Most combat in RPG's are not realistic or even narratively interesting at all. Most games typically allow each
participant in the combat an equal number of actions and reactions. And even games that let characters have more
actions than others still allow automatic defensive reactions, and generally apply an evenness or "fairness" to combat.
Combat however, is anything but fair, and if you are playing fair, either you are in a duel, or doing it wrong. Most
games show this fairness by trading action for action:
- Character A attacks
- NPC B blocks/dodges
- NPC B attacks
- Character A blocks/didges
This is not only unrealistic, it is narratively boring. How many boxing matches or UFC fights do you see alternating
like that? None. In the real world, opponents size each other up then unleash a flurry of attacks, stopping only to
rest, regain balance, or because the defender was able to counter and seize the initiative. For example, the defender
might be trapping the attack, sweeping the legs, or side stepping out of the line of attack. Or maybe one combatant
only throws out an exploratory jab or thrust, perhaps as a feint, or perhaps to judge his opponents reflexes, and the
other combatant may still just hold, waiting for an opening to attack or escape.
In the latter scenario where a defender only defends, what is in it for him game-wise in most systems? All he has done
is allow the attacker a shot. Without rules for fatigue or tactical advantage, there is absolutely no reason from a
meta game perspective for a character to ever hold back attacks. Perhaps in other game systems, there is a special rule
(ala a Feat or Advantage) where if they defend for one round, they gain some kind of tactical advantage. But then you
have to learn the umpteen million special Feat rules, and how they interact with each other in combat. I will argue
that although protean initially looks more complex, in the long run it is actually simpler, because there are less special
rules you need to learn or keep track of.
Going back to the example fight, many fans of other game systems will simply tell you that all of the above
is
happening in those games, but the turn and initiative system simply abstracts it away. In other words, a roll of the
dice doesn't reflect a
single blow or a single defense. Instead, the rolls are an abstraction of one or more attacks
or defenses, and the result of the dice is the sum effect of the actions. And yet, how often is the narrative described
that way? Also, even if the above is true, why does each side effectively always get to attack and defend? And why do
the opponents each get the same number of chances to attack/defend? That is not how real fights work, as when you hear
in boxing "he's got him on the ropes", "he's on his last legs", "the enemy has seized the initiative", "the enemy is on
the run", etc etc. So even if you assume combat is abstracted into multiple blows, feints, parries, etc, it still allows for
"fairness" by allowing each opponent similar opportunities.
The way virtually every combat system works is the combatants stand their ground, and trade blow for blow until someone
gets a good shot in (ie, a good dice roll). If you argue that the combat is abstracted away, and the combatants are
jockeying for advantageous position, sizing each other up, stepping back to take a breath etc, how often is that
actually described? I argue that you have just abstracted not only alot of the fun away (tactical decision making) but
also much of the storytelling, narrative description, and the reward of victory (by making good choices, rather than
letting the dice abstract it away). Wouldn't you rather actually make those distinctions
in the game rules rather
than (forget) to make them up as flowery description?
The most common argument against such crunchy rules is that it makes combat take longer and thus takes away from the
story by focusing too much time on combat. Though combat will take more time due to this level of simulation, I feel it
is a worthwhile trade. As I mentioned earlier, I think it is actually better for storytelling than the too abstracted
combat systems of other games. I also will argue that victory will feel more sweet, because you have put more thought
and effort into it. I will also argue that combat may not take as much time as one would think compared to other systems,
because combat in protean will be more lethal or at least render characters hors de combat much faster than most games.
While simulating the action may take longer, successful hits will be more brutal than most games (especially ones using hit
points) and thus combatants will be taken out of combat with fewer hits (often just one).