"Better" Combat Systems in RPGs - Feedback Welcome!

[SavageCole]

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.

This hasn’t been my experience with players coming from D&D & Pathfinder to Warhammer and Mythras. With very few exceptions, my d20 players quickly come to prefer Warhammer & Mythras fights. The biggest shocker for them is how deadly and QUICK combat can be. Instead of slogging through stockpiled hit points where you feel somewhat safe for the first half-dozen rounds, they’re desperate from the jump and fights rarely last more than a few rounds. Any fight can end in a single round— and many do. It’s not just death that they fear, but being maimed. Aside from the Mythras special effects mechanic, the other mechanics aren’t a pain to pick up — I find players are amused by hit locations and critical hit tables, feel energized and more involved by making defensive rolls, and appreciate how quickly and colorfully fights play out.

Of course, my players are capable of dividing by ten on the fly. They’re also willing to buy in to the concept of having characters who aren’t superheroes and that combat is chaotic, brutal, and dangerous. That to me is the biggest hurdle.

 

[Bilharzia]

Of course, my players are capable of dividing by ten on the fly. They’re also willing to buy in to the concept of having characters who aren’t superheroes and that combat is chaotic, brutal, and dangerous. That to me is the biggest hurdle.

Well that's good to know, and certainly how decisive Mythras can be is a shocker to some players, it can all be over in the first cycle. On the subject of calculations, the only tricky maths area with Mythras is working out difficulties on the fly, for Hard, Formidable or Easy, Very Easy. I am spoiled since most of my games are run online and with the Roll20 sheet there's no calculation involved but in person it's not as clear when this comes up, there's a reference table but it feels clunky.

 

[JohnSnow]

This hasn’t been my experience with players coming from D&D & Pathfinder to Warhammer and Mythras. With very few exceptions, my d20 players quickly come to prefer Warhammer & Mythras fights. The biggest shocker for them is how deadly and QUICK combat can be. Instead of slogging through stockpiled hit points where you feel somewhat safe for the first half-dozen rounds, they’re desperate from the jump and fights rarely last more than a few rounds. Any fight can end in a single round— and many do. It’s not just death that they fear, but being maimed. Aside from the Mythras special effects mechanic, the other mechanics aren’t a pain to pick up — I find players are amused by hit locations and critical hit tables, feel energized and more involved by making defensive rolls, and appreciate how quickly and colorfully fights play out.

Of course, my players are capable of dividing by ten on the fly. They’re also willing to buy in to the concept of having characters who aren’t superheroes and that combat is chaotic, brutal, and dangerous. That to me is the biggest hurdle.

Personally, I like combat in games. But I like fun, over-the-top, cinematic action combats that feel like they were pulled straight out of a Three Musketeers or Indiana Jones movie. Simply put, combat in D&D doesn't feel like that. Grim and gritty "Realistic" systems also don't generally feel like that, either. What I'm trying to build is a system that allows for the creation of believable, on-the-fly, cinematic combat. It doesn't have to be "real" (because as has been pointed out many times, most realistic combat with weapons is typically nasty, brutish and short). What it has to be is "plausible," and in order to turn combat into something the protagonists have a reasonable chance of surviving, D&D (and many other systems) tend to sacrifice all the things that make combat interesting in the first place.

Trying for "cinematic" is not me saying that there aren't plenty of bad fight scenes in movies and on stage. Fight scenes can seem fake, drag on too long, or have characters get hit in ways that are simply NOT survivable. Or they can be made so realistic that they're unsatisfying. Learning to strike the right balance between believability and theatricality is what some stage combat people (like myself) work really hard for.

To draw an analogy, D&D feels like bad theatrical stage combat - lots of "big pirate, little pirate" on a wide open platform that doesn't remotely resemble a real fight. Sure, it's not remotely realistic, but it allows you to play out a fight scene. There is a "sweet spot" in D&D where it can almost start to strike the right balance, as players have enough options to do some interesting stuff in combat, and enough hit points that combats can actually last a few rounds, but then it evaporates into a torrent of slogging through foes via too lengthy attrition and then goes back to the early levels of swingy-ness, this time with magical rocket tag (this is a feature of the hit point system, and why it probably needs to die in a fire, even if it never will).

More "realistic" games (like Warhammer), at least in my experience, tend to swing to the other extreme, and drill deep into the nitty gritty of maiming or killing someone in a fight that lasts 8 seconds. It's 30 seconds of whatever realistic meat grinder medieval combat scene you last watched, where none of the PCs are "named characters." And, to make matters worse, if you have any experience with western martial arts, they often get the nitty gritty stuff wrong. Honestly, I suspect my problem with Mythras would be the same one I always have with games that try to get too simulative, but I'll check it out. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

The problem with getting into something like "swordplay/European martial arts" as a hobby can be the burden of having "too much knowledge" about that topic. Anyone who gets into swordplay has their own "sweet spot" for the exact right combination of "representative" vs. abstract. If it's too simulative, we start seeing it tripping over reality, but if it abstracts things out too much, it doesn't represent the tradeoffs "correctly" (as we see them). And yes, this applies to movie fight scenes too - there's plenty I enjoyed more before I got into this as a hobby. This "burden of knowledge" phenomenon is not unique to swordplay, as I know plenty of people who just about can't watch certain "historical" movies because of how badly they botch period costuming.

As an aside, this is why many guys with HEMA as a hobby tend to have such a mad-on for getting rid of "studded leather armor," or renaming the single-handed cutting sword from Longsword to "Arming Sword" or just "Sword." Sure, we could just deal with it, but it'd be like asking someone to accept you calling every "car" in a modern game an "SUV." Sure, an SUV is a car, but not all cars are SUVs, and referring to generic cars as "SUVs" is annoying.

 

[SavageCole]

I don’t think Warhammer is simulative, but with its weapon size rules, etc. I could see how one could level that label at Mythras. But I don’t think gritty is necessarily synonymous with simulationist. Likewise, I struggle to see how Indiana Jones of Three Musketeers gets mapped to plausible.

With that said, it’s all about the group’s sensibilities and even moods. I find my preference shifts and rotates.

 

[JohnSnow]

I don’t think Warhammer is simulative, but with its weapon size rules, etc. I could see how one could level that label at Mythras. But I don’t think gritty is necessary synonymous with simulationist. Likewise, I struggle to see how Indiana Jones of Three Musketeers gets mapped to plausible.

With that said, it’s all about the group’s sensibilities and even moods. I find my preference shifts and rotates.

Well, the last version of Warhammer I played had...

• Hit location tables
• Grievous Injury tables
• Per strike attack rolls - i.e. two swings equals two attacks
• Separate Parry and Dodge rolls

Granted, that was the Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2nd Edition (by Green Ronin) from, oh, 15 years back or so. Maybe it's simplified since.

 

[SavageCole]

On the subject of calculations, the only tricky maths area with Mythras is working out difficulties on the fly, for Hard, Formidable or Easy, Very Easy. I am spoiled since most of my games are run online and with the Roll20 sheet there's no calculation involved but in person it's not as clear when this comes up, there's a reference table but it feels clunky.

There are aspects of VTT games that I don’t want to lose when we get back to face-to-face games. If you’re not using the quick rules with flat % modifiers, I could see that being work. Most of my nerd players are quite numerate — many thanks to gaming as kids. Playing James Bond 007 RPG as a kid with Ease Factor multiplication and the Quality Rating formula probably set me up for the career (and gaming) success I’ve enjoyed in life. And I’m not even in the top three of quant jockeys at my table.

 

[SavageCole]

Well, the last version of Warhammer I played had...

• Hit location tables
• Grievous Injury tables
• Per strike attack rolls - i.e. two swings equals two attacks
• Separate Parry and Dodge roll

Eye of the beholder I guess. Those things lean more to plausible than simulationist to me.

When I think simulationist, the games that leap to mind for me are Aftermath! and an old game from late ‘80s by BTRC called Time Lords.

Why do you see separate parry and dodge rolls as simulationist? Those are two entirely different actions. (I’m something of an Eastern (kenjitsu and tae kwon do) and Western (epee) martial arts guy myself.

 

[Deset Gled]

So, what do I feel an ideal combat system should have? First, I'll lay it out based on principles:

1) Combat should ...

There's one principle that you hint at in a number of these, but I think deserves it's own point: Scalability.

Scalability 1). In-game mechanics. The "basic" rules that you learn at level 1 should still apply at level 20 (or higher). This is actually really difficult to manage. Sometimes the rules get so complex that the basic mechanics get forgotten. Sometimes the numbers get so ridiculously high that they become cumbersome to play with. If you don't plan for mechanical scalability from the ground up, it's basically impossible to patch it in later. Picking limits (top and bottom levels, stages of advancement, etc) is the most common first step to addressing this.

Scalability 2). Rules complexity and the meta-game. If a set of rules is so complex that a beginner can't sit down and play an RPG in the first XX minutes, people will complain that it's too hard to get people into the game, or even that it's exclusionary. OTOH, if a game is too simple, veteran players can get bored and high level play becomes same-y. Learning curves, capability plateaus, and powergaming must be considered. In most cases, deciding the market of players that you are aiming for is the critical first step in figuring out how to deal with this.

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.

This style of game design seems to be coming up a lot more often in discussions. I can't tell if it's a natural result of RPGs becoming a bit more mainstream, an effect of 5e being inherently more rules light than previous editions, or just me hanging out at the wrong gaming site. But it's a trend I have a strong desire to push back against.

 

[Bilharzia]

There are a couple of descriptions of RQ6/Mythras that give a sense of the system, this one is from a thread called "Sell RuneQuest 6 for Savage Worlds players" (Sell RuneQuest 6 for Savage Worlds players)

BiggerBoat
Re: Sell RuneQuest 6 for Savage Worlds players

Did you have a campaign in mind? I'd argue for selling the setting and the potential for cool characters before you sell the system. Runequest is a great fit for Sword & Sorcery, historical campaigns, or settings tinged with gritty history (Vikings, dark ages, Grecian antiquity, that sort of stuff). When I think of a Runequest campaign, I think of muddy villages at the edge of deep forests, the hammering of spear against shield, brotherhoods poised to fight the darkness (or sworn to usher it forth). A character in Runequest is shaped from his background and culture. He's part of a community. His skills are a product of his talents and his upbringing. He has relatives and mentors, allies and enemies.

Magic is evocative and flexible. Combat is a dance at the precipice of death, and not entered into hastily. Any decision to draw a sword or loose an arrow is a commitment that carries consequences, though the potential for death or maiming will often cause an overwhelmed opponent to flee or surrender.

Although combat need not be the focus of your game, let's talk a second about special effects. The concept of rolling for success which reflects your ability to create an opportunity via special effects is hyper-elegant. Have your players felt the frustration of trying to do some cool maneuver in Savage Worlds just to whiff their roll? Let's take a disarm as an example. In savage worlds, this is a called shot with a penalty. By trying to do something cool or to reduce an opponent's ability to engage, your chance of success is much less likely. In Runequest, these decisions come as part of that initial success. Want to pierce their armor? Shatter their shield? Knock that dagger from their grip? Roll big (or small, as it were), and choose the outcome.

Savage worlds has a reputation for moving fast, but in reality you end up with a lot of whiffs against Toughness, a lot of rounds spent shaken, and other frustrating factors. In Runequest, fights are often over (for better or ill) in two or three rounds. A single strike can be decisive. It is detailed, but once your players have a handle on things it'll move fast. And, these are muddy, desperate battles with grievous wounds and sundered shields and victories won through passion and skill that your players will remember and their characters will carry with them.

I really like Savage Worlds. It's great for pulpy, high action games. I LOVE Runequest. When I open the book I swear I can hear the chant of ancient warriors and the sigh of forgotten magic.

And another account of a brief but fairly detailed combat (back in its Mongoose RuneQuest II form): (101 Days of MRQ II!)

Day 28. Battle With the Broo!

As promised, the first session's combat. I tried to take notes, but as I was juggling the new system and setting, it may be off a little. Still, I think it is pretty close. I am also interjecting more system specific notes, per the requests I have had.

The next morning, our heroes awoke, then decided to try a bit of hunting, to begin their new professions as Hide Dealers. They went a ways into the woods to the north of town, then Declann the Hunter began looking around for tracks, using his Tracking Skill. The shaman, also possessing the Track skill, tried to help him. He added his Critical Success range of 5 to Declann's skill, and tracks were found. Successful use of his Lore (animal) skill told the hunter that he was on the trail of a very small deer..probably the tiny Tusked Deer he saw the hide from in the market yesterday. The hunt was on!

(I rolled on the Random Encounter Table in the Griffin Island scenario booklet, to see what creature was about).

After following the tracks for an hour or so, his conjecture proved correct. Our Heroes spotted two small Tusked Deer, a male and female, grazing in the deep forest. Declann tried to use his Stealth Skill to get close enough for an Aimed Shot, but he failed badly. The spooked deer fled deeper into the woods. Declann and Nashoba then cast around for more tracks to follow. The shaman found tracks of some wild goat-like creature, and the hunt resumed.

(I rolled once again on the Random Encounter Table...this time getting a less pleasant result).

The pair followed the tracks for a while, then found the creatures responsible for them. A pair of strange, filthy Goat-Man creatures were stalking a small herd of Tusked Deer. They were unarmored, but the leering beasts had spears on their hairy backs, and lassos clutched in their dirty hands.

(At this point, being suspicious of their motives, Drystan the Witch rolled versus his Insight Skill to determine the Broo's motives. He was successful, and noticed...evidence that the male Broos were stalking the small deer for sport other than food.)

The suspicious witch then cast Detect Enemies, one of his Common Spells, and determined that the Broo were indeed a threat to themselves and other pople they might come across. That was enough for the civic-minded trio. The Hunter armed himself with his bow, and crept closer for a clean shot. This time, his Stealth Roll was successful, and the otherwise occupied Broo failed their Perception roll. Declann then took careful Aim (three rounds) then made his shot. His first arrow hit a Broo in the arm, impaling it for 5 points of damage. Now alerted, the Broo dove for cover, causing the hunters next shot to miss.

The next round began with the Broo getting Initative (24), versus 21 for Declann, 19 for Nashoba, and 17 for Drystan. The angered Broo sprinted towards the party. Declann's next arrow missed, but the one after that struck the injured Broo. Declann chose the Impale Maneuver, and hit the Broo in the Chest for 5 points of damage. Meanwhile, Nashoba attempted two Befuddle Spells in that round..and failed them both. Drystan cast two protection spells on himself. As the running Broo drew their weapons, the hunter responded by dropping bow, and spending two Combat Actions to draw a weapon and shield. Meanwhile, Drystan also spent two Combat Actions to draw his shortsword and buckler, while Nashoba tried another Befuddle..and failed.

The second round began with the Broo charging. The injured one, with a -20% to his roll due to the pair of arrows sticking out of his body, missed his attack at the hunter, while the uninjured Broo attacked the shaman, and missed. In return, Declann thrust his spear into the injured Broo, who missed his parry. The hunter then chose the Impale Combat Maneuver, rolled on the location table for "Left Leg", then did a whopping 9 points of damage! This dealt a Serious Wound to the Broo, who failed his Resiliance Roll, and fell, his leg useless. Unfortunately, as it fell it yanked Declann's spear from his hands. Declann tried to pull his weapon out, but failed his Brawn Roll.

Incensed at his lack of Befuddle Ability, Nashoba then tried to cast Disrupt on the uninjured Broo..and failed...twice on each of his next two Combat Actions. Drystan chose to wait..to see where the battle was going.

Next, seeing an unarmed opponent, the uninjured Broo then whirled and charged the spearless hunter. Unfortunatey for Our Hero, the Broo rolled a Critical Hit, while Declann Fumbled his Shield Parry! Things looked grim for the hunter, until Nick reminded Russ of his Hero Points. Russ decided to spend a point to reroll his parry, and succeeded. So instead of a dangerous hit, the Broo selected the Damage Weapon Combat Maneuver and dealt serious Damage to Declann's shield.

(I suggested to Russ that he should instead have had the Broo reroll his "To Hit" instead. But in retrospect, Russ did the correct thing. By successfuly Blocking the Medium Weapon with his size Huge kite shield, the best the Broo could have done with a crit is to choose the Bypass Parry Combat Maneuver twice...which would still be 100% blocked by the shield. Good Call Russ!)

While this was going on, the shaman tried one more Befuddle, which failed, and then spent the rest of the round drawing his spear and buckler. Meanwhile, the injured Broo started to crawl away...with the hunters spear and two arrows in him, he didn't go very fast. Decalann ran after him to try to retrieve his spear.

The next round started with the uninjured Broo charging Declann, and hitting the poor hunter again. Declann missed his shield parry, and the Broo chose the Left Leg location as his Offensive Combat Maneuver.. The charging Broo did a massive 14 points (with the Charge Bonus of +14d instead of +1d2) to Declann's Leg, which took him to -7...twice his starting Hit Points there. A Major Wound! Declann fell, his leg now maimed and useless. Fortunately he made his Resilience Roll, but was still physically incapacitated, and bleeding severly enough to die in 24 minutes if untended.

Incensed, Nashoba charged and attacked..and missed, as did Drystan. The Broo counterattacked, and hit the Witch, who blocked with his buckler and took no damage (medium weapon blocking Medium Weapon). Both he and Nashoba then counter attacked twice and missed, then tried a Shield Bash and missed as well.

(It was at this point that I told the players about the optional rule that went around on the Mongoose Forums about using the extra Combat Action you get from your shield for only shield related options like Shield attack or block. The group thought this made sense, so I gave them a Blue poker chip to use to mark this action from the white chips we had been using for all the other Combat Actions).

The next round saw the Broo stab at the shaman and miss. Nashoba's counter missed, but finally Drystan scored a critical hit! The Broo missed his parry, so the witch chose the "Bleed" combat option. He only did 6 points of damage..not enough for a serious injury, but the wound began to bleed profusely. All three missed with their counter attacks and shield bashes. Meanwhile, the injured Broo kept crawling away.

Starting to fatigue from blood loss, the Broo hit the shaman, who blocked with his buckler, soaking all the damage. Nashoba's counter attack hit. He chose the "Chest Location" and did 2 more points to the beast. Drystan hit on his next attack, but the Broo parried this blow. The Broo, now reeling from blood loss, missed his next attack, as did Nashoba. Then Drystan stepped up and struck a mighty blow. The Broo had no more Combat Actions left to use to parry, so the witch chose the punished "Left Leg" location again. This caused a Serious Wound. The Broo failed his resilience rool, and fell. The merciless pair then went to the first Broo (who failed his Stealth Roll to hide, thanks to the -20 % to all of his skills due to Impaling Weapons), and dispatched him.

Now they turned their attention to Declann, who was in serious trouble. Nashoba chose to take his time, doubling the 1-3 minutes to perform First Aid. He was successful, and stabilized the poor hunter. He then successfully cast a Cauterize Spell to aid on his next action, which was use of his Healing Skill to stitch open the gaping wound. He was successful, and now Declann could begin to heal up normally, if slowly.

While all this was happening, Drystan calmly watched the remaining Broo bleed out, then dispatched him when he was unconscious.

And that was where we ended the session. I gave the players three Improvement Rolls, as they had gone to a strange land, roll played well, found out much useful information and survived their first fight. They also had time in the next day or two whle Declann healed to consider all that had happened to them. Kevin and Russ did well on their three rolls. Nick, due to his character's high Charisma got an extra roll, which he saved to up his POW score at a later date.

And that was where we ended the session. It was a great amount of fun, and I am looking forward to getting the other three players involved.

Thanks a lot for reading,

TGryph

I do think though, if you go in looking for problems and things you don't like, you will almost certainly find them! If you already like Savage Worlds, just stick with it and throw in a few houserules. Another consideration is players and their interests, whatever you're running has to be of shared interest with whoever is in the group and the system should be bent around according to the group's preferences.

Personally I don't care that much about distinctions and questions around simulation/simulationist/realism/gamist etc. but just whether it feels like it makes sense and allows you to make interesting decisions. All flavours of D&D are clearly FUBAR, but that's what most people want. I've enjoyed the Year Zero engine games which are interesting and pretty fun to play but are quite far from the detail of RQ/Mythras or even SW.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Of all the games I've played lately, I've found that the one that was the most satisfying and still had that "realistic" combat is deadly and risky vibe was one that was more narrative based. The key feature that makes it work so well is that it gives the players a resource that they can bring to bear to mitigate damage that is inflicted on their character.

This removes the attrition approach of HP, and gives the GM the ability to push hard with the consequences of combat because the players have the means to reduce the outcome. It also puts a lot of the decision making in the players' hands, which I think is good. The result is that there are far fewer rolls to make in a given fight when compared to D&D, but each roll is significantly more meaningful, and the players have lots of choices to make about how things go and how to use the resources at their disposal.

I think that approaching it from another angle like that.....where the player decides how to deal with a hit to their character....can lead to some interesting takes. Otherwise I think all you'll do is wind up with something that's very much the Armor Class and Hit Point system of D&D, except either more or less invovled than the D&D version.