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

[Alexander Kalinowski]

In spite of many games' promises, combat in RPGs often does not feel all that cinematic. One situation in which this becomes apparent in RPG rulesets are 'One-vs-Many' combat situations. The default solution in role-playing games -round robin-style attacks by the outnumbering force (since everyone can attack once per round)- is boardgame-like and does not correspond to the observable combat dynamics in most choreographed combats. In the worst case scenario, things even turn unheroic: when the last bandit, beset from all sides by PCs, finally collapses under a hail of strikes. This is hardly evocative of glorious movie combat.

So, what's the situation like in movies and TV shows instead?

Unless one of the 'heroes' can be bothered to confront the final enemy alone in an honorable mano-a-mano duel, by no means all members of the outnumbering force each attack in every round. Usually, any given number of them may hesitate instead - or end up being temporarily blocked by their own allies.

One example is the following from HBO's Game of Thrones:
[video=youtube;1gCgeMDj8Rw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gCgeMDj8Rw[/video]

Also, there is this scene from LotR:
[video=youtube;Sk47qO8rW4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk47qO8rW4Y[/video]

And in this scene from Conan the Barbarian simultaneous or coordinated attacks by the outnumbering side remain rare as well:
[video=youtube;Z3kBWP231hI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3kBWP231hI[/video]

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.'

Can't we just simulate all of that by applying a negative modifier to attack rolls?
Probably not a good solution, even if it's simpler and faster. Anecdotal evidence teaches that most GMs and players do not interpret failed attack rolls as hesitating or obstruction by allies - but as striking at the enemy and missing ('whiff') - which once again bestows a boardgame-like feel to dynamics of combat. It might be faster but it's just not evocative of cinema action.

What do you think?

 

[Derren]

What do you think?

First one has to decide if making RPG combat look like cinematic movie combat should really be the primary focus or other factors like ease of use are not more important.

 

[dave2008]

I think you go back to 1 minute rounds and assume there is lot of pauses, feints, and such.

I don't really see the problem, but a really appreciated the clips!

 

[5ekyu]

In spite of many games' promises, combat in RPGs often does not feel all that cinematic. One situation in which this becomes apparent in RPG rulesets are 'One-vs-Many' combat situations. The default solution in role-playing games -round robin-style attacks by the outnumbering force (since everyone can attack once per round)- is boardgame-like and does not correspond to the observable combat dynamics in most choreographed combats. In the worst case scenario, things even turn unheroic: when the last bandit, beset from all sides by PCs, finally collapses under a hail of strikes. This is hardly evocative of glorious movie combat.

So, what's the situation like in movies and TV shows instead?

Unless one of the 'heroes' can be bothered to confront the final enemy alone in an honorable mano-a-mano duel, by no means all members of the outnumbering force each attack in every round. Usually, any given number of them may hesitate instead - or end up being temporarily blocked by their own allies.

One example is the following from HBO's Game of Thrones:
[video=youtube;1gCgeMDj8Rw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gCgeMDj8Rw[/video]

Also, there is this scene from LotR:
[video=youtube;Sk47qO8rW4Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk47qO8rW4Y[/video]

And in this scene from Conan the Barbarian simultaneous or coordinated attacks by the outnumbering side remain rare as well:
[video=youtube;Z3kBWP231hI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3kBWP231hI[/video]

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.'

Can't we just simulate all of that by applying a negative modifier to attack rolls?
Probably not a good solution, even if it's simpler and faster. Anecdotal evidence teaches that most GMs and players do not interpret failed attack rolls as hesitating or obstruction by allies - but as striking at the enemy and missing ('whiff') - which once again bestows a boardgame-like feel to dynamics of combat. It might be faster but it's just not evocative of cinema action.

What do you think?

I considered the notion of extra attacks to cover some of this... the nooks get one attack each and the hero gets three as " one round" with several of the mook attacks never even getting close enough to "seem" an attack.

How often do we see JChan catch one attacker snd twist and shove him into another just as they one is starting to move in? That could be one of Chan's 4-5 attacks (3 plus flurry pair) & two of the mooks who missed - one really badly.

 

[Ratskinner]

What do you think?

The answers you seek lie in the Apocalypse Engine games like Dungeon World or even Blades in the Dark.

begin loop:
Cinematic Description ending with what do you do?
Player Response if Not(Move.triggered) loop else
resolve move yielding narrative constraints or directives
loop

So for example, a PbtA move is usually triggered by a phrase like "When you enter melee combat with enemies" or "When you use the force to act" or "When you are overwhelmed by enemies". The results of the move also (usually and ideally) also exist in narrative-space, not game-space. So, you might have a result like "smite your foe with a mighty blow" or "your foes are driven off" or negative ones like "you suffer the force of the attack" or "choose something important that you lose". That said, many games do invoke other game-space mechanics for pacing purposes: "You make progress toward your goal, mark one section of an appropriate clock", "suffer +1 Harm", or "Mark off a box of supply". I would also note that usually only the players make rolls, the GM is guided by the rules in other ways. Dungeon World even has HP as part of its homage to old-school D&D.

IME, it is super-efficient, far moreso than D&D. The moves can be written to mimic almost any genre (at least in theory).

D&D combat is instead more "boardgame" based mechanically. 4e only caught the flack for acknowledging it and trying to use it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

+1 [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION].

There are plenty of RPGs that do cinematic combat well. They just aren't D&D. Cinema is meant to inspire D&D, but D&D doesn't emulate it well at all.

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

If one searches for 'cinematic combat rules' online, one can see that there clearly is both a demand for cinematic combat rules as well as publishers that advertise their games as having such rules.

There are evidently gamers who

• want more out of a game's rules than rules that are more than vaguely similar to what we see in the linked clips and
• that don't want to off-load the responsibility for that largely to the narration.

Specifically, there's an appeal to combat rules that enforce certain game world 'physics' ("not everyone can attack each round"), taking such things out of GM's discretion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I can't make heads or tails of this. Are you trying to say that you (instead of "people") are looking for a mechanically detailed ststem that does cinematic combat well?

Are you familiar with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s examples, ie Powered by the Apocalypse games, because calling those "DM discretion" is rather missing the point of those systems. They hard code in player facing cinematic options and mechanically limit DM authority alongside having strong play principles that further enforce the mechanics to deliver the design goal play.

I love 5e. Starting a new campaign today, in fact. But, I don't play it for cinematic play. I go to Blades in the Dark for that, and it delivers on that in spades (for heist/skulduggery play, at least). It doesn't do exploration/tactical play well, though.

 

[Alexander Kalinowski]

Are you familiar with [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s examples, ie Powered by the Apocalypse games, because calling those "DM discretion" is rather missing the point of those systems.

I have some loose familiarity with those rules, yes. That's what I was alluding to. DW operates on a different abstraction level than trad games that not everyone is comfortable with it. Doesn't mean they're bad, just that it's a matter of taste.

For example: a Volley move takes an indeterminate amount of time and represents an indeterminate amount of shots with the bow. The dice roll result doesn't tell you which danger you have to place yourself in, you choose the abstract danger and then the GM tells you what danger you're in (see Volley examples in the DW rulebook). As a player, you don't get to make the assessment if your hero can afford to expose himself to goblin countershots. So it's the GM's narration that makes the more abstract Move results come to life, that tailors them to the current, specific situation and who strings the Moves into a story.

In the case of One vs Many situations, there is nothing in the rules to prevent all players from attacking the Wight Bear at the same time. The responsibility for this not happening, the responsibility for making the scene more cinematic, is off-loaded to the GM and the way he narrates and guides the scene.

That's my understanding of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I have some loose familiarity with those rules, yes. That's what I was alluding to. DW operates on a different abstraction level than trad games that not everyone is comfortable with it. Doesn't mean they're bad, just that it's a matter of taste.

For example: a Volley move takes an indeterminate amount of time and represents an indeterminate amount of shots with the bow. The dice roll result doesn't tell you which danger you have to place yourself in, you choose the abstract danger and then the GM tells you what danger you're in (see Volley examples in the DW rulebook). As a player, you don't get to make the assessment if your hero can afford to expose himself to goblin countershots. So it's the GM's narration that makes the more abstract Move results come to life, that tailors them to the current, specific situation and who strings the Moves into a story.

In the case of One vs Many situations, there is nothing in the rules to prevent all players from attacking the Wight Bear at the same time. The responsibility for this not happening, the responsibility for making the scene more cinematic, is off-loaded to the GM and the way he narrates and guides the scene.

That's my understanding of it. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, you have it wrong.

The GM is constrained as to what danger can be advanced by the situation. If the Volley is a 7-9 and the player chooses a danger, that cannot be damage -- it must be an escalation of the scene that is a new danger, not a resolution of damage. Now, if the player rolls a 6-, then, yes, that can be damage, but it'll be one foe's damage, not all of them. Foes in DW don't have actions of their own, they can only make moves if the player rolls indicate that the GM can make a move against the players, in which case using a monster move is allowable.

The GM side for DW is constrained by the current fiction -- anything they do must adhere to the already established fiction -- or they must use a move to change the fiction. If the GM wants to add foes as a complication, they can, but that's a full danger/failure resolution step and you'll have to wait for the next to do anything with the new foes.

I'm personally much more familiar with Blades in the Dark, where the play is slightly different. In Blades, the player declares an action and chooses which skill applies. The GM then sets the position and effect of the action based on that. Position gives the player an idea of what's at stake -- a controlled position means consequences will be minor, normal means normal, and desperate means consequences can be severe. Effect is what the player can expect to realize from a success. To relate to the above, a character shooting from a strong position into a mob of foes may have a controlled position but a limited effect -- there may be many of them and a few shots won't change the situation. The player can then expend resources to improve effect, maybe by pushing or by using equipment suited to the action. The roll is made and the results flow from there. A player that's fallen into a mob of weak bad guys that tries to Legolas their way out with superior equipment and playbook moves can have a desperate position but a great effect -- and a mixed roll may result in their killing many and driving off the remainder but suffering wounds (which are no joke in Blades) in the process.

But, through it all, there are strong requirements on the GM as to what they should be presenting to the players -- everything must flow from the fiction so Volleying at a few goblins should never result in you being turned into a pincushion in one roll. The player has a good grasp of what's at stake because it's already apparent. If something new happens, it's because the GM uses a move to change up the situation and establish it in the fiction. If a player decides to volley against a numerically superior foe armed with their own missile weapons and in strong positions while standing in the open, then the results should be apparent and will flow from the fiction.

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. 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. Volley on it's own isn't a good analysis point -- you HAVE to have the situation in which it's being used to analyze how it works out. All you can say absent that is that the GM will be limited to making a single move in response to a failure/partial success and that move must tie into the existing fiction.