Worlds of Design: Combat Methods

Is there an ideal combat method in an FRPG?

worldsofdesigncombat.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." Sun Tzu

RPGs in many cases revolve around combat. Yet the player who understands Sun Tzu’s maxim knows that fighting is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself (though, I must admit, that also depends on the experience rules…).

Dependent vs. Independent Combat​

If you’re not familiar with these terms, watch my Independent and Dependent Combat video on YouTube.

Independent Combat​

Independent Combat involves each side resolving their attacks without opposition. This is common in Dungeons & Dragons, where there’s an attack roll against a static number (usually Armor Class). A defense rating and obstacles are built into this challenge, but there is no variable opposed roll to determine if it’s successful.

Speaking of Armor Class, this is another abstraction that affects Independent Combat. In real life, armor is suited for very specific situations, not to be worn at all times—and thus an Independent Combat system has to accommodate for armor, Dexterity, resilience (sometimes referred to as Natural Armor for monsters) and other factors.

There are a lot of reasons why Independent Combat is used in games, but chiefly it’s a streamlined system, if not mechanically sophisticated. It scales well, because the defensive target number is static, and thus when a player attacks multiple opponents, it’s also easier to resolve.

Dependent Combat​

Dependent Combat involves a (sometimes opposed) dice roll to avoid the attack, depending on the skill of the target as well as on the armor. Note that including a target’s armor class or skill level in the resolution of the attack is not in itself Dependent, some action is required of the defender player. As a result, dependent combat is a bit more complex, and takes more time to roll.

In melee skirmishes this is sometimes called a “parry” system, which is how it worked in Palladium’s rules (Rifts being on example). Notably, monsters who have the ability to Parry in Dungeons & Dragons (like the gladiator) only add a boost to Armor Class, thereby keeping the game firmly in the realm of Independent Combat.

In computer video games, Independent/Dependent combat often happens behind the scenes, but it can matter a lot. Does the speed you hit the button or execute a maneuver help you do more damage or hit more often? Or is it a simple roll you can’t see to determine if you hit, based on your character’s skills and abilities?

There are a wide variety of mechanics that can cover the spectrum between one attacker rolling to hit (Independent), and two combatants opposing each other in real time (Dependent). I’ve seen at least one system that resolves where the attack lands on specific body parts in determining whether it actually does damage, and how much. More “realistic” perhaps, but also time-consuming. In the very simple RPG I designed to use with a board game, a successful hit does a set amount of damage, no dice roll for damage required. Less exciting, but quicker and simpler.

Low vs. High Standard Deviation​

Another consideration is whether hitting in combat is fairly predictable or “swingy.” That is, a low standard deviation vs. a high one. Some combat systems are quite realistically lethal (high damage per successful attack), which encourages people to avoid fighting. A high standard deviation in hit probability could amount to the same thing, though lethality has more to do with damage than hit probability.

Low standard deviation in the extreme would be deterministic combat, where there is no uncertainty - but that’s unlikely to be fun in an adventure setting. In my simple game, you don’t know if you’ll hit, but you know how much damage you’ll inflict if you do hit. (And you can build your character to inflict more damage per hit, as well as to have a higher hit probability.)

The higher the standard deviation, the more often characters will be hit in combat, and probably the more often they will die - though that also depends on the amount of damage per successful attack.

To Crit or Not to Crit​

Standard deviations affect combat in subtle and overt ways, including critical hits: can a single attack do (on average) a lot of damage, perhaps killing the target, or only a small amount? This is why the way a game handles (or even allows) critical hits can immensely impact the pace of combat. Critical hit systems may seem more realistic, but we have to ask how much fun they are in actual play. Most of these systems I see inflict extra damage (making the standard deviation of damage higher overall).

The one I devised and used for a while inflicted location damage, for example, “left arm becomes unusable until points inflicted are healed” or even “target cannot walk for a week!” I wanted to set up additional dilemmas for the players to face. I finally set it aside because it was extra work, and the injuries could change the adventure drastically in sometimes undesirable ways.

Role-playing games take many different approaches to combat, and all of them have a feel that creates a level of immersion or abstraction, determined in part by dice rolls, by the players themselves, and the opposition. How often a character can hit, if their attacks are against a static number or by an opposed roll, and the consequences of a hit can all significantly influence how your game works in actual play. If you’ve ever thought about designing your own game, I hope this has helped you find new ways of thinking about it.

Your Turn: Do you prefer Dependent or Independent styles of combat in your role-playing systems?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
If you like recalculating percentile odds of success constantly based on fatigue and injuries, then yes. Even the designer qualified his system as too slow and simulationist for an RPG.

I'd suggest its less "like" than "find it not so annoying as to outweigh other elements of the system" which probably describes a lot of people who like systems that seem cumbersome to others.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

So Rolemaster and MERP would be independent since their DB is subtracted from the attackers OB for the resulting chart number, if I'm remembering correctly since it’s been a while.
I've always looked at Rolemaster & MERP as sort of hybrid ttrpgs. There are a few out there that would fall within both spheres like Rolemaster/MERP do. I also think that HERO system shares the same "feet in both camps" definition as well.
 


Your Turn: Do you prefer Dependent or Independent styles of combat in your role-playing systems?
I don't prefer either over the other mechanically... both can be fun. Both have their place in mechanics.

but realism for the micro level is that melee should be highly dependent, and ranged combat should be semi-independent (due to the so-called "suppression" effect of awareness of incoming ranged attacks).
In no case should the number of opponents not matter for the morale and suppression effects...

At higher levels, normative effect at supertactical, operational, and strategic all of it is dependent on skill and numbers. History shows that skill can only make up for numbers to a certain point and numbers without skill require much more outnumbering to matter...

And that riflemen can only hold off the Zulus while they have ammo, but the zulus can make new spears while besieging the riflemen...
 

Your Turn: Do you prefer Dependent or Independent styles of combat in your role-playing systems?
I like defenders to feel like they are doing something to defend themselves. If I understand the OP correctly, then this means I'm in the Dependent camp.

Further, Dependent doesn't have to be swingy - in an all-things-being-equal roll-off, an attacker's result will still win as frequently against the defender's result if both sides are rolling. It's also nice for the defender to have the choice of not defending in favor of MOAR OFFENSE!
 

If you like recalculating percentile odds of success constantly based on fatigue and injuries, then yes. Even the designer qualified his system as too slow and simulationist for an RPG.
But no defence roll. I find it no slower than playing whfrp or savage worlds. And it has a single combat table to help you.
Like all RPGs, even those with no combat mechanics, pay attention and things should fly.
 

Is there an ideal combat method in an FRPG?




RPGs in many cases revolve around combat. Yet the player who understands Sun Tzu’s maxim knows that fighting is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself (though, I must admit, that also depends on the experience rules…).

Dependent vs. Independent Combat​

If you’re not familiar with these terms, watch my Independent and Dependent Combat video on YouTube.

Independent Combat​

Independent Combat involves each side resolving their attacks without opposition. This is common in Dungeons & Dragons, where there’s an attack roll against a static number (usually Armor Class). A defense rating and obstacles are built into this challenge, but there is no variable opposed roll to determine if it’s successful.

Speaking of Armor Class, this is another abstraction that affects Independent Combat. In real life, armor is suited for very specific situations, not to be worn at all times—and thus an Independent Combat system has to accommodate for armor, Dexterity, resilience (sometimes referred to as Natural Armor for monsters) and other factors.

There are a lot of reasons why Independent Combat is used in games, but chiefly it’s a streamlined system, if not mechanically sophisticated. It scales well, because the defensive target number is static, and thus when a player attacks multiple opponents, it’s also easier to resolve.

Dependent Combat​

Dependent Combat involves a (sometimes opposed) dice roll to avoid the attack, depending on the skill of the target as well as on the armor. Note that including a target’s armor class or skill level in the resolution of the attack is not in itself Dependent, some action is required of the defender player. As a result, dependent combat is a bit more complex, and takes more time to roll.

In melee skirmishes this is sometimes called a “parry” system, which is how it worked in Palladium’s rules (Rifts being on example). Notably, monsters who have the ability to Parry in Dungeons & Dragons (like the gladiator) only add a boost to Armor Class, thereby keeping the game firmly in the realm of Independent Combat.

In computer video games, Independent/Dependent combat often happens behind the scenes, but it can matter a lot. Does the speed you hit the button or execute a maneuver help you do more damage or hit more often? Or is it a simple roll you can’t see to determine if you hit, based on your character’s skills and abilities?

There are a wide variety of mechanics that can cover the spectrum between one attacker rolling to hit (Independent), and two combatants opposing each other in real time (Dependent). I’ve seen at least one system that resolves where the attack lands on specific body parts in determining whether it actually does damage, and how much. More “realistic” perhaps, but also time-consuming. In the very simple RPG I designed to use with a board game, a successful hit does a set amount of damage, no dice roll for damage required. Less exciting, but quicker and simpler.

Low vs. High Standard Deviation​

Another consideration is whether hitting in combat is fairly predictable or “swingy.” That is, a low standard deviation vs. a high one. Some combat systems are quite realistically lethal (high damage per successful attack), which encourages people to avoid fighting. A high standard deviation in hit probability could amount to the same thing, though lethality has more to do with damage than hit probability.

Low standard deviation in the extreme would be deterministic combat, where there is no uncertainty - but that’s unlikely to be fun in an adventure setting. In my simple game, you don’t know if you’ll hit, but you know how much damage you’ll inflict if you do hit. (And you can build your character to inflict more damage per hit, as well as to have a higher hit probability.)

The higher the standard deviation, the more often characters will be hit in combat, and probably the more often they will die - though that also depends on the amount of damage per successful attack.

To Crit or Not to Crit​

Standard deviations affect combat in subtle and overt ways, including critical hits: can a single attack do (on average) a lot of damage, perhaps killing the target, or only a small amount? This is why the way a game handles (or even allows) critical hits can immensely impact the pace of combat. Critical hit systems may seem more realistic, but we have to ask how much fun they are in actual play. Most of these systems I see inflict extra damage (making the standard deviation of damage higher overall).

The one I devised and used for a while inflicted location damage, for example, “left arm becomes unusable until points inflicted are healed” or even “target cannot walk for a week!” I wanted to set up additional dilemmas for the players to face. I finally set it aside because it was extra work, and the injuries could change the adventure drastically in sometimes undesirable ways.

Role-playing games take many different approaches to combat, and all of them have a feel that creates a level of immersion or abstraction, determined in part by dice rolls, by the players themselves, and the opposition. How often a character can hit, if their attacks are against a static number or by an opposed roll, and the consequences of a hit can all significantly influence how your game works in actual play. If you’ve ever thought about designing your own game, I hope this has helped you find new ways of thinking about it.

Your Turn: Do you prefer Dependent or Independent styles of combat in your role-playing systems?
One thing I think is missing from the conversation (unless it is just inherently presumed not to matter) is the notion of an action economy. That is, layered over all these systems is frequency of attack or defense. Then add action duration (AD&D had one-minute rounds, in which a number of ineffectual activities were presumed; 5e takes us 6 seconds at a time with every activity detailed).
I think both action economy and round time can add nuance to dependent/independent systems, (though probably not to automatic systems).
 

One thing I think is missing from the conversation (unless it is just inherently presumed not to matter) is the notion of an action economy. That is, layered over all these systems is frequency of attack or defense. Then add action duration (AD&D had one-minute rounds, in which a number of ineffectual activities were presumed; 5e takes us 6 seconds at a time with every activity detailed).
I think both action economy and round time can add nuance to dependent/independent systems, (though probably not to automatic systems).
Time abstraction is just one of several abstractions. Action economies are related but separate abstractions.

The action economy of most games is about playability, not realism; a fencing attack is about 1 second start to finish. A flurry of broadsword attacks might be 5 in 3 seconds, usually 2-3 per 3 seconds. Almost every melee attack meets a defense action... parry, dodge, or block.

Which brings up the next related abstraction: Damage and Armor abstractions. Real people don't have quantified hit points... but may have what a given game abstracts into their damage mechanic.
 

Be honest, regardless of how the result is obtained, most combats are variations of Automatic, because most encounters are designed to assume that the PCs win. The Combat Threats section of PF2's Encounter design makes this obvious when the most dangerous encounter type Extreme-threat, is stated to be so dangerous that it might be an even match for the characters. This heavily implies that any lessor encounters are mainly time and/or resource sinks. This also implies that such combats could be vastly sped up by skipping most of the die rolling and just having a few rolls to determine equipment destroyed(player 1 loses plate mail due to rust monster), charges expended(player 2 spends 4 charges from the magic wand), and time spent doing the fight, looting the bodies and fixing damage(party spends 3 hours). The whole encounter might be resolved in 5~10 minutes of player time.
 

Be honest, regardless of how the result is obtained, most combats are variations of Automatic, because most encounters are designed to assume that the PCs win. The Combat Threats section of PF2's Encounter design makes this obvious when the most dangerous encounter type Extreme-threat, is stated to be so dangerous that it might be an even match for the characters. This heavily implies that any lessor encounters are mainly time and/or resource sinks. This also implies that such combats could be vastly sped up by skipping most of the die rolling and just having a few rolls to determine equipment destroyed(player 1 loses plate mail due to rust monster), charges expended(player 2 spends 4 charges from the magic wand), and time spent doing the fight, looting the bodies and fixing damage(party spends 3 hours). The whole encounter might be resolved in 5~10 minutes of player time.
I've found out an extreme match certainly is not an even match in PF2. If you are not working like a surgical team its TPK city unless the party flees and comes up with a workable plan.
 

Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top