I'm looking at running a modern day espionage game. And while I was originally inspired by Spycraft, it became obvious rather quickly that it was in no way suited for a realistic game. I considered doing a Shadowrun rewrite using the d6 system, but, aside from the simplest elements, Shadowrun doesn't lend itself to realism. Now, I know a modern day espionage game is rather unlikely to get into combat, and, as I've planned it, that's probably how it'll be, but I want to have a system in place that can deal with heavy combat realistically should it come up. And, hell, for that matter, I have plans for a prologue campaign set during WW2, and that would involve quite a bit of shooting. That said, any suggestions for systems that would work well for what I have in mind?

Try looking at Gear Krieg RPG. I don't know anything about it, I play the miniature game. I heard they have a RPG of it. Sorry but I don't know any game that has a realistic combat system, for the most part.

If you give me about another week,
I could make a combat system for you that works realistically.

I would need some information from you on some finer points, but other than that...piece of cake really.
I've actually got one almost ready to go anyways (read 2 or 3 ready to go).

You've definitely got my attention. Explain further?

You can try Conspiracy X, GURPS might be worth a look, the system used in CoC is also ok for modern and semi-modern games...

From my limited experience with GURPS, it seems like it's a bit on the hyper realistic side. ie it's more lethal than real life, and that's definitely not what I'm looking for. I could be wrong, though; I'm not terribly experienced with it at all.

Anyway, what are Conpiracy X and CoC?

CoC: Call of Chtulu published by Chaosium

Con X online store

Con X can produce somewhat realisitc results in a very fast and streamlined way.

I'm not that familiar with the system used in CoC, but 'plenty' of people use it to do 1920s detective type stuff.

Hmm, now that I think of it, Fringeworthy (if you can still get a copy) might be worth a look too.

Check out the Deadlands Classic system. I find it EXTREMELY realistic (read: you in combat you gonna get hurt). You can find most of the DL books through a little "searching" and they are also having a sale at www.peginc.com to clear out all their old stock.

Arethusa:

That's one of my big hobbies. Making battle systems and game mechanics.
I've made about 3 different SR initiative systems, and helped Cain develop both versions of his SR intitiative system (which was very interesting). I have also made around 5 or so general combat systems, and I am presently making all the mechanics for Shattered Sun, Large Mike's RPG that he's making.
(I'd like to pause here and note the difficulty in posting while your roommates are wrestling wrestlmania style on the floor right next to you...mmm, ouch...one of 'em just got hit with the WWF title belt.)

Anyways, realistic systems are somewhat easy really.
It's more about how much damage a character can take, than it is about the combat system itself. The only thing you have to gear the combat system to reflect is the chaos of combat and the lack of the ability by any one person in the combat to have the luxury to pick and choose what they are going to do based on their opponents. Since in real combat, unlike the movies, there really is no moment where you can see your opponent and react accordingly via chess-like strategy. No, rather, it's more like everyone starts firing and use every bit of training they have, molding it as best as they can to the present situation (which usually is nothing like the training environment) and simply pray to make it out alive.
It really boils down to one central thought.
Kill them now!

The actual process of thought during combat is something to this list:
Surprise/antisipation
Fear
Panic
Training (which really only aims to reduce Fear and Panic by instilling confidence in the ability to survive, but the combatant has to continually remind themselves of this otherwise they will simply be in loop of Fear and Panic)


I know this doesn't help you understand the system that I would build for you in it's actual functioning mechanics. This is because these are the theories that you need to understand first to be able to write the mechanics properly for realistic styles.
So as not to seem long winded and empty handed, here's a preview of some conceptual mechanics for Shattered Sun's combat that I've made. (this example is enitirely incomplete in this post on purpose because I can't show the full version as it's used by Shattered Sun) Also note, I wouldn't be able to use this exact set-up for you as it is the property of Evil Wins, the producer of Shattered Sun.
Just click the Spoiler.



If you do want me to make a system for you, I need to chit-chat with you on some specifics.
For instance..
Are you using a present, existing system for damage, weapons, armor, skills, and attributes? All of these things play heavily into the pattern that combat resolves.

While I do find the concept of such a system interesting, what it lacks, from what little I can tell from your description, is a dynamic scalability between silly untrained kids with guns and hardened professionals. A CIA dirty tricks team or a squad of Deltas is not going to be operating anywhere near the level you've described, while a platoon of green infantrymen probably would.

It also seems, from what you've described, that unless you keep initiative periods and actions extraordinarily short, that your system would have no way of allowing for adaptable tactics and actions within a short period of time. I may set about a specific course of action for the next three seconds (say, taking aim at a target some 75m away), but if in the next second I see someone sneaking up on my pointman to knife him, in what you've described, I can't abandon my previous course of action and take a hurried shot at Sneaky Knifey Bastard.

I would imagine that for someone to write a realistic combat modeling system, they would have to have a lot of actual combat experience. Otherwise, they're just writing a modeling system for their personal idea of what combat must be like, neh?

I don't have nearly enough combat experience myself to claim to write a "realistic" system, but I can say that with training, people can make decisions and tactic changes in fractions of a second. With lots of training, people can even read and respond to the split-second muscle tension that develops in an opponent at the moment that they form the idea of what they're going to do.

--K

True...
But you have to remember a couple of things.

First, you are always making a game that is attempting to immulate something, in this case reality.
So you can't ever get it dead on, only relative.

Second, If you make a systems core mechanics geared towards the exceptionthen they won't be an exception anymore. Most people can't anticipate their opponents next move in combat. Not even highy trained special operation teams in the military are that good. What they teach you is how to adapt and hold on. They push your body and mind to it's limits and past. They make you practice and practice and practice your manuevers(sp) until they become almost second nature. That's about as good as it gets. The rest is upon the individual and their experiance in actual combat. Even with that experiance, none of them are "bad ass" enough to pull of little stunts like guaging what their opponent is going to do and altering their course in a fraction of a second to a better course. That only happens in movies really. Time and time again, what you hear in training is this phrase, "Don't try that hoolywood shit here! That will get you killed! Just stick to the basics of survival and training. If you do that, then you have a better chance of getting out alive."

If you count the amount of actual throats slit in combat stealth-mode in real life...there aren't too many. If you count the amount of, "I've been through 45 combat zones and hell and back." people...there really isn't too many.
A large amount of kills for an infantry soldier or military ranger is actually pretty low to the expected. On average, it's around 1 to maybe 5 if they were in a bad place. Most of these kills are done from a good distance too. This very fact is what keeps them alive. Most people that end up in a tight and close combat area end up seriously injured or dead.
Blackhawk down is the only way I can explain this to you. Even before the ending where the two rangers went down to rescue the pilot knowing that they'd die, it was shitty as hell for everyone in there. None of those people in, real life, had any sort of "I'm a bad ass so I'm going to be awsome in this battle" feature going for them, even though they were mostly all rangers (who are acclaimed bad-asses).
Instead, most of the kills were made from a medium distance, and even then people in the rangers group were dropping from being shot.
There are two things that make someone able to respond quickly in combat.
Reflexes (initiative)
and Training (skills)

Reflexes will allow you to respond quickly, but it takes training to make that response count. The largest thing that actually screws this up for anyone is fear. Fear can make you lose all of your training in a split second.
If you don't believe me try this out.
Practice putting on a gas mask until you can do it in 9 seconds.
Then sit outside all day and most of the night posting as a gaurd.
Then have a friend run by whenever they feel like it and throw CS gas in front of you.
See how fast you can get that mask on now, or if you'll just bolt away from the smoke after trying to mess with your mask and vomit.
(I did this in basic training...it sucks. 4 out of 5 people didn't get their mask on, and they didn't even always get the mask on right or in under 9 seconds.)


I'm not trying to sound like I'm lashing out....I'm simply just trying to explain how I see this issue.

My bad, Deltas.

What I meant by calling the rangers bad-ass was because that's the general conception of them by none military members. Eventhough what they really are is just mroe advanced trained troops.

The Deltas that did keep their cool are the exception that I was refering to. They would be accounted for by having a high Combat Experiance level which would prevent them from losing initiative points due to getting hit or fear.

I agree with you on the gas mask example.
Training helps. That's pretty much my point here.
My point was to try and explain that it's just not very probable for too many people in combat to act like the following:
Guy: Gets ready to shoot at thug 2
Thug 1: goes to knife Guy
Guy: reacts and shoots thug 1.

This can happen. If slow enough. Just not in the fraction of a second. And thus, not in one Combat Pass.
Now, thug 1 sneeking up to Guy takes one Pass and would represent the slower version where Guy sees Thug1 out of the corner of his eye and decides to shoot him this Pass instead of thug 2.
But he would have seen thug 1 sneeking toward him the previous Pass, which is what allows him to react this Pass.

If, however, the thug went to knife Guy on the same Pass that Guy was shooting at thug 2, then he wouldn't be able to shoot at thug 1 instead. (since in most cases in reality, in that fraction of a second, Guy would have a very poor chance of actually doing that.)

I wasn't commenting on your system and won't, I just take my BHD seriously.

I invite you again to consider whether you really have enough personal insight into all forms of combat to call something you write a "realistic combat simulation". You're absolutely correct that there are extremely few people in the world who would have such insight, and they probably aren't writing gaming mechanics. Feel free to write new mechanics and enjoy them.... but neither you nor I can be totally honest saying "Let me tell you how REAL combat works...." in such a generalized way (ie. modeling a whole gaming universe). You can speak to gas-mask donning under pressure of chemical assault, as well as medium-range riflery. Hey, that's pretty cool! I can speak to hand-to-hand combat with a wide variety of weapons, including surprise ambushes, blind-fighting, multiple opponents, fighting with handcuffs on... Hey, that's pretty cool too! We occupy different parts of the spectrum. Can either of us speak to mortar fire? Anti-aircraft gunnery? How about poison blowguns? Unarmed defense against a taser? Etc. etc. Point is, a gaming combat system has to be pretty vast, so I invite you to consider your big, earlier statement carefully when you said, "realistic systems are somewhat easy really..." You made it sound like all combat boils down to just a couple of things. If that were true, people wouldn't spend so much time studying it.

I'll also note that you or I would write our best material when writing for a game that operates in a way similar to our experience. Sounds like you could write a good piece for a game where people play infantrymen of some kind. On the other hand, that experience might not apply to everything.

Good luck, in any event! I hope folks enjoy reading and playing with what you create!

--K

I would have to agree with you on this 100%.

What I meant by "easy" is that there is a shrowd of mystery to trying to create realistic combat systems that I don't think needs to exist.

Most seem to look at it with the idea that it's impossible because of what you just described. There's no absolute way to get everything right. So...don't bother. Simply go with what makes valid, logical sense. (to you, and those who review the system)

I guess what I was saying was that to make a more realistic system, you need to re-orient your perspective from doing amazing feets to making it out alive. This will produce a "more" realistic feel in your system. But as it was mentioned very early on in the thread, some systems can go too far in that attempt to make the system feel like a survival system. So you just have to find the fine balance the best that you can.

What I posted is a close proxemity to what seems a little more realistic in nature for combat.

Good points made in every post though. Brought up some areas that needed to be discussed. Thanks.

Back to gaming systems you might try I'd suggest the old Twilight 2000 system - especially since it had stats for most known firearms in the Small Arms Guide - even older ones that might appear in your campaign. The mechanics for the most part were faily realistic and character generation took into account many skills - most people ending up being fairly average in terms of their attributes. It has the advantage that it would be faily easy to modify for a different time frame.

If an espionage type game is more your preference Millenium's End also had a decent combat system. The hit chart overlays were particularly interesting in terms of mechanics. Once again the weapons guide supplement make it easy to modify for the time frame changes in the campaign.

Unfortunately both systems are defunct, but on the plus side you might be able to pick the stuff up cheap. No I won't sell you mine.

Lastly the old Top Secret wasn't too bad for a role playing system - although its combat mechanics were severely unrealistic in some cases - particularly where automatic weapons were concerned. But it was fun.

There are a few people in the world who have access to the data needed to get these insights, and are actually writing mechanics to represent them. These people are military training and wargame specialists. Basically I think they come down to the following two methodologies:

A) Create a scenario as similar to actual combat as possible and have people do it in real time. Basically LARP (Top Gun, MOUT, etc) and simulators (computer training tools, basically video games).

B) Treat everything statistically. Group X encounters group Y under conditions A,B,C... and afterwards you are left with group X' and group Y' under conditions M,L,N...

A makes great real time games, but not paper RPG's. B makes great strategy games, but probably not RPG's (at least not ones where combat is supposed to be part of the fun).

Making turn based tactical combat fun seems to require that it be unrealistic because in real life tactical combat like that does not allow the participants to make many choices, and choices are what make turn based games fun.

That is part of why military training is so heavily weighted toward rote memorization of a few best practices rather than analysis of situations. Once the shooting starts there simply aren't that many choices to be made mainly you look, duck, shoot, and try not to do anything really stupid. Even if you happen simultaneously notice two targets you don't really choose which one to shoot, you shoot the one closest to wherever your gun happens to be aiming. The kind of chioces that are to be made are more like, "should I go over there, or should I go over there, or should I stay here?" wherever you go you are going to try to see and not be seen and shoot whoever you see. I watched a documentary about special forces and a large part of thier special training was to learn literally 2 or 3 retreat maneuvers. They practiced them practically every day so they could run away in an organized fashion without communicating at night in unfamiliar territory. Nothing about whether to geek the mage or the troll first. You just shoot whoever you see first and hope nobody sees you first. They had basically two modes: shooting ducks in a barrel from ambush, and running for their lives.

Perhaps a realistic but fun system could be created by having it operate at a higher level of abstraction. You would never choose specifically to shoot at somone, only to maneuver to a particular position or perform a particular action (eg throw a grenade, stand up to get a good view & posibly shoot, etc)? Problem is that that seems like it might quickly require a lot of bookeeping and rolling. Rolling to see who you can see after your maneuver, and who can now see you, and which of those who see get to shoot and in what order and so on. With the system you described, stumps, you already have everyone writing down thier actions and multiple rolls to adjust initiative each round. That could easily get far worse.

PS my combat experience is limited to a handfull of short, low intensity fist fights, video games, and the words of people who have done the real thing so this is all second hand at best.

TW2k does require serious tweaking of the skills, target numbers and damage. It has some pretty wacky ideas about recoil and autofire as well. On the other hand, it handles being wounded really well and has a number of other rules that I do remember liking.

I'll definitely take a look at it, though what I'm at a loss for most, at the moment, is a way to handle recoil, autofire, and general combat (ie a good turn based system that isn't too far from reality). Any suggestions in those areas would be appreciated. That said, what, specifically, needs tweaking in Twilight 2000? Acquiring the books isn't too hard, but a general idea of the direction I should work in would be helpful.

As for running a system with an even higher level of abstraction, I don't really agree. While I do understand the concept, I'm intending to keep things as gritty and involved as possible, and the further abstract a system is, the more is out of the hands of the players. With any luck, GM fiat and mature roleplaying should be enough to keep the mess that is combat realistically screwy and out of control, and while I'm not opposed to mechanics that deal with this, I am opposed to a system that places it entirely out of the hands of the players.

TW2K: For example, autofire is completely useless, even for suppressing purposes, at any range greater than 40-70 meters, and with any weapon not on a tripod it's completely useless at any range. Whoever decided on the recoil values was obviously on crack or something -- carbines with flimsy stocks have far less recoil than the corresponding full length ARs. And the guy who decided to allow the average character to survive ~8 hits square in the chest from a 9mmP pistol deserves a beating.

Still, all those problems can be solved by tweaking the numbers. Lower recoil values across the board and make them more reasonable, reduce the negative effects of recoil and range, especially on autofire, by ~half, increase damage values to reasonable figures.

The Init system might need a bit of tweaking too, but nothing serious. Explosion damages need tweaking just like the firearms do. Vehicle combat worked like a charm, as far as I can remember. Melee combat was a bit odd, I think it tries to be more complex than the rules really allow -- easy way to correct that would be to make it slightly more abstract again, by at least reducing the amount of different attack options and special rules.

The skills are perhaps the single most problematic thing with TW2K. As it is, a really strong guy with basic training in a rifle is way more accurate than an average strength guy who's been a sniper for 4 years. Changing the "related attributes" around is a must, and you might want to introduce new skills that either depend on combinations of attributes (like Reaction in SR), or skills that don't depend on attributes at all, but instead of getting +Strength on the skill you get +5 or something.

I first learned the Hero System playing "Danger International" which was the spy version. I happen to really like the Hero System ( after a few mandatory tweaks, such as never paying points for gear that is available through commerce.)

Anyways, I'm a huge fan of their combat system though i hear the system in general is a little unwieldy at first, but once you know it, it flows nicely.

Sunday

I think a lot of people who used the TW2K rules misused them in a lot of cases, combat in terms of supressing fire seemed to work fairly well as well as damage. While characters could technically "survive" hits from weapons they would usually be incapacitated to the point they were out of the fight. Most of these characters wouldn't survive period according to the rules if not given immediate medical attention. I do agree that the target numbers did need some tweaking other wise it always seemed that some characters could hit things ridiculously easily while it made it impossible for others. The second edition fixed this if I remember, but we stopped playing it at that point as GDW went under shortly after it appeared.

I'm basing all of my stuff on TW2K on version 2.2. Maybe autofire worked better in earlier editions, I have no idea. Same with the damages. Fact remains that damage, TNs, autofire, recoil, skill/attr system all require tweaking to make it "realistic". Perhaps not major tweaking, only fiddling around with numbers, but tweaking nevertheless. Canon TW2K has at least as significant problems with realism and reason as SR does.

MERPS!!!! ok so its not modern but melee is painful. I think more abstract system like shadowrun and whitewolf do realistic much better than most for one simple reason. Its fast! Using all the GURPS advanced rules I would say that statiisticaly speaking its way more realistic than shadowrun. but rolling three times and doing calculations is not. Combat especialy with guns is fast and usualy people who are hit even if its not a fatal wound dont get up for awhile

Someone already mentioned Millenium's End, but its worth pointing out that the original "Ultramodern Firearms" book was a supplement for that system.