"Better" Combat Systems in RPGs - Feedback Welcome!

[Bilharzia]

It's true that with not enough realism, there is no believability. But with too much realism, there is no game. Because someone who fights more that a few battles with swords and axes dies, or ends up maimed for life.

People do not play RPG games because they want to replicate the experience of a RL character in a real-world war, they play to replicate the story of characters from movies, comics, books or computer games, characters who potentially and very unrealistically face hundreds of battles before dying, and sometimes also after.

It's true that most people are playing to emulate fictional heroes than historical ones, and sometimes fictional-historical characters and heroes, most RPGs are going to ignore or gloss over wound infections and that kind of thing, but different people have different interests and different ideas about what is realistic and interesting. Your observation about facing "hundreds of battles" might be true for some games but not necessarily all. You can have quite a realistic system where actually getting into a real fight is rare because the risks are large, which might well encourage the players to find other ways of avoiding or resolving a conflict than a straight fight. This means that events are progressing, things are happening, but not necessarily through piles of bodies and swimming pools of blood.

• time to change your tactic if it doesn't work
• time to try more weapons/tricks/abilities, just for fun
• time to make a mistake (a fundamental right when playing a non-competitive game!)
• time to run out of your best weapons and having to resort to secondary means
• time to realise you shouldn't have started this battle in the first place, and you can still run for your life

With a "realistic" weapon hit system, one hit means you're very likely out (unless it's boxing with gloves). How are you even going to figure out you are winning or losing?

That's a nice list but I don't think incompatible with a more realistic (whatever we mean by that) combat system. All of these things can be learned and experimented with in skirmish encounters which may not be decisive, a combat is not always resolved with one side being completely destroyed, breaking off and retreating to fight again is a more common outcome.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I agree on mostly every other point but not on this one.

It's true that with not enough realism, there is no believability. But with too much realism, there is no game. Because someone who fights more that a few battles with swords and axes dies, or ends up maimed for life.

This is wrong. From 1981 until my return to 5e in 2019, i gamed using nothing but systems where one solid hit either ended a bout, or brought it close to an end.

There is a lot of gaming while using such systems. However, it is different (and better) from hit point attrition.

 

[Wightbred]

This is wrong. From 1981 until my return to 5e in 2019, i gamed using nothing but systems where one solid hit either ended a bout, or brought it close to an end.

There is a lot of gaming while using such systems. However, it is different (and better) from hit point attrition.

I’m interested in the realism end of the spectrum for some of my games, so keen to hear more about these systems. Care to share?

 

[GSHamster]

It's true that most people are playing to emulate fictional heroes than historical ones, and sometimes fictional-historical characters and heroes, most RPGs are going to ignore or gloss over wound infections and that kind of thing, but different people have different interests and different ideas about what is realistic and interesting. Your observation about facing "hundreds of battles" might be true for some games but not necessarily all. You can have quite a realistic system where actually getting into a real fight is rare because the risks are large, which might well encourage the players to find other ways of avoiding or resolving a conflict than a straight fight. This means that events are progressing, things are happening, but not necessarily through piles of bodies and swimming pools of blood.

But would it be worthwhile for such a game to invest a great deal of time/effort/resources into combat rules? Like if combat in your game is so deadly that players never engage in it, then spending 50+ pages on elegant and comprehensive combat rules seems like a waste to me.

 

[Bilharzia]

But would it be worthwhile for such a game to invest a great deal of time/effort/resources into combat rules? Like if combat in your game is so deadly that players never engage in it, then spending 50+ pages on elegant and comprehensive combat rules seems like a waste to me.

Sure, there's a balance here, I did say "rare" rather than "never", and really the emphasis is as much on "interesting" as "realistic", in fact whatever combat system it is, it should give the players interesting choices to make while having the feel of some degree of realism, and most importantly, risk. The distinction I am making is between a typical d&d style dungeon bash with a series of combat encounters, and a different system where there might be a single combat encounter in a typical game session, if that.

Even though the system I'm most familiar with, Mythras, is fairly realistic and can be deadly, combat encounters are rarely resolved with the massacre of one side, since combatants will most likely be knocked out, too badly wounded to continue, or they have fled and made an escape, or they may have surrendered. PCs have the special benefit of a small number of luck points which allow characters to downgrade a lethal wound to a dangerous but non-lethal one, this makes PCs much more likely to survive than an opposing NPC or creature, until they run out of luck points.

What is important is that the combat system be interesting and engaging for the players and I would put that above realism or 'deadliness' (I don't think the two are the same). Not everyone is interested in realism which is a very nebulous concept in any case, and not everyone is even interested in combat encounters at all! A detailed and dynamic system (where player choice counts) may be of interest to those players that like that aspect of RPGs, and those people may well be very cautious about starting a fight or getting involved in one, they still may want something quite realistic because they want the full consequences of getting into a melee to hang in the balance, because it should always be risky.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I’m interested in the realism end of the spectrum for some of my games, so keen to hear more about these systems. Care to share?

Check into Zweihander, the linear descendant of Riddle of Steel and Band of Bastards.

 

[Bilharzia]

I’m interested in the realism end of the spectrum for some of my games, so keen to hear more about these systems. Care to share?

As I've detailed quite a bit earlier in the thread, I think Mythras is pretty good. There's a free quickstart "Mythras Imperative" which gives the essentials of the system, including most of how combat works from the publisher's site - Downloads

 

[JohnSnow]

As I've detailed quite a bit earlier in the thread, I think Mythras is pretty good. There's a free quickstart "Mythras Imperative" which gives the essentials of the system, including most of how combat works from the publisher's site - Downloads

I downloaded the rules and really like some of what I've seen of Mythras, but I find its character creation and skill systems to be more than a bit fiddly. It also seems highly dependent on the GM doing a lot of setting legwork - establishing his world equivalents of "Hoplites," or "Mongolian Horse Archers," et cetera, etc.

I might use it for a game set in, say, Ancient Rome, but I'm disinclined to do that level of cultural development for a fantasy world. I don't want my players to have to work that hard to go from concept to the character they want to play. Because realism nods are rather nice...except when they're not. Like...size/frame and culture are things you roll? WTF?

 

[Jd Smith1]

I downloaded the rules and really like some of what I've seen of Mythras, but I find its character creation and skill systems to be more than a bit fiddly. It also seems highly dependent on the GM doing a lot of setting legwork - establishing his world equivalents of "Hoplites," or "Mongolian Horse Archers," et cetera, etc.

I might use it for a game set in, say, Ancient Rome, but I'm disinclined to do that level of cultural development for a fantasy world. I don't want my players to have to work that hard to go from concept to the character they want to play. Because realism nods are rather nice...except when they're not. Like...size/frame and culture are things you roll? WTF?

Hoplites were not part of ancient Rome. Mongol horse archers likewise didn't appear until long after the Roman Empire fell.

Did you choose how tall you were going to be? My parents didn't. I turned out to be an utterly amazing physical specimen simply by luck of the DNA.

 

[Bilharzia]

I downloaded the rules and really like some of what I've seen of Mythras, but I find its character creation and skill systems to be more than a bit fiddly. It also seems highly dependent on the GM doing a lot of setting legwork - establishing his world equivalents of "Hoplites," or "Mongolian Horse Archers," et cetera, etc.

I might use it for a game set in, say, Ancient Rome, but I'm disinclined to do that level of cultural development for a fantasy world. I don't want my players to have to work that hard to go from concept to the character they want to play. Because realism nods are rather nice...except when they're not. Like...size/frame and culture are things you roll? WTF?

It is not a beginner's system, and it does demand quite a lot of the GM no doubt. The system is more of a toolkit than most and it's for more serious players that want a game that's more realistic, which is more tailored to a specific setting that sits in a particular time and culture, although it does support more fictional and fanciful settings. I don't disagree with the impression it is more demanding of the GM, I'd say less so of the PCs as I have had quite a bit of success running RQ6/Mythras games for players with no experience of the system.

Mythras Imperative is very condensed and is not the friendliest when it comes to character creation, the full rules are much better. The system could do with a more approachable quickstart, although at the same time Imperative is the reference document for the "Gateway" licence so there's a lot in there.

Combat Styles are a lot easier to establish than they look, it is just a set of weapons and one or two traits. It is left open in the rules because it covers 10,000 years of combat styles and weapons, any examples are going to be inadequate and always need to be tailored to the campaign setting and to the GM's style. Notesfrompavis has collected 100 of them here Combat Style Cards for Mythras and a big list of traits here Encyclopedia of Mythras Combat Style Traits

An example from Mythic Rome: (4th Century)
Hastati and Principes - Cautious fighter trait
Iron Rimed Oval Shield (Scutum), L, S, 5 AP/15 HP Passive Blocks 5 Locations
Sword (Falcata), M, S, 1d4+2+db, Bleeding
Heavy Javelin (Pilum), H, ‒, 1d8+1+db, Impaling

It also comes with armour details:
Bronze Half Hoplite Armour
Large Pectoral (Lorica), 4 AP (Chest)
Single Greave (Ocrea), 5 AP (Left Leg)
Helm with Cheek Flaps (Cassis), 5 AP (Head)

There are quite a range of campaign settings that do get very specific on these details:

Mythic Earth so far covers: Mythic Britain, Mythic Logres, Mythic Rome and Mythic Constantinople.
Mythic Babylon, a true bronze-age setting will be coming out in 2021.

The Design Mechanism

There is a substantial ancient-world fantasy setting, Thennla, which is a mix of Persian, Greek and Roman influences

The Design Mechanism

Monster Island is a substantial sword & sorcery supplement which has separate culture entries for lowland tribal animists, corrupt decadent 'civilised' sorcerers, and island colonists. I would almost recommend it for any system but the rules details are quite extensive.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com

Classic Fantasy translates 2nd edition D&D tropes into the system, mostly the humanoid PC types, classes, magic and monsters

The Design Mechanism

Luther Arkwright, based on the comic, is a more gonzo-dimension hopping steampunk low-powered superhero-ish setting

The Design Mechanism

Lyonesse is the licenced setting for the Jack Vance series, this is a self-contained book

The Design Mechanism

There's urban fantasy with "After the Vampire Wars", a 'hard' SF setting is available as "M-Space" which is an independent publication under the Gateway licence.

So, there are a lot of examples published, any of which can be used for a homebrew campaign. For example, Mythic Constantinople is set in the mid 15th century, so it can be used as some basis for any European, Mediterranean campaign of a similar time period. The Thennla and Monster Island supplements can be combined for a Hyborian Age Conan campaign, the system and these supplements make it a great one for a S&S game.

Size - yes you do have a SIZ stat! It's quite important in Mythras, as will be familiar to RQ and BRP players, being an elephant makes you stronger and tougher than a mouse! This is still true for smaller and bigger PCs. Giants can be really giant and their size makes a big difference, both to how much damage they can do but how tough they are as well.

As for rolling culture - you might do this depending on the campaign. In a more restrictive campaign like Mythic Britain you have one choice - British Celt and that's it! (unless you're playing a Saxon in which case you're in Mythic Logres) and you get a specific and specialised character creation process to fit that culture more exactly. In other campaign where the PC group might be a mix of cultures you might come from one of any number of cultures - for example in Mythic Constantinople you could be Greek, Turkic, Frankish, Arabic, or a non-human Arimapsoi, Astomatoi, Blemmyai, Kynokephaloi, Minotauroi, Skiapodes or Tripithamoi. If you imagine a Conan Hyborian campaign, a typical PC group is likely to be a mix of cultures from all over that world.

More combat styles from the Hyborian Age (Ranger Dan 90 Hyborian/Generic Combat Styles) - Ranger Dan Combat Styles - Google Drive