Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 8071221" data-attributes="member: 32164">So, this is not one more thread about making combat in RPGs more tedious. It's my personal thoughts about how to strike the right balance between "realism" (or verisimilitude) and playability.Obviously, this varies greatly from group to group, depending on both your tastes and how well versed your group is with real combat. Some groups prefer to just have narrative combats governed by "rule of cool," and there's nothing wrong with that. Other groups go the entirely opposite direction to "highly simulative" and try to play out every feint, dodge, parry, and strike, and bring in hit tables and wound charts and the like. And that's fine too. But for me, neither approach strikes the right balance, and most RPG combat systems either get too bogged down on details, or they're designed by and for people who don't really have any understanding of real combat. So I typically find them either too abstract or not abstract enough. Or, in the worst, worst case scenario: a highly tactical skirmish war-game that doesn't make real world sense. Those hurt.So, what do I feel an ideal combat system should have? First, I'll lay it out based on principles: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.Whew! It sounds like I'm attempting to say it can't be done! But fear not, I think it can, and I think some systems do it reasonably well, if imperfectly. Verisimilitude should be about providing the simplest possible mechanical framework for a narrative structure. In further posts, I'll talk about some of my favorite systems, what they get right, and where I think they could use some work. Full disclosure, my gaming experience includes every edition of D&D to date, d20 Modern, Iron Heroes, Castles & Crusades, Top Secret, S.I., both d6 and d20 Star Wars, Palladium's Palladium Fantasy RPG, Heroes Unlimited, Robotech, and Ninjas & Superspies; Shadowrun, Champions, and I'm now working on a pending game of Savage Worlds. I'm also familiar with Green Ronin's AGE System and WotC's Alternity, but I've never played them. Aside - wow, that's a long (albeit incomplete) list.Outside of gaming, my hobbies include performing at various Renaissance Faires and studying and performing historical European martial arts - which might be related. So I'm approaching this as someone who has studied narrative combat for fun and (occasionally) profit. So I've had the benefit of getting to talk about some of this with expert sword nerds - some of whom also like roleplaying games.However, as I go through this, I'd be interested in other people's thoughts as well. I hope people think it's a fun thread.</blockquote>

Verification