Is there any RPG with an actually realistic and fun combat system like video related...

Song of Swords / Riddle of Steel is what you are looking for OP

Nothing will ever be perfect, but if you are looking for realistic swordplay then that is the system for you

Seconding this. There was a review outthere of a rundown of...fuck I want to say it was the chruch fight from Kingsmen, but it wasn't that. Same high level of frentic fighting though.

Anyways, there was a video of that, and a rundown of how it's done in GURPS. And it really enlightened me as to why GURPS has onesecond turns

Fun though, that's in the eye of the beholder, specifically, in how the GM sets up the boss battle versus the beholder.

>choreographed
It's called technique demonstration.

This.
OP, check out some of The Riddle of Steel successors, Song of Swords, Band of Bastards, and Blade of the Iron Throne. /SoS/ general is chugging along most of the time, and as a bonus it comes with a sweet WWII shooting sim as well.

t. fat neckbearded office worker who read a wikipedia article on some ancient battlefield tactics

The moves they do is literally LITERALLY from real mideveal training manuals.

No, because it's still all just rolling dice. Realistic combat is entirely up to players being descriptive and knowledgeable. A rigid system controlled by rng is never going to make combat cool by itself.

Rolling 1 dice and then having an enthusiastic player describe in a cool and convincing way what happens is always going to be better for immersion and flavour than a big rules-monster where stabbing a guy in the dick takes 9 rolls and 3 charts.

Like anything else in pen and paper role-playing, the actual rules are not anywhere near the top of what's the most important for fun and believability.

It's like asking for a system that makes social interactions and dialogue cooler. The best system for it in the world is never going to be more important than how knowledgeable and eloquent the players are.

Having a complex dialogue system is never going to make that player who only ever says "I hit him" or stutters his way through dialogue exciting to listen to, just like a super advanced combat system based on historical combat manuals or whatever is never going to make someone any fun to role-play with if he still doesn't really know anything about it himself.

Good players are 95% of the experience, good rules are maybe 5%.

Good players will still make for a fun session and aid each others immersion even if the system is shit, shit players will always ruin the experience even if you're running the tightest and most well written rules ever.

You don't need rules for combat like in the video, you need your players to sit down with you and watch it.

I suppose you could always use Audatia to resolve your combats if you are into that sort of thing. audatiagame.com/

came here to post this, riddle of steel's entire selling point was having really, really detailed combat, if that's your thing then it's probably the best system for you

I thought you were going a different way with this. That instead of random dice rolling, a real fight is about valuation, mindgames and snap decision making, so a realistic combat system should involve those instead of the RNG.

Riddle of steel is only fun once everyone has gotten nerdy about the terminology and the details and start using them, but at that point the same group of people would be able to make D6 fantasy sound amazing simply because they have a better grasp of the terms and how combat "works".

I appreciate RoS as a weapons and combat autist, but I think it's better as a teaching tool to show people how combat is supposed to be more than just standing next to each other and hoping your hitpoints last, than as part of a pnprpg.

But once you abstract those concepts into game mechanics you're still left with something that will still feel gamey and artificial unless the players are able to inject a lot of flavor into it.

On some level rpg mechanics always end up being roll higher or rock paper scissors, it's very hard to get around that unless you give combat so much detail that it gets very, very clunky, and even then it's still going to be shit unless the players are able to make it sound cool, just like every other system.

Better players are always going to be more important than a better system.

If you feel your players make the combat sound cartoony and silly, give them some reading material, watch reenactment videos together, nerd out a bit about it. Giving them a clunkier system is not the solution.

>But once you abstract those concepts into game mechanics you're still left with something that will still feel gamey and artificial unless the players are able to inject a lot of flavor into it.

Right, but it's still a scale. If your system is just "roll d20 to see if you hit", with very little options on the player's end to influence the effects of the attack, it is hard to find places for your narrative to hook into the mechanic.

I'm actually working on a (mostly) diceless system of my own that is mostly based around capturing the essence of the high speed RPS you play in a fight. I do leave the exact description of the weapon/move up to the player, but having mechanics for things like parries, lunges, dodges, etc. I think makes the combat easier to visualize.

Man you don't need to try THAT hard to prove him right. It was already pretty obvious.

>tfw you ironically describe your own personal life

I could totally see a cardgame about knights fighting or jousting or brawling or whatever being super fun, but I don't think that tying combat into set moves necessarily makes it more realistic.

At the end of the day I feel like the best option will always be having a rules-light system where players can improvise and the DM can make a ruling, with players who are fun, knowledgeable and have a lot of imagination.

Points, dice cards, none of them come with any guarantees that the players will use them in any way that makes the combat feel believable or more exciting than just rolling a dice and then describing in vivid detail how your success or failure looks like.

Rules in role-playing games are really just there to avoid complete freeforming and having to rely on the DM for the outcome of every action, and to give the players a yardstick to measure their ability to influence the setting and characters around them. They're just an aid, like a character sheet or a map.

If the rules become the game, you've lost sight of the core experience.

I've got a perfect system then
Go to somewhere that does boxing, martial arts, kickboxing, etc., and join up with them. It can take some time to get used to but I think it fits what you're looking for

And, they're also performing a demonstration.

Next thing I know, you're going to tell me this is what an unarmed fight looks like.

>Kingsmen church fight
Fucking brutaland awesome, but not real (unless that agent was Chuck Norris, and then it wasn't his best day)

I know I read one play-by-play of the nightclub firefight from John Wick broken down into GURPS turns

What, you want someone to post a vid of a real swordfight where someone actually dies?

Google gives me nothing for a source. Somebody please tell me where this is from.

...

Come on user deliver us that sweet Russian " LARP " video.

7th Sea 1e

Now I'm curious

I want to make a system like this, actually based on all those old guidebooks.

I will call it End Him Rightly/

While most fights wouldn't end in one maneuver like that (provided the fight was between skills combatants), the moves and techniques they've shown are proper, taken from actual combat manuals from the time period. There's counters to the moves they've shown, and armor changes it up even more, but what they're demonstrating is proper technique and form.

Song of Swords, Runequest 6, GURPS + Martial Arts. Three books explicitly for this sort of thing. I just finished up a campaign of Song of Swords, and everything went great.

no because this isnt a demonstration of an actual combat move, OPs video is

Addition. If you do end up going with a Riddle of Steel-like, go with Song of Swords or Band of Bastards. Both are free, SoS is on Veeky Forums and can be found in the catalog or archive in a big zip. It's currently got a really shitty layout that makes the game unnecessarily hard to learn but the threads can help you out. It's also somewhat more crunchy than Band of Bastards, which is free and a bit more professionally laid out. Make sure you search for Band of Bastards RPG or you'll find nothing but porn on Google.

If you want RuneQuest, grab the Mythras starter thing or whatever the fuck it's called, which is also free.

Song of Swords/Riddle of Steel may be worth your while.

Oh, and both SoS and BoB are in development, so some stuff is going to be shitty no matter what. Bitch on the Veeky Forums thread or the BoB forums to assist in building the grand temple to arms and armor autism that we all have sacrificed to.

Of course it is, they have to stay in frame and that requires practice. To say nothing of safety

Hello fellow viewer of Skallagrim videos

Isn't a card based swordfighting game basically Audatia?

>Realistic Combat
>Fun Combat

It all comes down to taste, but as far as me and pretty much every gamer I know is concerned: pick one.

>actual combat move

They're moving through scripted poses for uncommon and seldom used techniques, for the purpose of looking flashy. It's show, not a competition.
It's a video that has more in common with WWE wrestling than it does with real combat, and to not understand that distinction is what makes you kind of stupid.

I've actually pulled this off in sparring. I made an entire character based on it afterwards to celebrate.

Those are all pretty standard maneuvers, user. Basic counterattacks to basic strikes and thrusts.

Ah yes, the extremely common "step on his sword" counter, how can I have forgotten.

Actually it was in the manual. Anything else looks weird to you? Grappling, cuts to the hands?

It apparently works. Very situational, but some guards have the sword very close to the ground.

In history, evidence is used whenever possible to interpret the past. There are dozens of these fencing manuals, all showing the same sorts of maneuvers, all written by people known for being swordsmen or warriors. The evidence points towards these techniques being completely real, and modern reconstruction supports that.

>Very situational

Slow down, go back to saying it's a pretty standard maneuver.

Regardless, I'm not here to debate against armchair historians (which is funny, because that term didn't actually have a negative connotation to it before people like you sprung up with your wonderful insights about combat that involve accepting centuries old texts as indisputable knowledge), and the bottom line is that these are flashy demonstrations of uncommon maneuvers that more likely than not would fail in most circumstances they'd be attempted. Hell, the second move requires the guy to practically guide the sword into his gut in a motion that can serve no other purpose.

It's a show, not a competition. That's not something you can even debate against.

If you want to see something that more resembles what "real" combat would be like, feel free to look up some of the many varied sword competitions you can find on youtube, and you can also count how many times you see these rather rare counters.

That's wonderful, but the OP insisted
>Watching it made me realize nothing I've seen in media ever comes close to actual melee combat even though it looks so much cooler than what's usually shown.

It's the equivalent of seeing a dunk competition compilation, and saying "Oh, so THAT'S basketball."

Okay, to clarify, do you mean actual swordfighting competitions like Swordfish, or do you mean something like Battle of the Nations?

>Swordfish
>actual swordfighting competition

I didn't insist shit asshole, see

So what is 'actual swordfighting competition' according to you?

>except that martial arts like that are commonly used in street fights
>except that you honestly dont know what youre talking about
>inb4 muh moovies and vidya gaems said that soldiers just threw their weapons at each other haphazardly with no actual training or knowledge of what they have been trained to do for years.
Cuck

You're suffering from the availability heuristic, making your conclusion first (and erroneously) and assuming you have the information available to you to back it up. You don't on account of you having no idea what you're talking about. Dig up the actual training documents salvaged, videoes of people training, sparring, competing in Long sword and other HEMA tournaments. There is no "real combat" to reference if you're whining about it not being a fight to death, and hasn't been for a few centuries, so apart from your lack of actually attainable relevant experience you've got literally zero basis to make any assumptions about "real" combat. And let's remember that your baseless assumption was the only thing you had to start with.

Adorable, but your long winded spew can be turned right back on you, largely because the very information you're hoping to bolster your argument works against you.

I'm actually quite certain you don't even understand what is being debated.

There's not much to debate. OP posted a video of two amateurs demonstrating techniques from old manuals, and expressing "Oh, for now my eyes are open , for I have seen combat in its truest sense."

It's two amateurs performing essentially a highlight reel of choreographed techniques based on descriptions from old manuals, aiding and assisting each other in the completion of each maneuver.
With a few extra flourishes they added themselves for the sake of show, of course.

That's it, really.
Not really much to debate, because it's exactly as I'm describing.
Even just two amateurs flailing about at a HEMA competition more closely resembles what a real fight would look like, because at the very least they're not helping each other.

Still waiting for your examples

Please, what do you consider a tournament that describes real swordfighting? You haven't given anything from your point of view at all.

Anything? Anything at all, like a video, or some essay, or a tournament record? The guys in the OP at the very least have a book.

I've already provided examples of "more realistic". That's really the gradient we're working with, because "real swordfighting" competitions would be, as you can sort of figure out, real sword fighting competitions. In lieu of that, you've got your pick of poison, including Swordfish if that's your fancy.

The bottom line, as I'm repeating, once again, is real combat does not resemble two amateurs performing a highlight reel of choreographed techniques based on descriptions from old manuals, aiding and assisting each other in the completion of each maneuver.

The major difference between OP's vid and Hollywood is that Hollywood is better choreographed and less pretentious. There's no need to pretend that it comes close to "actual" melee combat when it's just another staged performance, even if they took the pains to flash poses at you.

What is the source of that video?

You still haven't posted any sources

...

I'm on your side man, but I'm pretty sure going 'your argument is flawed because you don't have the information you need, and the reason for this is that you don't know shit' is probably a fallacy.

So, I am dealing with a genuine idiot.

Here. It seems you're unable to grasp what I'm telling you, so here's the source you so desperately desire that ultimately has nothing to do with what we're talking about, and if you had an ounce of brain in your skull, you'd have understood that by now after its been repeated over and over again.

bfy[replace with a period]tw/7Izn

It's not the oppositions responsibility to look for evidence for your claims in an argument, nigger

Once again, the bottom line, as I'm repeating, once again, is real combat does not resemble two amateurs performing a highlight reel of choreographed techniques based on descriptions from old manuals, aiding and assisting each other in the completion of each maneuver.

That's what OP's video is. There's not much more to discuss beyond that.

Point is he doesn't know anything about the information that actually is available. Isn't willing to learn anything about it. And is instead basing his opinion on... a gut feeling? And what is the gut feeling based on? Clearly none of the available information that he's proven himself ignorant of, so then what, if not self delusion?

So you have no evidence, no textual evidence, nothing? AND no knowledge of anything related to martial arts or HEMA?

Wonderful!

What is your mental damage?

It's two amateurs performing a highlight reel of choreographed techniques based on descriptions from old manuals, aiding and assisting each other in the completion of each maneuver.

Tell me otherwise.

Why do you assume they're amateurs? There are actually schools for learning to use swords and such, and instructors therein. Since they seem to be in period clothing, they could be professional reinactors.

There are errors in their execution. This is definitely true, either from inexperience or to ensure the move is demonstrated properly.

What you have not provided even the slightest bit of reason for is why we should not believe these are legitimate techniques, as they are taken from period documents written by known expert fencers. They have the documentary evidence and the backing of dozens of other documents. All you've done is say "nuh uh!".

So, as before, what's backing up your claim?

Different user here, but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around your argument/point-of-view.
Are you arguing that the "moves" from period-specific manuals on the subject (such as the ones shown in OP's post, or from this translation -

mediafire.com/download/gf2jrrfg7e8aura/English_translation_and_images_of_Getty_version_of_Fiore_dei_Liberi's_Fior_di_Battaglia.pdf

- are ... inaccurate? Or otherwise useless? Because if you are, I must disagree - unless you're arguing that the creators of the above manuals (or those like them) are pulling stuff clean out of their asses to fill the pages, which is another discussion entirely.

Granted, if you were in a fight for your life with someone, you probably wouldn't be too concerned with following the instructions to the tee (whatever works, you know), and (if you were actually planning on fighting someone to the death) you probably wouldn't fight them unarmoured, which in turn would change the mechanics of the fight entirely. See:

youtube.com/watch?v=AnB2qB5va3I

Not even him, but it's not difficult to understand what he's saying.

That user isn't saying the OP .webm doesn't contain real swordfighting techniques. He's just saying it's a demo and not an actual swordfight.

In real life, you don't know what the other guy's going to do, you don't stop and wait for the other guy to do his move, yadda yadda.

Basically he's being autistic about OP's wording.

I assume because they're sloppy, and more importantly, even if they're professional reinactors, they are not professional soldiers that kill people with swords for a living.

>What you have not provided even the slightest bit of reason for is why we should not believe these are legitimate techniques

Show me where I'm arguing they're not "legitimate techniques". I described them as flashy demonstrations of mostly uncommon maneuvers. This isn't a demonstration of the bread and butter of a fight, but what looks interesting.

That doesn't make them not "legitimate techniques." They are, however, uncommon because the circumstances where they might be effective are rare.

The key of the argument, as I will repeat again, and likely again, and perhaps again because you might genuinely be that stupid, is that OP's video is a choreographed interpretation of historical moves, chosen for display not because of their degree of practicality, but for the sake of showmanship. It's not a bout between opponents, as a "real" fight would be, but two people assisting each other through routines, with the success and completion of the routine irrelevant to how practical it might actually be.

>Basically he's being autistic about OP's wording.

It's more of just originally not wanting OP to walk away with the idea that the equivalent of a Dunk Competition to basketball or a Homerun Derby to baseball is how a sword fight goes.
It spiraled into a mess of me trying to figure out what mental block keeps these guys from understanding basic concepts.

user from here , but the way you were wording it, it made it seem like you you were saying "No, OP, all the stuff in all of these manuals is complete dog shit, none of it's real, none of it works or was EVER used in a real fight, ever"
Though, admittedly, (no offense) the increasing amount of annoyance that started to came across in your posts made it seem like you were really just trolling.

>but the way you were wording it,

From the start the issue was that it was a demonstration montage. Followed by clarifying, over and over again, that that was the issue.
Any further interpretation just comes from people being too sensitive, and, with due offense, being genuinely stupid.

I understand that armchair historians get obsessive, but this is genuinely ridiculous.

>roll one dice and let the player describe his actions

Fuck off back to FATE and freeform. OP asked for a *system* that supported it, not to be condescended to about "muh imaginations".

How many more guys still have to reply to you before you finish masturbating and go home already

youtube.com/watch?v=4GoQlvc_H3s

>Real combat
>People whaling on each other with blunted weapons and thrusts being illegal.
>People in plate armour only fighting with swords and shields.

Great advice there buddy.

Fuck yourself.
You can have a super elaborate system based made in an attempt to provide detail and realism to combat, and it will still play like shit if the players only view it as a set of buttons to press and don't really visualize or know anything about what they are doing.

Just look at some sos fecht transcripts, some of them are completely miserable, at the same time really bare-bones systems can still be exciting and believable if the people playing know what they are about and describe accurate actions rather than shitty larp combat.

Fuck off, rules lite cultist

Are they getting paid, even through advertisements, of their video? Yes? Then they are professionals.

There you go, you have been told otherwise.

Moron.

Would anyone happen to have a screen cap of this? I'm terribly uncreative when it comes to describing my actions in a combat in any RPG and I want to improve.

OP ASKED for a system that supported it in its rules. And here you are telling them they should want something else.

Professional what though? Certainly not professional "real" sword fighters.

Kind of like saying "Oh, that guy's a professional basketball player, because he's a sports writer and he plays pick-up basketball in the park and posts those videos on youtube."

>"real"
>"actual'

Yes, I am, just like I'd tell OP to get a spoon if he asked what knife is the best for eating ice-cream with.

No, this is you telling him to buy pistachio flavour when he asked which brand of chocolate is best.

Sword Path Glory

With your size, sex, age and str you find your "real str"
With your real str and weight of top parts of armor and arms weight you find your "really real str"

With "real str" , entire weight your carry and speed stat you find your max speed
With max speed value and dex stat you find your acceleration.

Change to hit is based on the weapon and skill with the specific weapon.
PS: There is not only one weapon skill to each weapon, but the skill for parry with it, the skill for attacking and the one for attacking while mounted are separated skills. Before you complain, if you have some value X in attacking an with saber, this doenst mean you will have a skill of 0 on other stuff you didnt trained, your biggest skill level with a some weapon, influence all the others skills.
Shield skill also influence the weapons parrying one and vice versa.

Your biggest weapon skill and your willpower stat influence your change to pass out when you receive damage and chance to enter shock when receiving damage.

Weapons have slashing and stabbing damage, some weapons have both.

Weapon, type of attack, if you are using it with 2 hands or not, weapon skill, dextery stat and speed stat influence the amount of turns needed to attack with the weapon (each turn is 1/12 seconds).
Weapon, if you are using it with 2 hands or not, weapon skill, dextery stat and speed stat influence the amount of turns needed to parry with the weapon

Shield, shield skill, dextery stat and speed stat influence the amount of turns needed to parry with the shield

Your dex stat, sped stat, skill with weapon, "really real str", place you hit, influence your damage.
You can attack with 3 speed, normal, fast and slow, this influence damage and amount of turns need to attack.
You can select how you will attack (up to down, motion, left to right, right to left, and stabbing motion) this influence where you hit.

There also a simplified morale rule in one of the books, morale is based on your ego stat, willpower and biggest weapon skill, this influence the chance of being able to attack instead of just staying at defensive mode.

Your weapon, "really real strenght" and, dex weapon skill and speed stat. influence the amount of time before you check if you become able to go on offensive mode or you must stay at defensive mode.

Age influence all your stats.