truly abstract combat systems?

[Kahuna Burger]

It seems to me that there is a disconnect between the theory of D&D combat (that it is abstract, hit point damage may not mean physica damage, two "hits" could be 1 or 3 or no physical connections, whatever) And the detailed, nigh upon micromanaged mechanics of it (different damage dice, threat ranges, damage types and applicable strength bonus to different weapons and ways of weilding them, Damage reductions rules, contact vs injury poisons....). This combines with a vague annoyance that weapon and fighting style choice has a major effect (in my expereince) on combat effectiveness, in part due to some of these highly detailed rules we use to implement a "abstract" system.

So why not make it truely abstract? Assign each character class a Damage Die progression just as they get a BAB and Save progression, regardless of weapon used, and let the player describe their fighting style as they see fit? Weapon specific feats (focus, improved crit, etc) could still be used, and would make treasure still interesting.

Mechanically relevant style choices could be represented by a set of style feats allowing for a rapid shot equivelent, or a decreased damage die in exchange for a shield bonus (representing either sword and board fighters or a parrying style).

obviously this would be a major rules varient on the level of, say, spell points, but I'm interested in exploring it as a change to D20 rather than looking for a whole new system that does things similarly.

 

[Turjan]

That's what many so-called 'rules-light' games do. Some people are comfortable with this kind of rules, but many are not.

A good example is an extended contest in the HeroQuest RPG. Players bid action points against the NPCs, and the actual fight (or argument) relies purely on player description. The outcome relies to a large extent on good bidding tactics. Some people feel completely detached from the actual fight by this, even if it is still a thrilling experience.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'd rather ditch hit points in favor of WP/VP or some such, and keep the rest intact. Hit Points has always been the thing about D&D that bugged me the most.

 

[WayneLigon]

Probably the most abstract system (apart from some diceless systems that are basically 'narrate the combat as you see fit') I've seen is Tunnels and Trolls. It's totally abstract. Each side, though a simple process, gets a number of dice plus 'Adds'. Those are rolled, and the numbers compared. The losing side loses a number of points spread out amongst it's members and the process repeats. Thus, a strong side will almost always defeat a weak one. Side one could be three people, the other side could be 10000 goblins: doesn't matter.

I say 'almost' because of two things: (1) magic doesn't add into each side: it's individually targeted, if I remember correctly, and (2) there is a way - and I forget how this occurs as well, but it was the thing that killed our nascent T&T campaign some years ago - that neither side can prevail. They could fight forever and neither one will beat the other.

 

[Griffonsec]

I think my favorite abstact system is Fireborn. I can't do a search, but if you do one there is a good example from a few months back.