Observations on matching "One vs. Many" combat mechanics to cinematic combat

[Alexander Kalinowski]

The fiction is a fetter on the GM, and the players have great scope to play with and establish fiction. In other words, to evaluate a situation in PbtA, you need the scene setup in full to do any sort of analysis, because the constraints on the GM and players will be established there.

This requires an explanation, I think. Because I am reading the following in the Dungeon World rulebook:
"When you draw a map don’t try to make it complete. Leave room for the unknown. As you play you’ll get more ideas and the players will give you inspiration to work with. Let the maps expand and change.
And:
"Traps may come from your prep, or you can improvise them based on your moves. If nothing has established that the location is safe, traps are always an option."
So there is an enormous leeway in the fictional elements that a GM can introduce into any given scene on a whim. He should just avoid contradicting pre-established narration. What keeps a GM from spontaneously adding enemies to a situation? Probably nothing.

And to return to the subject of the thread (let's not derail it completely with PbtA): what's keeping the GM from either stating that a player's intention to attack that enemy orc (who has been attacked by a fellow PC a few moments before) translates into a Hack & Slash move OR telling him instead that his ally is blocking the approach to the enemy orc and he has to take a Defy Danger move first to avoid getting hit by his friend accidentally if he insists on going forth with the attack?

The system doesn't handle any of that, it is off-loaded to the GM's guidance and his narration, making the situation play out as he sees fit within the above-mentioned constraints.

 

[Ovinomancer]

This line of argument indicates exactly what I said previously:

"To be fair, your not grasping the structure of play and the boundaries of it are probably the most common misconception of PbtA play and usually comes from a shallow reading of the SRD material while trying to understand it in the framework of D&D. In D&D, the DM has sole authority over the fiction, but this isn't true in PbtA games."

Ironically, this is the part of my post immediately before the part you smipped out to respond to.

You leave space on the map because play will generate new fiction from both player moves and GM moves. The key to GM moves is that they only occur when the player makes a roll and fails or chooses a complication. And, while the GM does have a lot of lattitude to add new things when they make certain moves, thise new things must still flow from the established fiction. You "leave blank spaces" so that prep aids play but diesn't hinder it. "Hold on lightly" is another PbtA maxim about prep meaning that play may necessitate abandoning prep altogether and, as GM, you shouldn't fight that.

What I find really funny, though, is that you're complaining that PbtA building in GM winging new material in reaction to the play is concerning but have zero orobkems with the far more absolute DM authority over fiction in D&D where a DM can add whatever, whenever, whyever. Somehow "leave blank spaces" raises flags when in D&D it's always been that. PbtA has "play to find out what happens" as a maxim. This means that the story comes from the play, not the prep. For this to happen, you have to have blank spaces to move into. If everything is detailed already, you aren't playing to find out. You're confusing this for arbitrary GM powers, which is more a D&D thing.

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

This line of argument indicates exactly what I said previously: "To be fair, your not grasping the structure of play and the boundaries of it are probably the most common misconception of PbtA play and usually comes from a shallow reading of the SRD material while trying to understand it in the framework of D&D. In D&D, the DM has sole authority over the fiction, but this isn't true in PbtA games."

I'm drawing on examples from the Apocalypse World and Dungeon World rulebooks and from actual plays (though it's been a while since I've watched any).

Ironically, this is the part of my post immediately before the part you smipped out to respond to. You leave space on the map because play will generate new fiction from both player moves and GM moves. The key to GM moves is that they only occur when the player makes a roll and fails or chooses a complication.

Not necessarily. In the Apo World rulebook example of play, gangers show up in follow-up scene after a PC rolled a 10+ on a Move. Furthermore, the GM has the agency to not allow PCs to make a move by enforcing a Hard Move by his side. Again in the Apo World example, the GM makes a Hard Move - the PC cannot dodge the grenade. The fiction, of course, poses some restraints on the GM. At the same time, he's got a lot of ways to manipulate the way things go and what can happen and what can't happen. In trad games, there are more game world physics that constrain the action.

And, while the GM does have a lot of lattitude to add new things when they make certain moves, thise new things must still flow from the established fiction. You "leave blank spaces" so that prep aids play but diesn't hinder it. "Hold on lightly" is another PbtA maxim about prep meaning that play may necessitate abandoning prep altogether and, as GM, you shouldn't fight that.

Well, it depends on what you meany by that. If you mean by "they must flow" that they mustn't contradict established fiction, we're on the same page. But in the Apo World play example, the GM determines the gender of an NPC that appeared in an earlier scene on-the-fly. It's neither pre-established nor derived from a prior Move.

What I find really funny, though, is that you're complaining that PbtA building in GM winging new material in reaction to the play is concerning but have zero orobkems with the far more absolute DM authority over fiction in D&D where a DM can add whatever, whenever, whyever. Somehow "leave blank spaces" raises flags when in D&D it's always been that. PbtA has "play to find out what happens" as a maxim. This means that the story comes from the play, not the prep. For this to happen, you have to have blank spaces to move into. If everything is detailed already, you aren't playing to find out. You're confusing this for arbitrary GM powers, which is more a D&D thing.

I don't have any problem with blank spaces. Nor do I have a problem with inserting entities into the game world, on-the-fly, if necessary. However -and here's where we return to the thread of the subject- trad games have more rules that define the "physics" of a gaming world. Both the PCs as well as the NPCs are bound by the physics of this world. If the rules say you can only shoot one arrow per 5 seconds turn, that defines the game world to some degree. It creates limitations. Now this thread is about raising the awareness that to more closely emulate cinematic combat in one specific aspect (One-versus-Many) there needs to be a limitation to who can attack in a 5 second time frame. To be precisely, I am highlighting that within that time frame not everyone should be able to attack each round (not exactly a tough restriction). And if you are playing PbtA, you probably shouldn't narrate it that way either if you want to evoke a movie combat feel. In movie combat, members of the outnumbering force frequently wait to spot the opportunity for a single fatal blow. They also occasionally block each other.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm drawing on examples from the Apocalypse World and Dungeon World rulebooks and from actual plays (though it's been a while since I've watched any).

This doesn't mean you aren't missing the point.

Not necessarily. In the Apo World rulebook example of play, gangers show up in follow-up scene after a PC rolled a 10+ on a Move. Furthermore, the GM has the agency to not allow PCs to make a move by enforcing a Hard Move by his side. Again in the Apo World example, the GM makes a Hard Move - the PC cannot dodge the grenade. The fiction, of course, poses some restraints on the GM. At the same time, he's got a lot of ways to manipulate the way things go and what can happen and what can't happen. In trad games, there are more game world physics that constrain the action.

That's... not how hard moves work. A 'soft' move is one that sets up danger -- the ganger throws a grenade, what do you do? A 'hard' move inflicts the results of the danger, which you're only supposed to do if a roll is failed or the players ignore a set up danger. So, if a 'soft' move is to chuck a grenade into the party, the 'hard' move is it going off, either because the players ignored it or failed a check to deal with it. 'Hard' moves don't remove player moves, they result from a failed player move or the players ignoring the danger -- they flow from the established fiction. When you make a hard move it should always be from something you've already set up, and it should fit the play themes.

The follow-up scene is a new scene -- it starts the loop of 'put players into a situation' again, so having gangers show up at the start of the scene is the usual frame a problem to be dealt with.

I'm feeling pretty strongly that you've skimmed the rules but don't understand them because you're approaching it from a trad game point of view where the GM has a planned scenario and the players interact with it. In PbtA, there may be some prep for some scenes, but you then "play to find out" what happens with players and GM making moves that play off of each other in unexpected ways.
[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is a great champion of DW. Perhaps he can do a better job here. I can do a passable job for BitD, as that's the PbtA ruleset I have experience with.

Well, it depends on what you meany by that. If you mean by "they must flow" that they mustn't contradict established fiction, we're on the same page. But in the Apo World play example, the GM determines the gender of an NPC that appeared in an earlier scene on-the-fly. It's neither pre-established nor derived from a prior Move.

I... I just... what? Are you serious with the gender thing?

I don't have any problem with blank spaces. Nor do I have a problem with inserting entities into the game world, on-the-fly, if necessary. However -and here's where we return to the thread of the subject- trad games have more rules that define the "physics" of a gaming world. Both the PCs as well as the NPCs are bound by the physics of this world. If the rules say you can only shoot one arrow per 5 seconds turn, that defines the game world to some degree. It creates limitations. Now this thread is about raising the awareness that to more closely emulate cinematic combat in one specific aspect (One-versus-Many) there needs to be a limitation to who can attack in a 5 second time frame. To be precisely, I am highlighting that within that time frame not everyone should be able to attack each round (not exactly a tough restriction). And if you are playing PbtA, you probably shouldn't narrate it that way either if you want to evoke a movie combat feel. In movie combat, members of the outnumbering force frequently wait to spot the opportunity for a single fatal blow. They also occasionally block each other.

Which trad game are you talking about? 6 second rounds is D&D 3, 4, and 5. Before that a round was 'some time' or '1 minute' and attacks in all are the effective ones, not everything that's possible. So, yeah, we first need to dispense with the idea that theses systems model physics rather than model a game. No D&D models physics or even models the fiction of the game world terribly closely. An 'attack' in 5e can be just about anything, fiction wise, but it has definite game mechanic results. My attack with a greatsword could include a feint followed by a half-blade grip thrust into a pommel strike, but it resolves as a d20+modifiers roll that does 2d6+modifiers damage. So, this the idea that 'trad' games model the world is silly.

For a cinematic fight in 'trad' games, you don't even need to change anything except the narration. Sure, all the gobbos get an attack, but the narration could be one or two stepping forward suddenly and landing a blow while the others jeer and taunt. Don't confuse the mechanics for the fiction.

Still, if you really want to do what you seem to want to do, you might restart your thread with 'How do I do this thing in 5e' rather than 'RPGs don't do cinematic fights well'. Many RPGs do it just fine, but they aren't D&D.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's... not how hard moves work. A 'soft' move is one that sets up danger -- the ganger throws a grenade, what do you do? A 'hard' move inflicts the results of the danger, which you're only supposed to do if a roll is failed or the players ignore a set up danger. So, if a 'soft' move is to chuck a grenade into the party, the 'hard' move is it going off, either because the players ignored it or failed a check to deal with it. 'Hard' moves don't remove player moves, they result from a failed player move or the players ignoring the danger -- they flow from the established fiction. When you make a hard move it should always be from something you've already set up, and it should fit the play themes.

The follow-up scene is a new scene -- it starts the loop of 'put players into a situation' again, so having gangers show up at the start of the scene is the usual frame a problem to be dealt with.

I'm feeling pretty strongly that you've skimmed the rules but don't understand them because you're approaching it from a trad game point of view where the GM has a planned scenario and the players interact with it. In PbtA, there may be some prep for some scenes, but you then "play to find out" what happens with players and GM making moves that play off of each other in unexpected ways.

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is a great champion of DW. Perhaps he can do a better job here. I can do a passable job for BitD, as that's the PbtA ruleset I have experience with.

I can't do a better job.

What you've written above is exactly correct and quite clear. I agree, there appears to be some confusion on Alexander's part.

Not necessarily. In the Apo World rulebook example of play, gangers show up in follow-up scene after a PC rolled a 10+ on a Move. Furthermore, the GM has the agency to not allow PCs to make a move by enforcing a Hard Move by his side. Again in the Apo World example, the GM makes a Hard Move - the PC cannot dodge the grenade. The fiction, of course, poses some restraints on the GM. At the same time, he's got a lot of ways to manipulate the way things go and what can happen and what can't happen. In trad games, there are more game world physics that constrain the action.

Alexander, could you cite the page number that you're looking at in AW so I can better evaluate what you're interpreting?

 

[S'mon]

The cinema choreographers are trying to plausibly keep the protagonist(s) alive - if they fail it looks like Uma Thurman vs the Crazy 88, where the ones behind her just stand there while she fights the ones in front.

IRL 2 skilled opponents will normally defeat 1 more-skilled opponent; 3 pretty much always will. A good choreographer can work around this somewhat - my favourite example is Valeria fighting her way past several guards in the escape from Thulsa Doom's Mountain of Power, it looks like it could pretty much actually happen.The CtB fight choreography is excellent that way. But most modern films just have mooks stand around waiting their turn - this is often a result of an excessive force imbalance - or the stuntmen have to obviously deliberately miss, as with Rey & Kylo vs Snoke's guards in TLJ.

In most fantasy games we use rules systems that already allow for one vs many combat. They tend to give unrealistically little advantage to multiple attackers, eg in 5e a PC has the same AC vs 8 foes as against one. Games like Dragon Warriors & Runequest where the PC can only use full defence vs 1 attacker are quite rare. I guess if you wanted Runequest to look cinematic you'd need a mook rule; but D&D already has mook rules by default.

In terms of directly looking/feeling cinematic through the gameplay, I think D&D is completely the wrong engine. It was originally based off a game of battleships pounding away at each other; the only cinema it even vaguely resembles is the armoured knights of Excalibur slogging away at each other.

If you have a game where one hit can kill/disable the hero, but they can be really hard to hit, you can start to build cinematic mechanics around that. The WEG d6 systems as in d6 Star Wars is designed that way. Savage Worlds somewhat, also. WEG d6 gives groups of mooks the option to add a bonus to a single attack, rather than all roll and inevitably miss.

Personally I don't have much issue with seeing 8 D&D mooks vs Conan as resembling the Thulsa Doom's Orgy scene, but it does help if combat rounds are not considered to be a 'real' 6 seconds - 6 seconds of actual action per character with lots of observe-orient-decide before each action, maybe. Then hp loss is fatigue and scratches - a mook who 'misses' is the guy who didn't really attack at all or gave a half-hearted lunge from out of threat range; the mook Conan only just parries caused Conan to use up significant hp. I guess Valeria used up a lot of hp fighting her way out, which is why Thulsa's snake arrow did her in.

 

[Sadras]

Reviewing the above scenes, we got to ask ourselves: is the standard RPG approach of round robin attacks really the proper approach to simulating movie fights? Based on the evidence (and many, many more scenes can be drawn on to confirm that this is, in fact, typical), the answer is probably 'no.'

Bridging this gulf between film and RPGs obviously requires that not every outnumbering force member gets to attack the single combatant in every round - only a subset (minimum: 1) may do so. Of course several other aspects concerning this situation need to be observed (who can attack and parry how often, how does withdrawal from combat work, etc), however the central element for delivering truly cinematic battles here lies in abandoning the concept of 'attacks for everyone in each round.'

So what I would do is to keep the combat fluid and not worry so much about rounds and how many attacks are permitted in that way rounds will only be important for keeping track of the duration of spells and effects.

Below are 10 things you can use to make combat more fluid and to create cinematic-like combat sequences in the one-vs-the-many scenarios.

1. Intersperse a solo's Legendary Action in between every combatant.
2. Be more forgiving with Interacts with Objects Around You (PHB 190) allowing the solo to negate an opportunity attack (i.e. pulled down a curtain or knocked over a statue thereby interposing an obstacle from the attack).
3. Allow the solo's Reaction to be used as a Parry via a contest roll.
4. Each turn, allow the solo one additional Reaction or Interacts with Objects Around You or Bonus Action or allow one solo attack to be coupled with a Special Attack (Disarm, Shove Away, Shove Aside, Trip)
5. Permit the solo more freedom of use for skill use (Athletics, Acrobatics) to perform cinematic-like feats.
6. Use of Legendary Saves or even better rather have failed saves negate the very next Legendary Action (eating up resources dealing with the overcoming the spell's effects).
7. Solo gains a use of Second Wind.
8. Solo gains an Inspiration Point every time he/she drops a foe. Inspiration points do not stack.
9. Solo's spell lasts 1 round after loss of Concentration.
10. Implement the Exhaustion track, for additional Actions (beyond the above) performed by the solo.

EDIT: Just noticed this is in the General RPG Discussion section, my ideas though originate from a 5e perspective.

 

[John Out West]

What I did in Westbound was make enemies either Coordinated or Uncoordinated. Uncoordinated meant that a team of creatures under the control of one player or DM could not attack the same target twice in one round. Players could attack the same creature, but a player with a pet would have to choose two different targets. With Feats, a player could be coordinated with their pet wolf or a DM may have a Captain that makes his men Coordinated, but most of the time characters are Uncoordinated.

Having multiple creatures, for the DM, means a higher chance of dealing higher damage in that single strike, but it also allowed a single PC to fight 5 Goblins without being overwhelmed instantly by 10 glass shanks.

The system's characters have extremely low HP and characters are most often killed in a single powerful attack. Allowing multiple attacks per character per round would have forced me to go back to the drawing board at the very beginning, but this works extremely well for the system. Most players have extremely low health, fights tend to last 10-20 minutes, and with a stroke of luck a player can have a powerful and memorable attack.

If you're looking for an example to the original question, you can check out the free pdf in the link.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

In the case of D&D in particular among RPG's it is DESIGNED to permit few numbers of PC's to take on very large numbers of opponents, repeatedly establishing the greater skill and domination of the PC's over their opponents who typically well-outnumber them. Even when it's a situation of ONE PC facing many opponents, yes, the opponents get round-robin attacks, but unless the fight was INTENDED to defeat the single PC, chances are good that the PC will nonetheless triumph. D&D does not then share the rules of cinema in this regard which, as others have noted, intentionally prevents some of the opponents from attacking in order to enable the single PC to survive.

These rules in D&D DO NOT apply well in reverse where ONE monster or NPC is outnumbered by PC's because it wasn't designed for that happening very often. When it does the singular opponent to the PC party has to be OUTRAGEOUSLY powerful and resilient to live very long while ganged up on by PC's, much less stand a real chance for victory.

Trying to model cinematic combat with D&D misses the point of what D&D is designed to do. Other RPG's that ARE designed to model cinematic combat are far superior choices than trying to make D&D go against its own design.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think you guys may be fighting the premise too much here. As I read it, I’m seeing a design question about methods of including a certain type of many-on-one effect for games that are intended to be more world emulation than narratively driven. I don’t think D&D needs to even be brought into it. I think it’s a great question, and there are probably ways to do it that are in-between making a strongly narrative-driven system and tracking the trajectory and momentum of swords in quarter second increments.