What do we want from scinematic lightsaber combat?

[ZzaphodD]

Still thinking about improving lightsaber combat.

As I posted ages ago I will run with a version of the Dueling Blades rules. The major difference, each combatant makes one attack and one defence roll instead of the each just rolling one 'skill roll' each round. This will open up for defensive and offensive options. Other thing I introduced was a larger spread of results. The idea of this thread is not to discuss rules, but discuss what we want certain rules to reflect.

To give anyone unfamilliar with the rules set an idea about what Im talking about. Both combatants make a skill test, in this case Lightsaber skill. The results are then compared on a table ranging perhaps from 1-15. You look up the number by which a combatant has beaten his opponent and get a result. For example A rolls 15 while B rolls 20, yielding a +5 result for B. Looking it up on the table it would probably say Push Back or something similar. If B had beaten A by 10+ the results would be more dire. You get the point.

Question: What types of results do we see in the movies that can be said to come from 'loosing combat' (ie, the opponent rolls higher when attacking). Apart from chopping arms and impaling I mean (ie full damage).

At the moment Im having these:
*******************
-Push back: Will move the opponent 2m backwards.
-Unbalanced: Opponent is at -1D for one round.
-Knock back: Push Back+Unbalanced
-Knock down: Knocked to ground+Unbalanced.

-Glancing hit: (This hit should either stun or cause a wound)
-Light hit: (wound or worse, restricted damage)
-Heavy hit: (full damage)
***************
So. Any other ideas of 'cinematic' results to apply to the result chart? I think Id like one or two more. More than that and it becomes cumbersome.

Also, the penalties above are cumulative, to give you the opportunity to slowly wear down the opponent. However, there should perhaps be some ways to try to 'regain initiative', thereby not making loosing just a drawn out process. Im at a loss here.
_________________
My Biggest Beard Retard award goes to: The Admiral of course..

[Bren]

Lightsabers get knocked away or dropped pretty frequently.

[CRMcNeill]

How about disengagement moves, where one of the combatants moves rapidly out of range, usually using a leap of some kind?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[CRMcNeill]

Also, I came up with some rules for alternate combat results as part of my Dueling Sabers write-up here. Maybe you'll find something useful...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Azai]

Perhaps a kind of counter attack? That brings someone "to the defensive" that wasn't already?

Honestly I would always like to see the quick flurry of strikes you see in the newer films. Darth maul blocking three strikes extremely quickly, before sending out an attack of his own as a counter strike(Perhaps the defensive actions were leading to an opening?)

[CRMcNeill]

[ZzaphodD]

[CRMcNeill]

[Bren]

[ZzaphodD]

[Bren]

[CRMcNeill]

Ok, ok, very funny.

But laughing aside, the point remains. Look at all the instances in the films where a character with a lightsaber was disarmed by someone with another lightsaber, and yet survived, usually because the villain decided to toy with their opponent before finishing him off.

Perhaps a better rule would be to grant the evil opponent extra DSPs if he holds off on killing his seemingly helpless victim before delivering the final blow. Perhaps that moment of despair and helpless anger at the moment of death is particularly empowering to a Sith or other Dark Sider?
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index

[Bren]

Or what the Sith is trying to do is increase the chance to turn the Jedi. The process being to exhaust the Jedi's FPs. That way when the Jedi has no more FPs and is disarmed* the Jedi's only effective choices become:
(1) surrender;
(2) die;
(3) give in to his fear, anger, or hate and call on the Dark Side to get a "free" FP.

* If the Jedi is disarmed and has FPs remaining, presumably he uses a FP to be able to call his lightsaber back and continue the fight before the Dark Sider can kill him.

[atgxtg]

I think it is a case of social conflict mixed with physical conflict. The Jedi is trying to redeem the darksider by showing him the value of mercy and restaint, while the darksider tries to prove to the Jedi that the Dark side is stronger.

RE: What I want from cinematic lightsaber duels:

I want a fight that will take several rounds to conclude, and with some method to track who is winning other than somebody betting cut down by a lightsaber.

I want to be able to build excitement and tension by watching one side work up an "advatage" during the fight.

I ant PCs and signficant NPCs to be able to have a chance of breaking off from the fight and fleeing, rather than every duel ending in death, or capture.

I want the combatants to move around the setting, ather than just standing still and trading blos. And I want the rules to encourange movement

I want there to be some sort of maneuvers. It doesn't have to be a detailed blow-by-blow account, but at least something that gives a feel for how the fight is going.

I want the rules to at least give a nod to the Lightsaber Forms.

I want it to be simple, inuitive, play fast, and mostly compatible with the RAW.

[Bren]

I think you covered nearly all the goals that matter to me.

One additional that I don't think you explicitly covered, I would like a cinematic duel to not just default to the loser is the one who runs out of FPs first.