Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)


I can't speak for Celebrim.

For me personally:

•Suspension of disbelief is something I can get from games. That I can buy into the world that the game is presenting to me and think from a perspective that is more of the character's perspective; make decisions from the perspective of what makes sense in a given situation and from the mindset of the character is something I am capable of doing is something I prefer from a game. It needn't be a perfect model of reality, but what's going on in the game shouldn't grossly violate what makes sense.

•I definitely do find that GURPS leads to results that are more intuitive for me. Fire burns and behaves like fire; HP has some semblance of meaning; etc. Like you, I cut down a lot of rules. But what makes me confident in cutting down some of the rules is feeling that the rules and the structure of the game are less often clashing against how I think something should be ruled.

•I can and have enjoyed games that are built as games first and less concerned about some manner of being "intuitive." However, it helps if the game (or the group with whom I'm playing the game) tells me that up front. There was a time when I loathed D&D 4th Edition, but that was primarily due to the game being advertised as a different experience than it was. When I used it for what it actually was, I enjoyed it.

•This doesn't apply to you. It's more of a general train of thought: I've noticed that a lot of people appear to be of the mind that "fiction first" and narrative play is at odds with simulation/emulation and crunch. I don't believe that. For me, I think fiction and narrative can be built upon and organically emerge from a solid mechanical foundation. Crunch (rules) and fluff (non-rules) should work in tandem and have a coherent relationship.

•I don't particularly like tic-tac-toe. I don't think that the mechanics of tic-tac-toe would suit the OP's needs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

And that's before we get into the problem that "damage" effects would need to be dealt with as a combination of pushing force (does it knock you down), pain (does it stimulate your nerves), and tissue destruction (how many arteries/capillaries ect. are severed) since the real killing things are shock and blood loss and infection. We'd have to actually deal with the real trauma response of bodies. Whose got time for that?

You could deal with it in a relatively simple way as a baseline, then push up some elements for certain weapons and the like (I've made the comment that most damage really comes down to physical or psychological shock, blood loss or a very small amount of actual disablement, at least with firearms before, but then you get into the fact that's true during a combat, but afterwards impairment settles in if the blood loss or infection doesn't become a thing), but a lot of people would probably not enjoy it, since at least the shock part probably would be best represented by attribute rolls of some sort or another, and thus fairly all-or-nothing (and to some degree this is true of the blood loss too, since there are really slow bleeders and really fast ones)
 


Name one. Also, "odds" aren't "reality", they're statistical probabilities.

I can't speak for Celebrim.

For me personally:

•Suspension of disbelief is something I can get from games. That I can buy into the world that the game is presenting to me and think from a perspective that is more of the character's perspective; make decisions from the perspective of what makes sense in a given situation and from the mindset of the character is something I am capable of doing is something I prefer from a game. It needn't be a perfect model of reality, but what's going on in the game shouldn't grossly violate what makes sense.
That's amazing. I can get that from a good book or good movie, but never with ttrpgs. I'm always thinking "What's the best move here?" mostly because I can't escape the reality that I'm playing a game. I'm weird.
•I definitely do find that GURPS leads to results that are more intuitive for me. Fire burns and behaves like fire; HP has some semblance of meaning; etc. Like you, I cut down a lot of rules. But what makes me confident in cutting down some of the rules is feeling that the rules and the structure of the game are less often clashing against how I think something should be ruled.
Great points there and I have some of the same opinions.
•I can and have enjoyed games that are built as games first and less concerned about some manner of being "intuitive." However, it helps if the game (or the group with whom I'm playing the game) tells me that up front. There was a time when I loathed D&D 4th Edition, but that was primarily due to the game being advertised as a different experience than it was. When I used it for what it actually was, I enjoyed it.
I used to use that term a lot: intuitive. I'm not sure it fits ttrpgs as well as crpgs though. I remember first realizing how unrealistic ttrpgs combat was (AD&D1e) and the disappointment pushed to me video games for a long time. One of the games that brought my back to ttrpgs was The Riddle of Steel because IMO that system is clearly trying to emulate Fantasy in a far more distinct manner than D&D (which is more 'generic fantasy').
•This doesn't apply to you. It's more of a general train of thought: I've noticed that a lot of people appear to be of the mind that "fiction first" and narrative play is at odds with simulation/emulation and crunch. I don't believe that. For me, I think fiction and narrative can be built upon and organically emerge from a solid mechanical foundation. Crunch (rules) and fluff (non-rules) should work in tandem and have a coherent relationship.
Burning Wheel is like that: narrative & crunchy. Crunchy like granola-crunchy. Daggerheart has (at least the genesis of) a strong "ludo-narrative harmony" to it.
•I don't particularly like tic-tac-toe. I don't think that the mechanics of tic-tac-toe would suit the OP's needs.
But

6fshlw.gif
 

So my question: Which RPGs--especially fantasy RPGs--already do this well, and in a way that isn't overly complex? Preferably still requiring just one role. Please give a brief explanation of how it works.

Mythras does this pretty well. It continues from the RuneQuest base (it is the re-branded RuneQuest 6). In terms of PC/NPC and creature modelling, it uses hit locations, hp and armour points per location. Below is an example with average human HP in each location and a selection of armour. In this case the character is wearing a half-plate helmet (5 points), scale hauberk (chest and abdomen 4 points) with padding on limbs (2 points). The strongest manufactured armour is usually around 8 points. Creatures may have natural armour which protects in the same way.

Head (5 / 5)​
Right Arm (2 / 4)​
Chest (4 / 7)​
Left Arm (2 / 4)​
Abdomen (4 / 6)​
Right Leg (2 / 5)​
Left Leg (2 / 5)​

The second number is hp per location, there is no general hp in the system, and hp does not increase although of course stronger armour can be worn. Weapon damage varies from a dagger (1d4+1), to a spear (1d8+1) up to a 2h monster like a great axe (2d6+2). Humans can have damage modifiers based on their strength and size which add to weapon damage.

As you can see, this PC is pretty well protected against a dagger, does ok against an average hit from a spear but will start to take minor wounds in the vitals from stronger hits. An average hit from a great axe though will easily disable an arm and take most of the hp from a body or head hit. When a hit location goes to zero, it is considered a "serious" wound, where the victim becomes stunned and may lose the use of that location - ie. they fall, or they drop a weapon. If a hit location goes negative equal to its starting hp, that is a "major" wound which will take most characters and creatures out of the fight. Such a hit may sever a limb, decapitate, or even chop the body in two.

Attacking and defending is resolved using a skill Vs skill roll (the combat skill of the combatants). In simple terms, if the attacker succeeds with their attack roll, and the defender fails their parry, the defender gets hit. This is no different from standard BRP resolution.

A Mythras innovation is the introduction of Special Effects, which in the above example would allow the attacker to use one special effect of their choice because they beat the defender. Special effects are things like Tripping attempts, impaling with an impaling weapon (such as a spear), choosing a location to hit (by default hit location is rolled randomly), disarming attempts and so on. More powerful special effects are available on a critical success. Special effects are available to both attacker and defender, so if the defender won in this case, they could choose an effect to use against their attacker such as a trip or disarm and so on.

Special Effects are where most of the fun in the combat system is. Starting from the BRP base, special effects brings to combat a dynamic sense of pressing and resisting an advantage or opening, so that combats tend to be decided by special effects rather than HP attrition. Hit points are generally low anyway, but special effects add excitement to combats which other BRP games tend to lack.

The pain points in the combat system for players generally are - Action Points, these in practice tend to work well but are initially the cause of some worry. It is easy simply to use the option for fixed actions (2 per round). The large number of special effects avaiable can also bamboozle new players (and GMs) but this analysis paralysis is actually fairly easily dealt with. It works best with a small number of PCs and opponents, in settings of middling to low-armour, although I have seen it work at very high level and it still seems playable.

The Mythras Imperative SRD is free and maintained online Mythras Imperative System Resource Document
This is better understood as a rules-sampler as it is only the core of the rules, it misses out most of the magic traditions, the creature chapter, and much of the GM material. Nevertheless it is enough to run a test game to get a feel for the system. The more traditionally-focused Mythras Classic Fantasy (imperative) is also available from the same website and is even more of an extensive rules sample.

There is a detailed combat example on Runeblogger's website:
Samurai duel: a combat example with Mythras
The combat breakdown uses a video of a samurai duel, viewable on the page.
 

That's amazing. I can get that from a good book or good movie, but never with ttrpgs. I'm always thinking "What's the best move here?" mostly because I can't escape the reality that I'm playing a game. I'm weird.

Great points there and I have some of the same opinions.

I used to use that term a lot: intuitive. I'm not sure it fits ttrpgs as well as crpgs though. I remember first realizing how unrealistic ttrpgs combat was (AD&D1e) and the disappointment pushed to me video games for a long time. One of the games that brought my back to ttrpgs was The Riddle of Steel because IMO that system is clearly trying to emulate Fantasy in a far more distinct manner than D&D (which is more 'generic fantasy').

Burning Wheel is like that: narrative & crunchy. Crunchy like granola-crunchy. Daggerheart has (at least the genesis of) a strong "ludo-narrative harmony" to it.

But

6fshlw.gif

It may be that we're all weird in our own way. I've been told by others that it is unusual that I can think from a perspective that is different than my default own.

(Related: I don't believe that the Thermian Argument is necessarily a fallacy. I'm of the mind that it is a great fallacy to demand that a setting or situation built upon different fundamental details than our own still produce an end result that matches where we are.)

I can empathize with wanting to make the 'best move.' Though, what is "best" may have some variation depending upon the motivations and goals of the particular character.

It depends upon the game too. As just a player of a game, there's a different mindset between a DCC Gongfarmer hoping to find riches and glory versus playing a character in a more narrative-driven game. Both can be a lot of fun.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top