Realistic Combat

[Henrix]

I have (a long time ago) read quotes from a study in soldier psychology from vietnam that also said that out of a squad only one or two would fire anything resmbling effective shots.
The rest were mostly helping out, firing shots into the air (that's part of what's called "covering fire"), etc.

The really interesting point, however, was that if the "effective" guy was taken out, another would start firing for real.

If you took only "ineffective" guys from several squads and put them in the same squad one or two of them would start firing at the enemy.

When they tried making super squads out of only effective firers from several squads, most would fall back and only one or two guys would be shooting at the enemy.

The conclusion was that you need a bunch of ineffective bashers around to help the effective guys.

 

[Numion]

I have (a long time ago) read quotes from a study in soldier psychology from vietnam that also said that out of a squad only one or two would fire anything resmbling effective shots.

Another analysis of WW2 battles came to similar conclusion that even larger combats are disproportionaly affected by the actions of a few combatants. Like a really determined machinegun crew could bog down a company, or a single sniper could make a platoon incapable of action. And the point was that this wasn't uncommon.

A war may not need a single man, but a single combat may, I guess

The psychological effects of killing are also very serious. A friends grandpa was a machinegunner in WW2. At the start of the war the russians used very crude human wave tactics. If an attack failed, next one was ordered by the higher-ups in the next hour or so, up to three times a day. My friends grandpa killed scores of people the first time. the next time he was just saying to himself "Don't come, please, you'll be killed". But they just kept coming. When all was said and done many machinegunners had to be hospitalized for mental trauma and the staff officers didn't believe the enemy casualty numbers until matching number of russian rifles were provided.

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

I like the GURPS system for injuries.

Every character starts with a certain number of hit points - 10 in the case of "average humans".

Injuries will bring that down. A broadsword wielded by a human with average strength against an unarmored target and not hitting especially delicate locations (I'll be assuming torso hits here) will do 5 hit points of damage on average. So two such hits will reduce a character to 0 hit points.

At this point he isn't close to dying yet (though if you use the bleeding rules, he will get there eventually if no one bandages him), but he is severely injured, and has to roll against his Health score to remain conscious every round. For average humans, this means that he has a 50% chance of falling unconscious every round - but healthier characters can remain standing for a long time if they don't roll badly.

Once that character reaches -1xHP (which means he lost twice his starting hit points), he must succeed on a Health roll or die. Additional Health rolls are made at -2xHP, -3xHP, and -4xHP. At -5xHP, he has taken so much damage that he dies automatically.

This system represents both people who die relatively easily, and those who pull a Rasputin and simply keep going even when suffering massive injuries. Characters who wish to survive such injuries should invest in a high Health score. But even then, the possibility of failing a Health roll and possibly dying from it always remains - keeping the characters on their toes and treating all injuries as a possibly serious problem.

 

[mmadsen]

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

Yes, that was exactly the point. The number of shots or stab wounds to kill or incapacitate someone is highly variable.

Most people die quickly after a sword enters their chest.

I'm not sure that's quite true. I think many die quite slowly and many don't die after all, and in the middle of a melee (rather than a duel), I think many keep fighting just fine (for a few minutes).

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.

For whatever reason, people have conflated detail and realism. I don't think it's unrealistic at all to have an abstract damage system. Plenty of serious wargames, including those used by the military, are quite abstract.

The real issue is something I mentioned earlier: 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.

Might I add, that high-level fighter doesn't have to be the hero of our story in order to enjoy plot protection in D&D. No great warrior ever takes a lance in the eye in D&D. In a heroic game, we don't want the actual heroes dropping like flies, but that's a separate issue from how hardy characters are in general.

 

[RFisher]

For RPG, I think any realistic combat scenario should be combined with an action point, hero point, drama point, etc kind of system. This allows for the grittyness of one shot, one kill but still allows the heros to stand a chance instead of dying like chumps. To me, this is the best balance between realism and fun.

So, just read "hp" in D&D as "hero points" & you're done. (^_^)

 

[mmadsen]

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.

Some of the passages I cited above are from his website.

The book details many battles and the %'s of people who were fighting or faking it.

That's one reason why PCs can be superheroic even in a realistic setting. For instance, a group of highly motivated Delta Force troops will all aim and shoot to kill with every shot, while their enemies might largely make "threat displays" by firing off their weapons loudly, with no real aim, to show their friends and family that they're fighting.

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

I suppose this could come into play in an extended tour of the Underdark.

On a D&D note it is ALOT different killing members of another race than of your own race.

Good point.

 

[Darklone]

Yes, that was exactly the point. The number of shots or stab wounds to kill or incapacitate someone is highly variable.

Hey, you never know how many HD that guy has you just hit

I'm not sure that's quite true. I think many die quite slowly and many don't die after all, and in the middle of a melee (rather than a duel), I think many keep fighting just fine (for a few minutes).

In most wars in the last 2000 years, more people died from silly little wounds or shock than in the actual fighting. Remember, a diminuitive cut on the hand or arm killed you with a 50% chance.

 

[Wraith-Hunter]

I have taken an number of defensive shooting classes. One of the things that the instructors harp on is STOPPING the target. Not killing them but getting them to stop attacking. Both for tactical reasons and legal. Shot placement being key. There is a differance in shooting them multiple times and not hitting anything that will make them stop fighting, even if they later die of injuries. Because there are so many reports of assailants getting hit many times and continuing to fight.

There is also a 21 foot rule. If an attacker is at or within 21 feet and has a knife. He can kill you before you can draw your gun and fire. People can move FAST. 21 feet is NOTHING. Also one of my Sifu's in kung-fu told a story of when he was jumped by a guy with a knife. Sifu was smart and ran away. Sifu was a very good knife fighter but the risk was not worth it as he knew the odds of getting seriously hurt.

Moving targets are MUCH harder to hit. (And D&D takes dex away when you run :\ ) Distance and movement make reliable hits very hard to do. That and the loss of fine motor control is a biggie. My first IDPA I had a heck of a time racking the slide and making hits while I was moving a bit at 'easy' ranges. This was a real eye opener. And this was just against a clock.

The %'s listed for officer hits given earlier are accurate too. One of the reasons the %'s went up is different equipment. Double Action Revolvers were common in late 70's early 80's and are largely replaced with semi automatics and glocks are popular. The big differance for you non-shooters is a double action pull is harder to pull for the first shot. After the first shot most double action pulls become single action. This makes the distance you have to pull the trigger less a less strength is needed to pull it back. I can't remember the source but approx 30% of so of first shots (from police or fbi stats) would miss, and subsiquent shots had a higher % chance of hitting. A glock and similar firearms has the same trigger pull for the first shot as it has for the 2nd shot, and this will help you have a more consitant trigger pull which equals more of a chance to hit.

For D&D I think one of the things I don't like is not having a set modifier for hitting a moving target. Easy to house rule. But not a big deal in the long run. I LIKE the abstract system. You can have either a quick abstract system or a long realistic system. I would rather resolve the mechanics faster and use my imagination to fill in the blanks. May not be realalistic, but then neither is my elf sorcerer

 

[mmadsen]

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 agree that trained fighters are used to more punishment than novice fighters, and they have the determination to fight on, but the kind of injuries you're looking at are from fists and rattan weapons (versus armor), not live blades and iron maces. A trained fighter ignores bruises because he can -- bruises don't physically impair him much -- but "heart" doesn't help you fight through a decapitation.

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.

Very true. Most wounds don't immediately incapacitate a determined foe. Some wounds incapacitate anyone though -- and scoring a shot to the brain or spine is not an ablative process of wearing someone down.

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.'

There the hit points only work because the fighters are wearing full suits of heavy armor and not using armor-piercing weapons. In that case, they really are fighting to exhaustion, and all the little bumps and bruises add to their fatigue.

Hit points would do a terrible job of modeling a fight from, say, The Three Musketeers, which is equally heroic, because there combatants rarely take more than a scratch before getting run through. Similarly, hit points wouldn't work well for a western or a samurai movie, where one shot or one slash is supposed to kill even a competent foe.

 

[mmadsen]

I do WW2 re-enactment which involves shooting blanks out of real guns at each other, and the big thing that strikes me as unrealistic in most RPG combat is the speed and lack of hesitation that it happens at. For HtH or close combat gunfights where everybody is shapshooting, it might make a good approximation. For longer ranged gunfights, say in the woods at 50+ yards, things do not happen that quickly, at least for the person being shot at. In d20 terminology, it takes several spot checks just to figure out where the shooter is. Muzzle flash adds a decent modifier but only if they continue to shoot at you. Usually this time is spent diving for cover instead of looking for an attacker while you're being shot at. If being shot at, many people tend to stay behind cover and keep their head down. The only system I've really seen address this is Twilight 2000 in both hesitation and location of targets.

Excellent point. If you've ever been in a chaotic situation, the fog of war is very real, and you can't really see anyone or anything except whatever you're dealing with right then. It might be reasonable to ask for a spot check simply to attack someone new, especially if they aren't attacking you.

I was just reading a piece by a retired Spec Ops soldier, Paul Howe, called Training for the Real Fight or Avoiding Fantasy Gunfight Training, and he makes the point that vision and scanning is more important than flat range firing:

One problem I generally see in [law enforcement] training is that more emphasis is put on flat range fire rather than learning to see and discriminate faster, which are equally as important. I ask individuals if they see first or shoot first in a tactical situation? The answer is simple, you must see first before you can shoot. Seeing and processing the information faster than your opponent is the key to whether you are in a shooting or in a gunfight.​