Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 8073952" data-attributes="member: 6685730">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. 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.  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.</blockquote>

Verification