Take the 2-minute tour ×
Role-playing Games Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for gamemasters and players of tabletop, paper-and-pencil role-playing games. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I came across a video (helmet camera) of an Taliban force ambushing US infantry troops in Afghanistan. This is a link to the video of ambush: Combat in the First Person, Spc.Michael Gannon guides us through a mission in Haruti by sharing the video he captured on a helmet camera. -- note that there is swearing but no gore/death therein. The ambush and resulting fire fight goes on for six hours. This is clearly a realistic situation. Were someone run a modern day game, this would not be an out of the ordinary encounter for either soldier or insurgent characters.

What RPG combat system would model this situation?

How would you run this as an encounter within the recommended system?

share|improve this question

As this is a game-recommendation question, please adhere to the FAQ, the rules for subjective questions as outlined in Good Subjective, Bad Subjective and our rules for game recommendations. All responses must cite actual experience or reference others' experiences!

7 Answers 7

up vote 16 down vote accepted

I enjoy (not all the time, but some of the time) games that try to very strongly simulate the real world and have asked the same question, as I do enjoy such a simulation. So you're not alone, don't let the 4e/indie crowd convince you "no one wants that." They don't and that's fine, but if you do, read on.

The pace of RL combat is mainly affected by the Clausewitzian principles of:

  1. Friction - in gaming terms, Initiative
  2. Fog of War - in gaming terms, Perception

Friction is basically the mass of uncertainty that keeps most folks huddled under cover instead of running around like Quake deathmatchers. It's partially fear of death but a host of other factors that make the RPG paradigm of "doing something every 6 seconds without fail" patently unrealistic. Some games have an initiative system that somewhat simulates part of this effect; for example in Alternity you can lose one or both of your actions in a round if you roll poorly enough. You can also add bits of uncertainty to the rules to simulate friction - like one problem with many games is that movement rate, unlike every other part of a character, is fixed not variable, allowing confident exact maneuver. I often use a "Move check" and if you bork it you just may be exposed an extra round while trying to cross that alley under fire...

Fog of War is basically you not really knowing what is going on (this feeds into friction). In most RPGs you see all opponents all the time; making some kind of Perception check to detect them is by far the exception. But even some time outside playing paintball reveals to us that we are woefully unaware of our surroundings, where the enemy is, and where our allies are at any given time. Ironically one of the best ways of simulating this might be to incorporate computers into gaming, such that only opponents (and allies and terrain features) someone sees themselves would be revealed to them. You'd get a hugely different combat dynamic! Much of the firing in RL combat is basically blind and has less than even the usual minimum level of RPG granularity ("1 in 20") chance of hitting.

Both of these factors conspire to get you the slower move to decision that distinguishes real life combat from RPG combat, despite real combat often being "one hit and you're out of the fight." (Ablative hit point models are an attempt to approach this problem indirectly - by reducing one-shotting they try to get the longer battle times.)

Not many published RPGs deal with this topic successfully. Palladium Games' Recon!, a Vietnam war RPG, made a faithful effort towards it - an example is ambushes specifically, the ambushers vs the ambushees get very large bonuses/penalties to what they are doing to reflect the confluence of these factors. I've played it and this game does a good job of simulating the uncertainty of combat.

[Edit: I was in Half Price Books this weekend and was reading through Blood & Guts, a modern warfare supplement for d20 Modern, and it had distinct sub-rules for those wanting a more realistic combat experience.]

An ex-Marine buddy of mine wrote a couple really good articles (oddly enough, for "The Way, The Truth, & The Dice," the e-zine of the Christian Gamers Guild) about adding real world data-based realism to combat, using GURPS as the proximate rule system. The first article covers hit location/effects and the second covers friction (see page 22 of the PDF). They are worth mining for ideas.

share|improve this answer
"You don't see any targets, but there are bullets whizzing over your head from every direction. Your heart is hammering in your ears, and you're certain you're going to die. What do you do?" Narrate the non-attacking decision points, presenting each turn of events according to their choices, including the occasional "OH SHIT THERE'S THE ENEMY" opportunities to attack. –  SevenSidedDie Aug 19 '11 at 18:13


I've said it before - I know this answer gets boring. But if you want a system that starts with baseline reality, is your answer.

Now, I'm not talking about modeling the wait. I think that would be less than fun at the table. I would describe the waiting and the tension in a couple of sentences. Maybe a few rolls for positioning, and the cat-and-mouse game of stealth vs. perception. And then run the few seconds of actual combat.

It sounds like what you're looking for is a game where firearms are dangerous, even to PCs. Where someone will consider each move because any hit could be a deadly one. Well, that's GURPS.

Let's look at an "average" case:

  • An average person in GURPS has 10 HP.
  • A typical assualt rifle round does 3d6+2
  • 3d6+2 rolls an average of 12.5
  • My memory is fuzzy here, but I seem to remember that bullets do piercing damage
  • Injury from piercing damage is 1.5x whatever penetrates armor
  • 12.5 * 1.5 = 18.75 - so let's say an averge injury from a single bullet is 18 points
  • That's more than enough to put someone down, causing rolls for unconscousness and even death. I seem to recall that GURPS death is at negative HP

So in one, "average" shot, a regular person is 2 HP from death's door and deteriorating. That makes people consider their actions. It makes them make use of cover. It makes them crawl to stay low.

GURPS has the following addional benefits for a game like that:

  • It can be run with as much or as little detail as you'd like. Maps and minis? Sure! Abstract narrative combat? Fine!
  • It has a tremendous depth and breadth of modern equipment available. See GURPS: High Tech and GURPS: Loadouts books
  • The core system is simple and rational. You can learn it and run it without devoting a year of your life to learning it.
  • It's pretty quick, too: Declare maneuver. Roll to hit if there was an attack. Roll active defense, if applicable. Roll damage if there was a hit. Next.
  • You can go from here to whatever you want. Are your soldiers about to uncover a nest of vampires? GURPS has you covered. Are they about to fall through a hole in time? GURPS has you covered. Are they about to make first contact with aliens using Earth as a hunting ground? GURPS has you covered. And if it never goes any of those places, it's got enough meat to power whatever game you have planned.
share|improve this answer
That's not, however, what happens in an abush, Gomad... it's often several minutes of repeated wait, move, popup, shoot, drop, and move on. GURPS can't even replicate a paintball match well, let alone the realities of 6 hours of engaged combat, as the time scale is 1 second. There's even mention of this issue in at least one GURPS 3E supplement. –  aramis Aug 19 '11 at 20:21
@aramis - So run it in iterative cycles: A few rolls to determine the outcome of wait and move; a couple of seconds exchanging fire; repeat. Do you really want to model each moment of hiding and positioning? Or do you want to know the result of each extended period, in terms of advantage / disadvantage for the next few seconds of fire and cover? –  gomad Aug 19 '11 at 22:02
I run PD1E... yes, I do want those enforced down times! Seriously, the combination of 1 second rounds, and acting every round without fail, makes GURPS just about the worst replication of real fire combat I've seen. (It's actually pretty good at replicating SCA duels... see Roleplayer #1 for why.) People just don't react that consistently that quickly. It's CORPS' big breakdown, too. –  aramis Aug 20 '11 at 6:51
I'd recommend GURPS Mass Combat for these sorts of large battles without modeling every single projectile and action. That said, if you want to model every single projectile and action, perhaps a computer-based simulation would be more to your liking. ;) –  CraigM Aug 23 '11 at 19:48

The out-of-print Twilight: 2013 handles modern combat remarkably well, with an excellent focus on the psychological aspects of it.

There is even an underappreciated mechanic of push vs hold every turn: If both sides push, combat continues. If only one side pushes, they gain surprise/advantage. If both sides hold, then combat hits a lull. The pace then slows as sides jockey for position, perform first aid, try to simply spot the enemy etc.

So it would seem the side that pushes will win vs the side that fails to even once. Except that you can't always push, especially with combat stress factors (getting shot at with automatic weapons is more stressful, so is explosives used against you, and fire, etc). You can't do much more than slow down the pace of bleeding out when you're pushing (and it's a lethal game).

Then there's the longer-term mechanics of combat stress and psychological damage...

Crying shame that the book is laid out the way you'd tell someone about the game, vs the way you'd teach someone the game. That and an entrenched franchise fanbase not keen on changes doomed it. Still, pick it up for some good ideas.

share|improve this answer

Prime Directive 1st Edition

The system has a single roll resulting in both a level of action and an initiative total. It is not uncommon for "joe normal" type characters to wind up not acting other than to dodge for extended periods, and even competent soldiery often have only a minimal level of action.

In short, it results in a lot of "I do nothing this round." While it's actually pretty realistic, and replicates TNG phaser ground battles really well, it's not nearly as much fun as a less realistic but higher level of consistent action combat result.

The system uses a TN set of 4/6/8 normally; A normal man has 3d6 for dice, and a single die has to beat the TN, noting that a 6 open ends, totalling 5+1d6. This means 1/8 of the time (12.5%), one doesn't get an action at all. 98/216 (45%) times, one gets a minimal level (1/2 move or shoot). And only 919/5832 (15%) of rolls get a complete (Move and shoot, or stand and shoot twice). (the rest of the time, it's a full move, or a half-move + shoot.) Note that Armor drastically decreases the chances for higher levels of action...

Still, PD is unrealistically quick, in that rounds are 6 seconds long, and most competent marine PC's will be acting every round, and that 6-hour battle won't happen, even using the full extent of the rules and firearms...

Note that later PD products are not even ports - they share the setting, but are entirely new take on the setting, theoretically done systemless, then having rules matched to specific editions. GPD is purely GURPS Lite SFU-Trek; PD20 is d20 SFU-Trek, and PD20M revises to be based in D20Modern instead of stock D20. Traveller Prime Directive is announced by Mongoose, and will use (more or less) the MgT core rules.

share|improve this answer

A friend of mine uses the "9 mil test" as a yardstick to judge how realistic a combat system is: If a 9mm pistol fired point blank into the head doesn't do enough damage to kill a PC then the system isn't realistic.

First edition Conspiracy X passes this test and is our favourite for modern combat situations - players try and avoid gunfights wherever possible as they are deadly or require hospitalisation to recover from serious wounds.

Having said that, if I were running an ambush scenario in isolation I would use a wargame rule set - I've not played it but, from what I've heard, Force on Force from Ambush Alley looks like the best for modern asymmetrical warfare. It would be easier to adapt this down to a roleplaying style encounter than it would to adapt any RPG system I've played up to the scenario you mention.

share|improve this answer
+1 that's not too dissimilar to the test I use. The second is how a Muay Thai boxing match of 5 three minutes round would take to play and how likely that a critical will be scored in that time. At one second per round, that's 900 rounds. At 30 second per dice roll/resolution, that's 900 minutes of play assuming there is only one roll per person fighting... yawn –  Sardathrion Aug 22 '11 at 15:37
@gomad: 30 second per dice roll is not unrealistic. I did some statistical analysis (highly academic, with proper timing, and many hours of R modelling... or something) and it seems to be in the bulk part. If a system has to hit, to dodge/parry, to damage, to soak rolls, that's about 2 minutes per exchange. Rinse, repeat. Of course, it depends on how many dice you roll, how much algebra you need to do, and how many tables you need to consult. –  Sardathrion Aug 22 '11 at 15:48
That's one reason my preferred realistic combat system includes outcomes where the combatants break and circle, which is often what takes up a lot of time in a well-matched fight. –  SevenSidedDie Aug 22 '11 at 16:48
For all of these reasons a look at 'A Time of War' might be warranted. –  Runeslinger Aug 25 '11 at 1:00

I have had good success with older versions of Shadowrun (SR2, SR3) for this sort of thing. Cover makes a huge difference to target numbers (and you can increase the penalties if you want), and you can run a lot of it at long range for the weapons, which makes actually hitting anything a minor miracle unless someone does something stupid.

If you don't have any magical healing and you don't have any advanced tech, you basically don't heal while on the fight, so you'd better be careful. But chances are that if you're careful, you'll receive an injury 1-3 times before dying rather than just getting unlucky and being gone, which generally makes for more fun gameplay. (Whether it's more realistic depends on the scenario.)

But as a more meta answer: maybe you should use any system that you know really, really well. When you know a system very well, it's much more obvious how to bend it such that it delivers the results you want. (Even better if your players also know, and will act accordingly.)

share|improve this answer

Silhouette/SilCore mechanics have been designed to slide easily from personal to vehicle/unit scale, and are pretty quick to operate.

(Most of their games have a wargame part and an RPG part, and the rules are designed to allow the two to be mixed).

So maybe you could resolve most of the 6 hours battle as a squad-level simulation and "zoom in" to the individual (RPG) level whenever the PCs squad is involved in an actual fighing engagement.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.