We all agree the melee rules are broken, so what are we going to do about it? Options

[DrJest]

Now, a couple of people have had a crack at complete unarmed systems, but so far I don't think there's been a co-operative effort.

Okay, I realise that getting a final decision out of a group as diverse as Dumpshock could be troublesome, but I think it would be worth while.

The usual caveat applies - constructive criticisms of idea only, please :) if you want to flame, take it somewhere else.

I'll open the project by suggesting that advanced melee should be based off of manouevres, although not as strictly structured as the CC rules.

[James McMurray]

Advanced melee should include maneuvers that anyone can learn, rather than being restricted to certain styles. If you don't have a teacher to learn the maneuver from it should cost extra karma (x1.5?).

The base karma cost should depend on how powerful the maneuver is. Unless the system turns out to be incredibly balanced, there should be a seperate karma cost for all maneuvers.

Disarming should be made harder than "I got one net success, you don't have a weapon".

[Nikoli]

Well, that's the inherent flaw to an abstract dice system like this.

That's one net success, where in a system that means that you did it as well with 1 success as 15 as written. Though in previous editions, they did make allowances for multiple successes in these types of situations.

1 success, you bat the weapon out of the oponents hand.
2 successes, as above but the weapon moves 1d6 meters in a normal grenade scatter pattern
3 successes, the weapon is moved 1d6 meters away from enemies
4 succeses, the weapon is moved 1d6 meters towards an ally
5 or more, if you want, you are holding the weapon, or an ally can make a Reaction (4) test to catch the weapon in a useable manner.

[James McMurray]

That's the way it works now, or close to it (more successes puts the weapon farther away). I just think it should take more than one net success total to disarm someone. Or there should be some penalty for disarming, such as TN +2 or something similar.

[BitBasher]

I already did something about it. My group made our own melee combat system and we like it. It works great in play. It was posted here less than a month ago.

[The Question Man]

Convert it to Use with Hero System and keep the setting.

Cheers

QM

[Wounded Ronin]

Well one problem is that we all want different things from the melee system. The system that I wrote up was designed with realism in mind, as much realism as could be introduced without fundamentally changing game balance and character power levels.

But a lot of people here would probably approach it from the perspective of game balance or some other criteria first. And this would make us fundamentally disagree.

So, I think that a big group effort is doomed to failure.

[Kagetenshi]

No we don't. The advanced melee rules are about as sound as a security door made of toothpicks, but the basic melee system isn't bad at all.

~J

[mfb]

if you're more worried about making the advanced rules internally consistent than you are about realism, these might work. though it should be noted, they've recieved no more than a lukewarm reception in the two days since i proposed them on shadowland.

[GrinderTheTroll]

Broken? No, I don't think it's broken at all. Most issues seem to stem from everyones dislike of the abstract nature of how SR handles melee combat.

Although I have submitted some ideas, my group doesn't modify melee combat much at all.

[BitBasher]

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Jrayjoker]

One of the guys in my group loves the cinematic (hong kong physics) style of roleplaying fights. If I made him take manouevers it would take an hour to roll all the dice for one attack as he describes them.

[Jrayjoker]

In other words, I like the abstraction that allows him to describe his moves. I tag on a reasonable modifier to make him think it looks cooler and everyone is happy.

[GrinderTheTroll]

[Jrayjoker]

My guy is one level below black belt in Tae Kwan Doe (spelling ?) but still loves the acrobatic and gravity defying stuffin the movies. Hey, I try to give them what they want in the game. It keeps them coming back.

I guess my vote would be to keep the rules as abstract as possible. It helps keep the game rolling along, and the more action we can cover the happier everyone is.

[Fortune]

We most definitely do not all agree that the melee rules are broken. I don't mind the regular rules, and can even handle the advanced rules in CC. I just wish that they were extrapolated out to include all forms of melee instead of just Unarmed Combat.

[Wounded Ronin]

[Critias]

We all agree the melee rules are broken?

Wow. I never got that memo. My bad. I'll update my opinion as soon as possible, boss.

[Nath]

I must say I'm surprised some people seemingly have no problem even with the fact that Dan-the-unaugmented-martial-expert can strike five times in a round Joe-the-wired-cyborg as he attacks, and only against him, while he could strike Rob-the-other-unaugmented-guy only once.

[Wounded Ronin]

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=6698

Since we're discussing alternate rulesets, here was my stab at the problem.

[hahnsoo]

*shrugs* I just shoot the guy. My solution to people who want to fight in melee.

[U_Fester]

[mfb]

the biggest problem i see with the rules is, they make armed and unarmed melee combat too different. unarmed melee combat has all kinds of fun options and stuff; armed melee combat is just hit, counter, soak.

[Fortune]