OUT!

But I hate death spirals. Especially since I've learned that they are less realistic.

[Wraith-Hunter]

Originally Posted by RFisher

It used to always bother me that (A)D&D didn't handle this situation. These days I see that as a perfect situation in which hp should not be honored. But it was a flaw in the game that it didn't even make me realize that, much less tell me specifically how to handle it.



But I hate death spirals. Especially since I've learned that they are less realistic.

I agree, which is why I am happy with the current abstract system. I wouldn't mind if it was alittle MORE abstract to speed up play. But it is NOWHERE near as bad as Mechwarrior / Battletech that I played in HS. 1 round of combat could take 1 hour or more in real time.

[Henry]

Originally Posted by Klaus

Of course, Vitality Points and Wound Points end this problem. A character may survive dozens of minor stabs (depleting his VP), but fall to one well-placed blow (a critical hit, whose damage goes straight to WP).

Except that you very uncommonly (1 in about 200 to 400 chance) in a VP/WP system have a one-shot kill with the heroes, which is more common than that. These incidences above stand out because they are NOT the norm, not because they are the norm.

Massive damage saves are another way to model it, and to me they do a slightly better chance, if you put the MDT at, say, 10 damage. If every time someone took over 10 damage in one hit, they had to make an MDT fortitude save, there somewhere between a 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 chance that they're out of the fight. Change most weapon damage to about 2d8 (for most weapons, and about a 1d12 for say knives and short blades and improv weapons) and IMO it starts to approach more plausible "kill" figures.

Of course, none of this invalidates the best quote in the thread:

Originally Posted by jmucchiello

Only that the ability to accurately portray "damage" is nigh impossible.

[Jubilee]

We have a GM who briefly used a rule that whenenever you took half of your current HP remaining in a single hit, you had to make a con check - roll under your con on a d20 - or you were unconscious. This was particularly deadly at low levels, because almost any hit even on the fighter took half his remaining hp. We all got pretty tired of everyone falling unconscious during combat and he ditched the rule. It may have been more realistic but not very fun.

/ali

[Vrecknidj]

This is one of the better threads I've read in a while. Thanks everyone.

Dave

[replicant2]

I like reading these types of threads (thanks for the info, mmadsen), but my standard response is: If you're seeking to model realistic combat, D&D is in no way, shape, or form the game for you.

And point taken that "realism" is incredibly hard to duplicate, with these examples proving that hit points perhaps aren't so far-fetched after all.

[Darklone]

Real Life combat is broken!

Great thread!