Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Promotions/Press
Game Design 110: Combat
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steenan" data-source="post: 7651075" data-attributes="member: 23240"><p>When designing combat rules, it's good to ask yourself "Why am I doing it this way? How does it help achieve my goals?". That's because it is the part of the system most plagued by unnecessary and unreasonable assumptions. You don't have to do something just because it's done this way in other games. </p><p></p><p>The most common assumptions are:</p><p></p><p><strong>Combat needs its own subsystem</strong></p><p>If the game has a strong focus on combat, then it definitely needs a combat subsystem. If it hasn't, there is no need to add this kind of rules. You can roll to resolve combat exactly like you roll to resolve sneaking or running. By giving combat a lot of rules and a lot of space on character sheet you tell the players "My game is mainly about combat". It's not a bad thing - but make sure that it's really what you mean. </p><p></p><p><strong>Combat ends in death</strong></p><p>It only does if you make it this way. Combat is typically more fun when it's not survival that's at stake, but something else that PCs care about. The rules may give an option of safely running away, or just state that defeated characters are knocked out/wounded/looted/taken prisoners, but never killed. There may be a "death flag" that allows players to risk their characters' lives if they want it. But, unless you want the lethality to be a part of fun ("You better bring three or four characters for this session, it will be bloody"), you probably shouldn't make the combat deadly by default.</p><p></p><p><strong>Death spirals are inherently bad</strong></p><p>They are, if the combats are frequent, deadly and give no easy way out. On the other hand, they are perfect if you want to tell the players "You see it's not going well. Are you sure you want to risk more injuries, or maybe it's time to back off?". </p><p>Also, the more predictable the combat is, the more painful the spiral. If luck doesn't matter and you're already losing, you'll only do worse when injured; but if you can hope for a smile of fate, it makes sense to continue fighting, even with penalties.</p><p></p><p><strong>Combat has to be tactical</strong></p><p>It probably should if you want to make it a major part of your game. But combat can be just less important, or important in a different way. It may be focused on non-tactical decisions - things like prioritizing your safety compared to other goals, or choosing between honorable and underhanded actions, or something like that.</p><p>Nobody wants to spend an hour just rolling dice. If you make combat longer than one or two rolls, it's because you leave space for player input. But the input does not need to be about tactics.</p><p></p><p><strong>Injuries must be abstracted</strong></p><p>It's really strange to me that many games use long lists of detailed combat maneuvers, weapon and armor types and so on, but simplify injury to a single number. There's no need to go to the other extreme, with hit locations, realistic effects of pain and blood loss etc. Using even a very simple system that gives specific injuries fictional and mechanical significance (like consequences in Fate games) goes a long way towards changing how the game feels.</p><p>Like in the previous points, there is nothing wrong with hit points. They may be exactly what your game needs. But maybe they are not - and you need to think about it for a while.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steenan, post: 7651075, member: 23240"] When designing combat rules, it's good to ask yourself "Why am I doing it this way? How does it help achieve my goals?". That's because it is the part of the system most plagued by unnecessary and unreasonable assumptions. You don't have to do something just because it's done this way in other games. The most common assumptions are: [B]Combat needs its own subsystem[/B] If the game has a strong focus on combat, then it definitely needs a combat subsystem. If it hasn't, there is no need to add this kind of rules. You can roll to resolve combat exactly like you roll to resolve sneaking or running. By giving combat a lot of rules and a lot of space on character sheet you tell the players "My game is mainly about combat". It's not a bad thing - but make sure that it's really what you mean. [B]Combat ends in death[/B] It only does if you make it this way. Combat is typically more fun when it's not survival that's at stake, but something else that PCs care about. The rules may give an option of safely running away, or just state that defeated characters are knocked out/wounded/looted/taken prisoners, but never killed. There may be a "death flag" that allows players to risk their characters' lives if they want it. But, unless you want the lethality to be a part of fun ("You better bring three or four characters for this session, it will be bloody"), you probably shouldn't make the combat deadly by default. [B]Death spirals are inherently bad[/B] They are, if the combats are frequent, deadly and give no easy way out. On the other hand, they are perfect if you want to tell the players "You see it's not going well. Are you sure you want to risk more injuries, or maybe it's time to back off?". Also, the more predictable the combat is, the more painful the spiral. If luck doesn't matter and you're already losing, you'll only do worse when injured; but if you can hope for a smile of fate, it makes sense to continue fighting, even with penalties. [B]Combat has to be tactical[/B] It probably should if you want to make it a major part of your game. But combat can be just less important, or important in a different way. It may be focused on non-tactical decisions - things like prioritizing your safety compared to other goals, or choosing between honorable and underhanded actions, or something like that. Nobody wants to spend an hour just rolling dice. If you make combat longer than one or two rolls, it's because you leave space for player input. But the input does not need to be about tactics. [B]Injuries must be abstracted[/B] It's really strange to me that many games use long lists of detailed combat maneuvers, weapon and armor types and so on, but simplify injury to a single number. There's no need to go to the other extreme, with hit locations, realistic effects of pain and blood loss etc. Using even a very simple system that gives specific injuries fictional and mechanical significance (like consequences in Fate games) goes a long way towards changing how the game feels. Like in the previous points, there is nothing wrong with hit points. They may be exactly what your game needs. But maybe they are not - and you need to think about it for a while. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Promotions/Press
Game Design 110: Combat
Top