Realistic Combat that's Simple(ish)

[Mallus]

So, Runequest.

(I think - been a few decades since I last looked at it)

 

[UngainlyTitan]

By realistic, I primarily mean differentiating what D&D calls AC into its two components: dodge/parry and damage reduction.

Or to put it another way, a more realistic version of D&D would have to-hit vs. an opponent's ability to dodge, parry, or otherwise evade being actually hit, and also damage reduction as the result of armor, toughness of skin/hide, and magic.

(This was inspired by re-watching Excalibur for maybe the 20th time, and the early scene when someone smites Uther in his full plate, and blood pours out...easy to hit, some damage reduction but still blood as he was prone and it might have been a crit)

To-hit vs AC is a useful simplification, but has always irked me - mostly because it is a sacred cow, and wouldn't be all that hard to add realism without too much complexity. It means that a slow and full-plate-armored tank and a fast, leather-wearing duelist have similar AC, when really we should have:

Tank: easy to hit, hard to cause damage​

Duelist: hard to hit, easy to cause damage​

I mean, it would be simple enough to implement in D&D without too much fuss:

Defense: Base Number (10? 5?) + Dex Mod + some combination of Proficiency Bonus + Weapon Bonus (magic and/or parry bonus for specific weapons) + Class Features + Possible Feats. Sort of like AC, but replacing armor with bonuses. I started with 10 for the base, but on further thought considered that it maybe should be 5, with more bonuses than AC making up the difference (e.g. Prof), so more "swingy" than AC.​

Damage Reduction: A number from (probably) 0-10 for conventional armor that reduces damage from melee weapons, or the "naked to full plate" spectrum, with 1 being clothing, maybe 3 being leather, 5 being chain, 7-8 partial plate, 10 full plate; over 10 for some monsters (e.g. dragons, tarrasque, etc). Presumably crits would bypass DR, or reduce it.​

Now of course this would have be balanced and the kinks were worked out to find the right numbers, but with a bit of work it would provide what I'm suggesting within the context of D&D.

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.

The problem, I find with reality in combat, is that reality is pretty damn random. As someone who has dabbled into accounts of fights, there are a lot of people who died of one unfortunate punch, many that survived and won fights with considerable wounds and many that despite fatal wounds managed to fatally wound their opponent(s).

WFRP did all this in 1987

WFRP did to by hit as straight precent for success and wounds being to die roll (a d6 (exploding) for all weapons when I ran it) plus strength (for melee) subtract the total of the enemy toughness plus armour points. The difference was subtracted from hit points.

That d6 exploding pretty much guaranteed that over a sufficient number of fights any character would die.

 

[Bill Zebub]

WFRP did all this in 1987

That's great that WFRP also does it. I'm sure other RPGs do as well. There are thousands of them.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'll add that I don't care at all about 'realism'. Nor do I think that adding complexity, or distinguishing between dodge/parry/absorption, makes a combat system at all 'realistic'.

I look for two things:

• Simple rules that lead to interesting/complex decision-making.
• Real-life analogues for those simple rules, in order to evoke the imagery.

As an illustration, going back to my Dragonbane example, the choice of whether to consume your turn early to possibly avoid the loss of a resource (HP) is an interesting, non-optimizable decision. And that action is called "dodge" or "parry". So you make that choice about an in-game resource expenditure, and a label is attached to it that makes narrative sense within the genre.

Does that make sense? It's not the 'realism' of dodging or parrying that matters (to me), it's that applicable real-life terms map to the well-designed game rules. And having that choice is, to me, inherently more interesting than just passively waiting to see what the DM rolls for the monster and not being able to make any decisions about it. (Or, for that matter, having a defensive die to roll, but not having that action cost a resource, which would mean there's no decision to be made.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

Hmmm....upon further reflection...maybe there are two ways to define "realism". One would be 'realistic' in the sense of accuracy, i.e. an accurate simulation of real-life combat.

The other kind of 'realism' would be something that might not model real life, but that makes you feel like you are in the action. In other words, this might feel unrealistic:
"The giant swings his enormous club at you."
"I roll out of the way!"
"Sorry, it's not your turn."
"But....that's what I would do!"
"Yeah, but the rules don't allow for it."

Whether or not it's physically realistic...if we're calculating force X applied to club of mass Y and length Z, and comparing to human reaction times, etc...for the person to roll out of the way is not relevant. What matters is that the player's sense of being in an action scene is disrupted by his inability to engage with the narrative.

Similarly, although it's true that dodging, parrying, and mitigation are three different things, combing the three of them into one number may not make a completely unrealistic game measurably less realistic in the simulation sense, but it makes us feel less immersed in the action. And therefore 'less realistic'.

Whaddya think?

 

[Laurefindel]

Hmmm....upon further reflection...maybe there are two ways to define "realism". One would be 'realistic' in the sense of accuracy, i.e. an accurate simulation of real-life combat.

The other kind of 'realism' would be something that might not model real life, but that makes you feel like you are in the action. In other words, this might feel unrealistic:
"The giant swings his enormous club at you."
"I roll out of the way!"
"Sorry, it's not your turn."
"But....that's what I would do!"
"Yeah, but the rules don't allow for it."

Whether or not it's physically realistic...if we're calculating force X applied to club of mass Y and length Z, and comparing to human reaction times, etc...for the person to roll out of the way is not relevant. What matters is that the player's sense of being in an action scene is disrupted by his inability to engage with the narrative.

Similarly, although it's true that dodging, parrying, and mitigation are three different things, combing the three of them into one number may not make a completely unrealistic game measurably less realistic in the simulation sense, but it makes us feel less immersed in the action. And therefore 'less realistic'.

Whaddya think?

I think that a lot of people use « realism » to express « relatability ». They want rules that reflect what they have experienced in the past. Which I think is legitimate, to a certain extent at any case.

But realism, for a million reasons that would be to heavy to track in roleplaying games, is often stranger than fiction, or else too anti-climactic for our action-adventure ambitions. Besides, part of the attraction of RPGs is to imagine situations we have not experienced in real life, and therefore our perception of that reality is often misinformed.

But I think you’re correct, sometimes people use realism to simulate how things happen in real life, while other look for less abstraction and more immersion. Some games do a good job of achieving the latter without being realistic.

 

[payn]

Hmmm....upon further reflection...maybe there are two ways to define "realism". One would be 'realistic' in the sense of accuracy, i.e. an accurate simulation of real-life combat.

The other kind of 'realism' would be something that might not model real life, but that makes you feel like you are in the action. In other words, this might feel unrealistic:
"The giant swings his enormous club at you."
"I roll out of the way!"
"Sorry, it's not your turn."
"But....that's what I would do!"
"Yeah, but the rules don't allow for it."

Whether or not it's physically realistic...if we're calculating force X applied to club of mass Y and length Z, and comparing to human reaction times, etc...for the person to roll out of the way is not relevant. What matters is that the player's sense of being in an action scene is disrupted by his inability to engage with the narrative.

Similarly, although it's true that dodging, parrying, and mitigation are three different things, combing the three of them into one number may not make a completely unrealistic game measurably less realistic in the simulation sense, but it makes us feel less immersed in the action. And therefore 'less realistic'.

Whaddya think?

In my mind it goes on to ask, "why isnt the character's chance to roll out of the way reflected in the to hit chance of the Giant's club calculation?" Problem I have with realism and simulation is you have to abstract at some point, so I feel the real question isnt how to make it "realistic", but how to make it feel satisfying in play.

In the case of single roll, while in that moment its true, defender cant do anything but watch, the decisions happen before the roll. Leading up to it the player chooses armor, abilities/feats, movement placement, etc.. So, it's entirely true you have no chance to react to the immediate situation, you just made a lot of upfront choices that led to this situation. I think for the sake of simplification and expediency a lot of folks have learned to live with this situation. Folks who favor it likely do so for said expediency.

In the case of reactive actions, the choices become more of the moment and less dependent on up front choices. Systems often use a do it now and it will cost you on the back end later in the round or encounter. This can go from a few simple die roll recalculations, all the way up to a series of stances, maneuvers, abilities, etc... Even though this can complicate and slow down game time, folks tend to like it as its interactive instead of passive. For these folks, the added game mechanics add to the experience so its worth the extra investment.

I've done both and see their pros and cons. I don't think either is more or less "realistic".

 

[LordBP]

Not really a reply, but this guy's channel has a lot of realistic battles that may help you out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In my mind it goes on to ask, "why isnt the character's chance to roll out of the way reflected in the to hit chance of the Giant's club calculation?" Problem I have with realism and simulation is you have to abstract at some point, so I feel the real question isnt how to make it "realistic", but how to make it feel satisfying in play.

In the case of single roll, while in that moment its true, defender cant do anything but watch, the decisions happen before the roll. Leading up to it the player chooses armor, abilities/feats, movement placement, etc.. So, it's entirely true you have no chance to react to the immediate situation, you just made a lot of upfront choices that led to this situation. I think for the sake of simplification and expediency a lot of folks have learned to live with this situation. Folks who favor it likely do so for said expediency.

In the case of reactive actions, the choices become more of the moment and less dependent on up front choices. Systems often use a do it now and it will cost you on the back end later in the round or encounter. This can go from a few simple die roll recalculations, all the way up to a series of stances, maneuvers, abilities, etc... Even though this can complicate and slow down game time, folks tend to like it as its interactive instead of passive. For these folks, the added game mechanics add to the experience so its worth the extra investment.

I've done both and see their pros and cons. I don't think either is more or less "realistic".

Agreed.

For example, a multi-stage combat round involving multiple die rolls could all be reduced to a single percentile roll against a table of outcomes. Even if it contained the exact same math as the multi-stage version, it would feel less "realistic" to some/many players.

 

[Rabulias]

GURPS has a similar system, but according to many people it isn't simple so I won't waste the space.

Another vote for GURPS. Defenders can roll Parry, Dodge, or Block (Active Defenses) against attacks. IMO GURPS is also a little more gritty in that turns are 1 second and Hit Points are your basic Health score, which is difficult to increase much. Fights can be very brutal and over very quickly. But GURPS does have lots of fiddly bits to track.