"Better" Combat Systems in RPGs - Feedback Welcome!

[JohnSnow]

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

(SNIPPED for Brevity

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 know that some people prefer full narrative or quick resolution combat. Personally, I find the "player can make naughty word up" just a little TOO freeform for my tastes.

I had GURPS recommended by some exceptionally simulative gamers who always liked tables, charts and so forth. They'd talk about how GURPS was good because it could model dodge vs. parry and different damage types, and my eyes started to glaze over. So, I never really gave GURPS a try.

I have an earlier version of Runequest (I think?), but I always found it a bit too simulative. I found it to be trying too hard (damage types and separating Parry and Dodge, again).

Full disclosure: I have a pet peeve on distinguishing too much between dodge and parry (sorta) because of experience with the Palladium System, where you could respectively Dodge, Parry, and Roll with the same attack before comparing it to your Armor Rating. It was...exhausting.

I'm cool with there being a distinction between Parry and Dodge (in fact, I think there should be), especially when it comes to distinguishing between melee and ranged combat. Shields were great (and highly favored up until full plate armor was developed) in part because they helped in melee, but also because they were incredibly useful against arrows and other ranged weapons. But in melee, you should only get one defense, that combines both parrying and dodging (the distinction between which is usually a bit muddy in sword combat anyway, at least in my experience).

 

[Bilharzia]

I have an earlier version of Runequest (I think?), but I always found it a bit too simulative. I found it to be trying too hard (damage types and separating Parry and Dodge, again).

Full disclosure: I have a pet peeve on distinguishing too much between dodge and parry (sorta) because of experience with the Palladium System, where you could respectively Dodge, Parry, and Roll with the same attack before comparing it to your Armor Rating. It was...exhausting.

I'm cool with there being a distinction between Parry and Dodge (in fact, I think there should be), especially when it comes to distinguishing between melee and ranged combat. Shields were great (and highly favored up until full plate armor was developed) in part because they helped in melee, but also because they were incredibly useful against arrows and other ranged weapons. But in melee, you should only get one defense, that combines both parrying and dodging (the distinction between which is usually a bit muddy in sword combat anyway, at least in my experience).

The Mythras parry combines some elements of footwork and an actual weapon parry, there's effectively no "dodge" unless you evade which you almost never want to do. There are no damage types, just damage. Unlike previous weapon skills in RQ, the one combat style skill covers attack and parry with all weapons in that combat style.

 

[JohnSnow]

(SNIP)

1. 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.
   1. 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.

Thanks for the comments. I really liked some of your points and I appreciate the feedback.

Just as a comment, Savage Worlds (which is also from Pinnacle) shifted the concept from "Wind" to just "Wounds" and obliterated the hit location table. The wound location remains abstract, unless the character is incapacitated, at which point you roll to see both if and where a serious injury may have occurred.

By default, a character has 4 wounds, although the right edges can raise that slightly (and bigger characters/creatures have more). There's a bit of a "death spiral" in play, as each wound causes a -1 penalty to checks (which is a big deal in Savage Worlds) but I tend to see those penalties as one of the indicators that maybe it's time to quit combat, if you have a choice. The Bennies concept also allows a PC to soak a certain number of wounds, or preroll bad results, which gives the PCs more control.

Honestly, I think Savage Worlds would probably run just fine if every character had 4 wounds, but most "mooks" don't, and are incapacitated from just one. This creates a degree of "Stormtrooper syndrome" that suits certain genres well, but not others. It is, however, easy to opt out of, and even Savage Worlds has the option for making certain "Extras" tougher but still not getting Bennies (Resilient or Very Resilient).

The most swingy thing in the system in Savage Worlds is the Wild Die, which explodes on an Ace. I'll have to see how nutty that is in play, as my game hasn't gotten off the ground yet.

To be honest, I like a lot about how Savage Worlds handles this stuff, but years of D&D have left me with a fondness for d20 skill checks. So I'm largely looking at a system that captures what I like in Savage Worlds, while addressing some of its potential shortcomings, that also makes use of my beloved d20.

 

[aramis erak]

From my perspective, the desirable elements...

• Simple roll mechanics that players don't need to wait for a GM pronouncement to gather the needed dice. (that is, dice not by difficulty unless it's an opposed roll.)
• No tables required during combat.
• Parry, Block, and dodge
• The choice between parry, block, dodge, or take the hit is meaningful.
• Damage is cumulative
• Damage is not "fine until ko'd" nor "fine until dead"
• Options include gridded play.
• No tools needed for determining arcs when on gridded play.
• Options more varied than "Attack, defend, flee, move"
• Initiative once per combat, but slots swappable with correct abilities.
• Reasonable movement rates

 

[Wasteland Knight]

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?

I’d suggest trying a system like Mythras then, where the combat system is built around “not getting hit”, because “hp” are basically static, no one gas. Any, and combats hurt/maim/kill easily.

D&D is built around the HP Sponge paradigm. There are ways to tinker with this, but in my tinkering experience, these changes are klugey in practice.

 

[GMMichael]

I don't know what a "better" combat system should have, but I know what it shouldn't have:
1. The chance for a PC's entire combat turn to feel like doing nothing.
2. Analysis paralysis. The only thing worse than accomplishing nothing on your turn is watching other players being indecisive (while you're doing nothing).
3. Negating rules, like when a PC scores a "hit," which then doesn't become a hit because her opponent dodged. Or when a hit results in zero damage. A failed attack should be a failed attack from the get-go. There's little point in following rules just to undo earlier decisions.
4. Visual hindrances. When I start counting squares on a grid, it means I've stopped being a character in a scene. The smoother that miniatures-usage goes is the more immersive that the experience is.
5. Math. Math is for two types of characters: snipers and generals. The sooner I'm done doing math is the sooner I'm imagining my Meteor spell frying all of my opponents (and, maybe, some allies).

In this post, I'll talk about one of my favorite systems (Modos RPG), what it gets right, and where I think it could use some work.

1. Simple roll mechanics that players don't need to wait for a GM pronouncement to gather the needed dice. (that is, dice not by difficulty unless it's an opposed roll.)
2. No tables required during combat.
3. Parry, Block, and dodge
4. The choice between parry, block, dodge, or take the hit is meaningful.
5. Damage is cumulative
6. Damage is not "fine until ko'd" nor "fine until dead"
7. Options include gridded play.
8. No tools needed for determining arcs when on gridded play.
9. Options more varied than "Attack, defend, flee, move"
10. Initiative once per combat, but slots swappable with correct abilities.
11. Reasonable movement rates

1. Uses one die for outcome determination, and one die for damage. Every time.
2. No tables.
3. Parrying is a skill, blocking is done with shields (improving parry) or armor (reducing damage), dodge is a skill (though less effective than parry).
6. Damage is "fine until dead" but at player discretion. Players can earn rewards for handicapping themselves.
7. No grid support. Theatre of the mind is okay, but I wouldn't mind using a hex grid for combat - it would feel more organic than a square grid.
9. Options are "attack, defend, flee, move," but every action ends with narration by the PC and GM. The result is that an option becomes a scene or event. The changing scene then makes later options more interesting.
10. Swappable initiative at the cost of temporarily losing initiative.
11. No movement rates. Not sure that I'd want any, since only three really matter: obviously slower, iffy, and obviously faster.

1) Combat should be FUN to play.
2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.
3) Real combat is incredibly complex, and no simulative system will ever fully capture that. Don't even try. BUT the system should make real world sense.
4) The combat resolution mechanic should be tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic. Progression can either be tied to class and level or to any number of weapons skills, but it should ultimately feel pretty similar to any other skill.
5) Skill matters, but actual combat is highly variable, and the most skilled combatant usually, but doesn't always, win. So there should be a random element (dice rolls are great). Randomness also helps to account for some of the complexity that is both flatly impossible to capture and very difficult to even attempt to capture without driving yourself nuts.
6) Damage matters, as weapons are DANGEROUS. In the real world, a single blow from a dagger can kill you. Attrition based health mechanics (cough*Hit Points*cough) are useful from a gaming sense, but they're problematic for believability. And they can tend to lead to sloggy combats.

3. Following 9 above, each option makes as much real world sense as the GM and PC decide is necessary. There is usually a meaningful choice, because the narration requirement means that the combatants are always part of a scene, not just a token on a grid.
4. One "mechanic" to rule them all. Attacking is a skill, just like any other. In particular, it's a "physical" skill, so characters who are more physical (than, say, mental) do it better.
5. Weapons and armor have a greater impact on combat outcomes than skill. Don't take a knife to a gunfight, and don't get into a gunfight without some ballistics protection. There's no specific rule for cover (essential for gunfights), but short of adding a new rule, there are a couple of rules that come close. Also, weapons and armor each use a single die, so better gear makes you a better fighter on average, but in practice (specific instance), combat is highly variable.
6. A single dagger blow isn't likely to kill you in combat, which simulates the difficulty getting a good stab on someone who's fighting back. However, a character's capacity for damage doesn't increase much over levels, so a dagger doesn't become worthless at high character levels.

 

[JohnSnow]

Great feedback and thoughts guys! I know I have my own biases, but I am trying to make a system that can be tailored. In the end, I may end up designing a new RPG around it, but if it works as intended, I may also include rules to make it a usable add-on/plug-in for, say, D&D and Savage Worlds. So, back to our regular programming...

Movement, Stunts, Tricks and Zones:
From my personal experience, melee combat is highly dynamic. As Mohammed Ali put it, you have to "float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee" if you want to win. Standing still for more than a moment will get you creamed. So, what does that mean for rules?

1. Simply put, there's no benefit for just standing still with a melee weapon. With ranged weapons, there should probably be some kind of benefit for "aiming." That's logical, intuitive and pretty straight-forward.

2. Typically, a character is splitting their energy and attention between moving, attacking, and defending. The best way to handle this is, in my opinion, have the following options "Defend," "All-Out Attack," and "Flee."

• "Defend" is like D&D's Total Defense or Savage Worlds' "Defend" - you forego attacks for a higher defense.
• "All-Out Attack" takes the place of D&D's "Full Attack" or SW's "Wild Attack" - you forego defense for a better attack.
• "Flee" is withdrawing from combat - you forego attacks for a defended escape - Normal Defense but better movement.

3. Zones - I first encountered Zones in Monte Cook's Iron Heroes, where they were a way of letting non-magical characters do cool stuff with the environment. Some examples of zones:

• Terrain/obstacles that requires characters to make some kind of check to keep their footing or move as normal.
• Ropes, Chandeliers or the like that a character can use to increase their movement rate/bypass an opponent or the like.
• Damaging zones, such as a fire pit, cliff, pit, or something similar.
• Areas that provide some form of cover.
• Objects that can be pressed into service as cover or used as improvised weapons (tables, chairs, liquor bottles, etc.).

4. Stunts or Tricks - I like the idea of giving PCs the ability to pull off tricks that can impose certain conditions on their opponents, such as a disarm, push, or trip or making a skill check in order to move further, impose some penalty on your opponent, or gain some benefit to an attack. In a way, Stunts are like player-initiated Zones, and the two things should have a similar resolution mechanic - a combat/skill test to either gain a benefit, impose a penalty, or inflict some kind of damage.

5. Aside about "multiple actions" - The best way to handle multiple actions (IMO), is to impose a penalty to all actions for choosing to take more than one significant action in combat. How many multiple actions? I'd say 3, with increasing penalties the more actions you take. Why 3? Because it's enough to feel like a lot, it's few enough not to bog down combat, and it's a semi-realistic number of distinct actions to pull off in 6-10 seconds. Moving outside of medieval technology, semi-automatic firearms could complicate this a little bit, but I think that's rectifiable with good firearms rules.

The thing I like about these systems is that none of them require the use of a combat grid. By abstracting combat, but providing interesting options, you encourage players to do clever things. Characters in a gunfight or subject to arrow fire should seek out cover if it's available. Swordfighters who are at a disadvantage should try to get to the other side of a table. As a DM, I like the idea of coming up with more interesting areas for combats to occur, but I also want to support players coming up with something that I, as the DM didn't think of.

As an aside, there's few easy ways to think about incorporating this mechanically, by allowing the player to spend an
"Action Point" to, for example, offset the penalty for extra actions. Or you could have a feat or edge called, say, "Swashbuckler" that allowed a character to take one free non-attack action without a penalty. Or one that separately enabled that for attacks. A DM who wanted more "swashbuckling action" could just allow that edge to all PCs, and so on.

That's all the thoughts I have for now. Can't remember what I said would be next after this. I'll figure out what topic I think makes sense and post about that next.

 

[JohnSnow]

Randomness, Action Points, and Narrative Control:
One truism of games is that we're always trying to balance random chance with giving players a degree of narrative control. Some groups take the attitude of letting the dice fall where they may, whereas others prefer a cooperative storytelling game where NOTHING is random. And as usual, many (most?) people's ideal is somewhere in the middle.

In my opinion, the ideal system would give players some degree, but not complete, control over their characters' fate. One way to do this is to create a system that is "fair," and then deliberately create things that tilt the odds in favor of the PCs, who are, after all, heroes in this scenario. If these dials exist and are explicitly spelled out, a group that prefers "grittier" outcomes can simply remove some of the things that give the PCs more control over their fate. So, what should we do to balance this?

The first is a way to offset the inherent randomness of the basic determinator - for example, one could give Player Characters (and important NPCs) a permanent +1d6 to all checks - exactly what "Action Points" did as an option. This is great way to set heroes (and significant villains) apart from "ordinary people." Why are these people special? Simple. Because they're the scenario's important characters. Personally, I don't think that Stormtrooper #6 should have as much control over the outcome as, say, Han Solo, but Boba Fett probably should. YMMV.

Another thing is to provide some kind of Luck Points, by whatever name you want to call them, that are a limited resource, spendable by the player, to gain a little more control over the game's outcome. This can be a delicate balancing act - give too many and the game ceases to be a challenge, but if there are too few, the players can start to feel like they have no control. Note that this metric is entirely capable of being dialed to whatever level suits a particular group. Do you want your players to be a little more "favored by the gods" and/or be able to do more wild stuff? Just give them more Luck Points. As an aside, Savage Worlds suggests giving out more Bennies (its version of this) for good roleplaying, making the game fun, or even for being clever, heroic, or particularly imaginative.

Finally, let's talk about wounds. Personally, I like a mechanic that lets PCs survive being hit more times than the average bad guy, but I'm not sure if I need or want to have to track conditions like that for every single NPC. I'm not 100% sure where the sweet spot is, but in principle, I kinda like how Savage Worlds does it.

If a character is hit, absent spending a Benny (the SW version of Luck Points), they can be either okay, shaken or wounded (to varying degrees). The mechanic works like this:

On a successful hit, roll damage vs. Toughness (Armor provides a bonus to Toughness - DR in D&D terms).
Success - The target is Shaken.
Each "Raise" - The target takes a wound.

A "Shaken" target who is shaken again (but has no wounds) takes a wound...and is still Shaken. This is a way of representing the ability for multiple small hits to wound. A "Shaken" character can either make a successful Vigor check as a free action to try to recover, or spend a Benny to lose the condition at any time.

In many ways, the Savage Worlds system works exactly like the Damage Track from Green Ronin's Mutants & Masterminds. In essence, the core of both systems is: the result of a die-roll vs a Target Number results in one of a number of conditions.

In my next post, I'll cover "Conditions," injuries, and take my first stab (heh) at a damage track/system.

 

[SavageCole]

The role of combat plays in the sort of narrative you’re aiming to co-create leads to “better” answers. And of course personal taste trumps everything.

For over the top combat, I like what Feng Shui/Wuxia can do. D&D and Pathfinder have their place, for sure. And while I’m sorta tired of them both, I know I’ll use them to sell heroic saga type stories.

But where I am these days, these are the things I’m trying to do with games and what systems work well for those .

Combat Invites Disaster
Personally, I’ve grown tired of games dominated by heroic/super heroic combatants. I totally get the appeal of cinematic and stylized violence in gaming, but I’m bigger at the moment on how brutal and dangerous fights can be. Entering combat is inviting risk of disaster and any scrap is meaningful and potentially deadly. So, we eschew attrition/hit points and embrace vulnerable characters and critical hit mechanics. BRP-derived games give that sense of vulnerability. I’ll include Warhammer FRP in there, but I’m talking Call of Cthulhu and Mythras/RuneQuest primarily.

Fighting is not Passive (Offense and Defense)
Combat systems where you wait your turn to attack leave me cold. Whether you’re going on offense or defending against an attack, you should be always on — in my mind that means testing your combat skill. Parrying, dodging, “fighting back”. So you roll when you attack and when you are attacked. Making fights opposed checks where you compare the quality of the attacker and defenders results feels good. My players love this vs. waiting until it’s your turn again. Again, Warhammer, Mythras, CoC.

Soak/Armor Points vs. AC
Getting hit and getting hurt are two different things. Armor’s more about the latter than the former, so I love systems where armor just means your suit of mail absorbs some of the damage dealt to you. This matters to me more than it should, but it is very intuitive and again players grok it and never look the same at AC after playing in a game with sensible armor rules. WFRP and Mythras. BRP.

None of this is really any more complicated than what people do in “accessible” games like 5e, just different. I like few and brutal fights where every scrap is memorable. Quality vs. quantity of fights. Mythas and Warhammer right now are giving us exciting/terrifying fights — and ultimately that’s what I want an RPG combat system to deliver.

 

[Bilharzia]

Another thing is to provide some kind of Luck Points, by whatever name you want to call them, that are a limited resource, spendable by the player, to gain a little more control over the game's outcome. This can be a delicate balancing act - give too many and the game ceases to be a challenge, but if there are too few, the players can start to feel like they have no control. Note that this metric is entirely capable of being dialed to whatever level suits a particular group. Do you want your players to be a little more "favored by the gods" and/or be able to do more wild stuff? Just give them more Luck Points. As an aside, Savage Worlds suggests giving out more Bennies (its version of this) for good roleplaying, making the game fun, or even for being clever, heroic, or particularly imaginative.

Luck Points can work well in a system that is typically lethal, but you're right that the balance is delicate. Older RuneQuest had the reputation of being ridiculously lethal where limbs would go flying every fight, while this might be fairly realistic it could be grim for players. The game got around this by having powerful magic, from magical armour to healing spells which could re-attach limbs, this is the approach RuneQuest in Glorantha takes, which does not have luck points. This is ok for highly magical campaign settings, not so great for other settings. RQ6/Mythras luck points in my experience have worked. They are useful enough to alleviate the potential lethality of dangerous combats but not make the game so easy players are blase. This can vary from group to group though since you might decide to let luck points regenerate between adventure or between sessions, or allow group luck points and not just PC luck points. The Mythras game Odd Soot has the interesting idea of using 'negative' luck points which a player can call on if they run out of luck points, going into negative luck means the GM gains luck points of their own to use at a later time.

There's an interesting twist with Mythras luck points in the way they can manipulate the dice. Since it's a d100 system you can use luck points to reverse a roll so that a roll of 60 can be reversed into a 06, which could make it into a critical depending on the PC's skill. This is in addition to using points to re-roll or save a character from a lethal wound, or take a heroic extra action.

None of this is really any more complicated than what people do in “accessible” games like 5e, just different. I like few and brutal fights where every scrap is memorable. Quality vs. quantity of fights. Mythas and Warhammer right now are giving us exciting/terrifying fights — and ultimately that’s what I want an RPG combat system to deliver.

This is certainly very close to my thoughts. I much prefer a style where the outbreak of combat is rare and where the detail counts. If you're used to dungeon bashes and several melees in a single game session you are going to find detailed combat a real pain, people who prefer abstraction and speed can accommodate a lot more fighting than if they are playing a detailed system. It comes down to whether you care about whether that bandit helmet will fit you, it's the right size? oh great, I'm scavenging that, or whether you are in range to throw that hatchet and choose where it hits, should I shift my shield ward to cover my wounded leg, is it worth learning to use a javelin to disable shields or can I find a teacher to learn to use a 2h axe?

In more high-powered or high-magic style games my sense is that detailed combat becomes less important because other things take over, whether it is superpower-like abilities, or equipment or the existence of the dominance of magic, it's likely the smaller tactical nuances are going to be lost or treated as unnecessary detail.