Thirteenspades
Great Wyrm
Sounds like Pathfinder, but instead of going unconscious you fight to the bloody death.
"Better" Combat Systems in RPGs - Feedback Welcome!
Wasteland Knight
Adventurer
Every group needs to decide what type of game they want to play, and the combat system should follow that principle.
I don't agree with your principles, as you are falling into the trap of "more realistic combat with DANGEROUS weapons" = more fun.
I disagree.
More realistic combat = potentially less fun, as with more realistic combat more character deaths will result. Realistic combat is nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving.
I've played in games where the system was set up around relatively realistic combat. Lots of deaths and maimings. Very, very grim and gritty.
I don't agree with your principles, as you are falling into the trap of "more realistic combat with DANGEROUS weapons" = more fun.
I disagree.
More realistic combat = potentially less fun, as with more realistic combat more character deaths will result. Realistic combat is nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving.
I've played in games where the system was set up around relatively realistic combat. Lots of deaths and maimings. Very, very grim and gritty.
Thirteenspades
Great Wyrm
Exactly, and if they don't like this, they can shrug and do something else. DMG has mentioned this a million times.
dave2008
Legend
How is this like Pathfinder (I never played PF1 or 3e). I have the PF2 books, but I don't see how this is similar to that. Though technically it would have to be similar to our approach as we've been doing this for about 6 years in 5e
Thirteenspades
Great Wyrm
When you reach 0 hp you fall unconscious. And if you reach a negative value equal to your constitution score you die. At least that's how I remember it.How is this like Pathfinder (I never played PF1 or 3e). I have the PF2 books, but I don't see how this is similar to that. Though technically it would have to be similar to our approach as we've been doing this for about 6 years in 5e
JohnSnow
Hero
I've watched most (okay, a LOT) of Shad's stuff. We share similar sensibilities in terms of the balance between realism and playability. I have a slightly more narrative background to my HEMA than Shad does, because I both train HEMA and perform it for stage combat, so rule of cool is a thing.
My inclination and intention here is NOT to create a system for gritty/lethal combat, but to model one where it's possible enough (while being avoidable by PCs, if they're careful) to make combat a real threat that makes players face the "do we?/don't we?" dilemma based on how confident they feel and how important the combat is.
I hate having to create a kludge to get around "Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by a group of low-level nobodies, because they all got close and had daggers." And if Caesar is only 4th to 6th-level, but the system goes to 10 or 20, then the system has a serious problem modeling anything remotely approaching "the real world."
Which is fine. Some people like superhero fantasy. And because I think that can be cool, I'll try to make the system scaleable enough to support it, because playing as Thor or Hercules is awesome. But that's not its primary intent. If it's not your cup of tea, there's plenty of systems for people who like to be able to swim through lava.
JohnSnow
Hero
My intention here is decidedly not to actually go for either` "grim and gritty," or "nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving." Nor is the intention to create "realistic combat." I do want to eliminate grind-y combats, where you have to hammer at a foe for 10 hit points a round for 15 rounds.
My goal here is "believable" (i.e. more "realistic" than it currently is) and "fun." As someone who regularly creates narrative combats for stage, I know that there's a huge difference between realistic and believable. I want combats in my games to be the latter, not the former.
It's inspired in part by the Shadiversity post about "levels are stupid," in part by my own frustration with hit points and "studded leather armor," and in part by every thread I've ever seen that has argued (quite persuasively) that "Aragorn is 5th-level."
In my opinion, no character (regardless of class) should be able to completely shrug off getting stabbed in the gut or neck with a dagger, no matter who's wielding it (no cheating with "sneak attack"). In D&D, after 1st-level, even a critical hit with a dagger (2d4) threatens...who? A low-Con wizard or sorcerer? Maybe?
Thirteenspades
Great Wyrm
And of course, believability is part of the fun. So realism plays a role to a certain degree.
Bilharzia
Fish Priest
I like your list of principles but number (1) is tricky, because for some people combat itself is not fun at all, or they want it resolved as abstractly as possible and that's all that counts, other players will enjoy the detail and the moment to moment action. Anyway, my point being this is going to vary significantly person to person.
I'm surprised you have not come across GURPS or any RuneQuest variant in your list. I've very little experience with GURPS but lots of people swear by it, it's certainly too involved for me. As far as detailed combat systems goes RuneQuest 6 or now Mythras is the one I have most experience with. Going through your list
2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.
There is quite a lot here. One of the features of Mythras that distinguishes from other BRP games such as earlier RQ editions and BRP games like Call of Cthulhu is Special Effects. These in part tell the 'story' of the combat, so that a fight is generally won by who gains the advantage from the successful use of special effects. Examples of these effects include -
Trip Opponent - which if successful will send your opponent prone, once you are prone your skills are halved so this is serious.
Choose Location - since the system is location based you can decide to target a vulnerable part of the body if it is lightly or un-armoured, or you might target a limb if you are trying to disable a weapon arm.
Bypass Armour - if you are lucky and roll a critical you can use this effect to ignore the armour of wherever you hit. Critical hits can be devastating.
Disarm Opponent - you can attempt to catch and fling the opponent's weapon away.
There are many more. These are the star of the system but one of its bugbears - there are a lot to choose from and it can lead to analysis paralysis for new players. The best way I have found of handling this is with GM guidance - present a choice of 2 effects to a player when it comes up, gradually they will get the idea and make their own choices. Using NPCs' special effects against players will also teach them the value and tactics available with these effects.
Beyond special effects, weapon choices and tactical choices can mean a lot. Shields are the only weapon which can actively parry missile weapons, so although that Dane Axe is lethal and can chop off someone's arm, if you loose an arrow at the Dane Axe wielder, they can't parry it. Their only defence is to attempt to use their evade skill, which will put them prone. Evading is also harder to succeed at than parrying. Shields can also passively block several locations, this means if a location is struck that is protected by a shield it will stop the damage as if the blow was parried.
3) The system should make real world sense.
Fitting armour to a PCs body, weapons that work as you would expect, shields which protect your body, and more so the larger they are, armour which absorbs damage rather than making you harder to hit(!) all come into play. Feedback from HEMA and other martial arts practitioners suggests that the special effects system evokes the sense of finding and exploiting an opening during an exchange, I don't have any real fighting experience but the system does have a realistic feel in that sense.
4) Tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic.
Combat styles are treated as a professional skill and work like other skills. All skills are based on a d100 percentile system. A range of skills may come into play during combat - Endurance might be tested if you take a serious or major wound, a fail on Endurance may stun you or knock you out. The Brawn skill may be tested if an opponent attempts to trip you and so on.
5) Skill matters, but actual combat is highly variable, and the most skilled combatant usually, but doesn't always, win.
In Mythras weapon skills are grouped into a collection of weapons that make sense for a learned Combat Style, as an example a Roman legionary might have a "Legionary" style which includes gladius, scutum and pilum. That one Combat Style skill is rolled when those weapons are used. Combat Style covers both attack and parry. A typical exchange is an attack roll from an attacker countered by a parry from the defender.
6) Damage matters, as weapons are DANGEROUS. In the real world, a single blow from a dagger can kill you.
Mythras is location based for a PC or creature body, each location may have Armour Points if armoured or tough-skinned as a creature, each location also has HP. Hit points are fairly low and never increase. For example a strictly average human has 4HP in their head, a dagger's damage is 1d4+1 without any character damage bonus for strength and size, so a dagger hit of 4 or 5 to the head means a serious wound which could knock you out. A Dane Axe does 2d6+2 damage and with that can take off a limb or head with one hit. Armour protects from damage point-for-point, so the highest plate armour with no enhancement is 8AP, mail is 6AP and so on. Critical hits can bypass armour.
Human damage bonus (from the strength and size of the character) ranges from -1d4 if you are exceptionally weak and small to +1d6 if you have 18 in both STR and SIZ, very rare. A more typical damage bonus is +1d2 or for a strong fighter +1d4, this damage bonus is added to your melee damage roll, so that dagger would do 1d4+1d2 for a slightly above average fighter.
Although as a whole the combat system is fairly complex, there are ways to pare it down a little. I don't use weapon Reach or the Cycle/Round system for example and I use a slightly faster way of determining attack/parry exchanges. For some people it is indeed still going to be too complex but I appreciate the piecemeal armour/hp system, the differentiated weapons and I enjoy how dramatic combats can be, with a story emerging from the choices, mechanics, chance and circumstance of each melee.
There's a free cut-down version "Mythras Imperative" Downloads which gives you character creation and the core rules system including combat.
I'm surprised you have not come across GURPS or any RuneQuest variant in your list. I've very little experience with GURPS but lots of people swear by it, it's certainly too involved for me. As far as detailed combat systems goes RuneQuest 6 or now Mythras is the one I have most experience with. Going through your list
2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.
There is quite a lot here. One of the features of Mythras that distinguishes from other BRP games such as earlier RQ editions and BRP games like Call of Cthulhu is Special Effects. These in part tell the 'story' of the combat, so that a fight is generally won by who gains the advantage from the successful use of special effects. Examples of these effects include -
Trip Opponent - which if successful will send your opponent prone, once you are prone your skills are halved so this is serious.
Choose Location - since the system is location based you can decide to target a vulnerable part of the body if it is lightly or un-armoured, or you might target a limb if you are trying to disable a weapon arm.
Bypass Armour - if you are lucky and roll a critical you can use this effect to ignore the armour of wherever you hit. Critical hits can be devastating.
Disarm Opponent - you can attempt to catch and fling the opponent's weapon away.
There are many more. These are the star of the system but one of its bugbears - there are a lot to choose from and it can lead to analysis paralysis for new players. The best way I have found of handling this is with GM guidance - present a choice of 2 effects to a player when it comes up, gradually they will get the idea and make their own choices. Using NPCs' special effects against players will also teach them the value and tactics available with these effects.
Beyond special effects, weapon choices and tactical choices can mean a lot. Shields are the only weapon which can actively parry missile weapons, so although that Dane Axe is lethal and can chop off someone's arm, if you loose an arrow at the Dane Axe wielder, they can't parry it. Their only defence is to attempt to use their evade skill, which will put them prone. Evading is also harder to succeed at than parrying. Shields can also passively block several locations, this means if a location is struck that is protected by a shield it will stop the damage as if the blow was parried.
3) The system should make real world sense.
Fitting armour to a PCs body, weapons that work as you would expect, shields which protect your body, and more so the larger they are, armour which absorbs damage rather than making you harder to hit(!) all come into play. Feedback from HEMA and other martial arts practitioners suggests that the special effects system evokes the sense of finding and exploiting an opening during an exchange, I don't have any real fighting experience but the system does have a realistic feel in that sense.
4) Tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic.
Combat styles are treated as a professional skill and work like other skills. All skills are based on a d100 percentile system. A range of skills may come into play during combat - Endurance might be tested if you take a serious or major wound, a fail on Endurance may stun you or knock you out. The Brawn skill may be tested if an opponent attempts to trip you and so on.
5) Skill matters, but actual combat is highly variable, and the most skilled combatant usually, but doesn't always, win.
In Mythras weapon skills are grouped into a collection of weapons that make sense for a learned Combat Style, as an example a Roman legionary might have a "Legionary" style which includes gladius, scutum and pilum. That one Combat Style skill is rolled when those weapons are used. Combat Style covers both attack and parry. A typical exchange is an attack roll from an attacker countered by a parry from the defender.
6) Damage matters, as weapons are DANGEROUS. In the real world, a single blow from a dagger can kill you.
Mythras is location based for a PC or creature body, each location may have Armour Points if armoured or tough-skinned as a creature, each location also has HP. Hit points are fairly low and never increase. For example a strictly average human has 4HP in their head, a dagger's damage is 1d4+1 without any character damage bonus for strength and size, so a dagger hit of 4 or 5 to the head means a serious wound which could knock you out. A Dane Axe does 2d6+2 damage and with that can take off a limb or head with one hit. Armour protects from damage point-for-point, so the highest plate armour with no enhancement is 8AP, mail is 6AP and so on. Critical hits can bypass armour.
Human damage bonus (from the strength and size of the character) ranges from -1d4 if you are exceptionally weak and small to +1d6 if you have 18 in both STR and SIZ, very rare. A more typical damage bonus is +1d2 or for a strong fighter +1d4, this damage bonus is added to your melee damage roll, so that dagger would do 1d4+1d2 for a slightly above average fighter.
Although as a whole the combat system is fairly complex, there are ways to pare it down a little. I don't use weapon Reach or the Cycle/Round system for example and I use a slightly faster way of determining attack/parry exchanges. For some people it is indeed still going to be too complex but I appreciate the piecemeal armour/hp system, the differentiated weapons and I enjoy how dramatic combats can be, with a story emerging from the choices, mechanics, chance and circumstance of each melee.
There's a free cut-down version "Mythras Imperative" Downloads which gives you character creation and the core rules system including combat.
I'm just going to address the premises, so you can get the idea of my views.
- FUN is relative, as you already mentioned. You need to find the right market to create the proper type of combat you prefer.
- I'll agree that almost every combat system I've seen has very few choice per round, unless you're some kind of spellcaster or special power user. Even supposedly dynamic combat systems, like 4E D&D, still tend to fall back to the same small set of choices.
- I think that having some variability in a character's approach makes a difference, and allowing that to change each turn/round/etc. is a good idea. For example, a character could be in a Full Defense stance, Defensive stance, Aggressive stance, or Full Attack stance, allowing for a variety of penalties and benefits.
- A level of common sense should be applied, but the question becomes the level of complexity acceptable. IMO, the use of miniatures has actually been detrimental in this regard, as it forces a level of minutia that becomes problematic.
- You mentioned constant movement in combat, but the use of miniatures pretty much negates that, as characters will plop themselves in the most advantageous position, refusing to budge unless forced. With Theater of the Mind, the battle is more fluid and realistic, since the specifics of position become irrelevant.
- Agreed. One of the aspects of the early 5E D&D playtest had all rolls as ability checks. Saving Throws, Attacks, and Skill rolls were all forms of ability checks, and the differentiation was only for determining what might modify the roll (such as a bonus to attacks).
- Rolls are a necessary aspect, and the real question is how much of a factor it should be. In a system using a 1d20 with a modifier, the die roll is going to be more relevant than the modifier most of the time. A system that uses 5d4 is going to have the modifier matter more, since the dice will be much closer to average each time.
- This is one of the reasons I like 5E D&D proficiency die, because with two dice rolled, the result will tend closer to the median. A system that used an ability die, skill die, and randomness die would cause a skilled person to win most of the time, but a few lucky rolls can swing things dramatically.
- Hit Points, like combat rounds and other combat mechanics, are a poor attempt to simulate the effects of combat while retaining a game aspect. The origin of Hit Dice is the average number of hits a character can take before death, and they didn't get particularly high in the original game, nor in AD&D. Most games have inflated these, probably as a result of player demand carried over from CCRPGs.
- A system that I liked, even though it had some issues, was from the Pinnacle version of Deadlands. You had a Wind score, which was the equivalent of HP, and when you ran out you were too winded to act until you recovered (usually in a round or so). In addition, each part of your body had a number of maximum wounds it could take (always 5 IIRC). When you took "damage," you divided it by your "body" score (determined by size). The whole number was the number of wounds the part of your body hit took, with the remainder becoming loss of Wind. You suffered various penalties for using the wounded location depending on the number of wounds, which created the dreaded death spiral, but the concept is sound. A character could have HP that represent their endurance to continue on, but still suffer physical wounds until they take too many (again, based on size) and they die.
