What Makes A Great Combat System In Your Opinion?

[Umbran]

I like Daggerheart for its versatility, but the damage system can slow things down if folks are not familiar with it.

I have yet to see anything worthy of the name "system" that doesn't slow down if folks aren't familiar with it.

But, to answer the OP...

I like a combat system that's quick - while tactical depth is nice, it is usually at the cost of players taking long times do decide and execute their turns.

I like a combat system where it turns out that what characters do in a fight is not so much an expression of the player choosing the best tactical options, as it is an expression of who the character is.

 

[jian]

What's slightly interesting is how much of the player choice is front-loaded - in the character build, mostly - and how much is in the process of battle.

There are lots of systems (most versions of D&D 3E, including Pathfinder, for instance) where a lot of the player choice is front-loaded. You have an idea for a character build and you choose abilities and equipment to suit. You hope your build is reasonably flexible but there are always limits - there's very little that a slow melee tank can do about flying monsters, for instance - and it's a lot of fun optimising your build. But if you didn't make the right choices (because you didn't have "system mastery" or whatever) then it's not a lot of fun, and once battle begins, most builds don't have a lot of player choice, because you chose a specific build and you're hoping it works, you can only really press the buttons related to your build.

There are lots of systems where most characters have access to most options, and so the player choice is mostly in how you use those options in the actual fight. This is common in games that model wuxia or similar, because most wuxia/xianxia protagonists do fairly similar things - leap around, hit with swords, nerve blocks, use qi to increase damage or protection, and so on - and so the fun is in working out how the specific system works for modelling those and what you feel best (and coolest) doing. Again, "system mastery" is an issue - make the wrong choices and you're going to get impaled, or at least feel less cool than you expected. Your build is less relevant, though of course having high stats matters, and emphasising strength, mobility, or qi pool is all going to matter. If you spent points on an exotic technique that's cool too, though it depends whether it was worth it and whether people get bored of you breaking out Poison Toad Breath every time you get in trouble.

(We're playtesting a system similar to the above at the moment, developed by one of my friends.)

 

[Thierry-Advent]

I have yet to see anything worthy of the name "system" that doesn't slow down if folks aren't familiar with it.

But, to answer the OP...

I like a combat system that's quick - while tactical depth is nice, it is usually at the cost of players taking long times do decide and execute their turns.

I like a combat system where it turns out that what characters do in a fight is not so much an expression of the player choosing the best tactical options, as it is an expression of who the character is.

Please tell us what those games are.

 

[jian]

As for my personal answer to the question - as others have said, it really depends what sort of game you're playing.

In a game that's more about genre/story and less about combat I'm grateful for a simple system that is decisive, easy to learn, and more or less invisible when not in use; good examples might be Don't Rest Your Head or Cartoon Action Hour.

In a game that's about dramatic conflict I appreciate a system where combat is the same as any other conflict and where the characters' motivations and drives matter most - Smallville and Fate both do well here, though I wish Smallville wasn't so swingy in its dice mechanic.

But in games where combat is a focus and something to enjoy in itself, well, I like systems that are simple, tactical, and offer most options to most characters, as noted for my friend's wuxia system above. I think my favourite example is Honor & Intrigue, which was initially based on Barbarians of Lemuria but is its own quite tactical clever thing. I reworked it into a Star Wars version called Jedi & Starships, before the author came up with his own version (Blasters & Intrigue).

Honor & Intrigue uses the BoL basic dice mechanic (stat + 2d6 vs defence) and adds Manoeuvres (beat, bind, disarm, feint etc.) and the Advantage system. Basically, when you get hit and would really rather not, you cede Advantage, which is basically a Setback system (cede Advantage once and you're Cautious, twice and you're Scrambling, thrice and you're Defeated). As you can see, it's clearly designed for Three Musketeers style swashbuckling shenanigans and isn't much good for much else, but it's quite cinematic and works well for Jedi.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

I like a flexible system that allows the players to choose between attack and defence, and includes options like disarming, grappling, feinting, aimed shots. That's why I like HERO system. SWADE gives me a similar vibe.

Both these systems also handle armour as damage reduction which is another thing I like.

 

[Umbran]

Please tell us what those games are.

A couple of examples:

Mage: the Ascension, in which (with a good GM) the paradigm of one's magic strongly impacts what magical effects one can produce, and how.

Fate, and Fate Accelerated: Who the character is, as a person, is largely defined by their Aspects and Stunts, which are also the major sources for mechanical support in a fight.

 

[Reynard]

Fate, and Fate Accelerated: Who the character is, as a person, is largely defined by their Aspects and Stunts, which are also the major sources for mechanical support in a fight.

Fate's "create an advantage" action and how it interacts with the game's rules overall is almost guaranteed to make for dynamic combat (and other action) scenes.

 

[SteveC]

I think it's as simple as, "When combat starts, I'm excited and amped up for what's going to happen."

So when the GM says "Roll for Initiative," I think "This is going to be good."

 

[Tigris]

I think it's as simple as, "When combat starts, I'm excited and amped up for what's going to happen."

So when the GM says "Roll for Initiative," I think "This is going to be good."

But this is just the consequence of the system being good. The question is when does a system give you this feeling?

 

[Reynard]

I think it's as simple as, "When combat starts, I'm excited and amped up for what's going to happen."

So when the GM says "Roll for Initiative," I think "This is going to be good."

What creates that feeling for you?