Worlds of Design: Combat Methods

Is there an ideal combat method in an FRPG?
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
It's something I warn new players about. And my old players strongly reinforce.
As the song goes,
You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
And know when to run​
Which resulted in them fleeing wed night, as they easily put down 4 Viper probe droids... but they know if they stay, the newly minted Empire will be there shortly.

Its fine as long as A) you inform them its sometimes an expected behavior up front, and B) The mechanics you use to resolve flight and they appear to be viable. The latter can be a sticking point as they may not internalize they really work if they've spent years encountering games where any attempt at flight simply makes the matter worse; on some level they just may not believe it.

(Obviously this is a nonissue for people familiar with your style and expectations).
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Cannot abide combats that go:
Player rolls, " wahoo I hit"
GM rolls, " oh no you didn't".

SPI Dragonquest is by far my fav combat system, followed by the Talisman rpg
That doesn't really happen. Basic system all else equal, like 2 lvl 2 fighters fighting each other in same armor and weapons.... Both roll. If attacker rolls higher, it's a hit.

With bonuses like AC, this adds how much the attacker needs to win. So someone with 2AC requires the attacker to roll +2 of the defense to win. Give him a +1 sword, and only needs to beat defensive roll by 2.

So often the lower roll wins depending on attack and defense bonus. Super simple and doesn't need lots of tables. Math all easy to do in head.
 

That doesn't really happen. Basic system all else equal, like 2 lvl 2 fighters fighting each other in same armor and weapons.... Both roll. If attacker rolls higher, it's a hit.

With bonuses like AC, this adds how much the attacker needs to win. So someone with 2AC requires the attacker to roll +2 of the defense to win. Give him a +1 sword, and only needs to beat defensive roll by 2.

So often the lower roll wins depending on attack and defense bonus. Super simple and doesn't need lots of tables. Math all easy to do in head.

Though, honestly, somehow those of us playing RuneQuest and derivatives have managed to get used to separate Parry/Dodge rolls which sometimes take precedent over the attack roll over the years without getting soggy about it. There are occasionally some problems with high skill opponents getting deadlocked, which is why later evolutions of that approach like Mythras or Eclipse Phase have a matter-of-degree thing baked in more solidly, but throughout much of the range even in RQ it wasn't exactly a terrible imposition. Of course the fact damage in those games tended to be pretty meaningful probably made up the difference.
 


Missed this on the way through. And I thought that Dependent combat had been left in the 90s for ttrpgs other than for very niche products (and 90s and earlier games with new editions of course) due to being too slow and annoying.

The main exception of course being for opposed rolls such as in Cortex Plus/Prime or arguably Genesis where the DC is the defender's roll and you see who rolled higher - and this doesn't have nearly the slowdown because you assemble the rolls in parallel..

A parried attack is not a hit. It's an on target attack.
 

My preference is for dependent combat with low (but not zero) standard deviation, and critical hits. Two things that usually go along with those are armour that reduces damage taken, and fairly small numbers of hit points, so that a few hits will take a PC down (but not necessarily kill them). The objective is to avoid being hit, not to withstand effective hits from creatures much bigger and stronger than you.

This is the GURPS model, and it works well for verisimilitude in fights against "ordinary" people and animals, and scaling up from there. It means that scenarios that are just a sequence of fights aren't a good choice for the PCs. Persuading potential enemies and avoiding fights are sensible tactics.
 

Yeah, I can't say I ever found RQ style combat excessively slow; as the above poster says, the limited number of hit points and fight-ending special results meant it was hardly slow, and that was even with hit locations thrown in.

That doesn't mean everyone liked it, but speed was hardly the major issue there.
 

My preference is for systems that:
  1. make fighting a canine-style creature markedly different than a humanoid (or other body types)
  2. that rewards positioning and changes in style and type of attack
  3. that has a count-up or variable number of actions within a combat round rather than 'you get one fast and one slow action per round'
  4. Where armor affects damage, not the ability to be hit.
  5. Where being a light, fast combatant (such as a knife fighter) is as viable as full plate + Greatsword, if the PC is built correctly
  6. Where every weapon is scary, no matter what level you are
  7. Where magic is a support arm, and generally conserved for key moments
 

Though, honestly, somehow those of us playing RuneQuest and derivatives have managed to get used to separate Parry/Dodge rolls which sometimes take precedent over the attack roll over the years without getting soggy about it. There are occasionally some problems with high skill opponents getting deadlocked, which is why later evolutions of that approach like Mythras or Eclipse Phase have a matter-of-degree thing baked in more solidly, but throughout much of the range even in RQ it wasn't exactly a terrible imposition. Of course the fact damage in those games tended to be pretty meaningful probably made up the difference.
I think that's a different issue, save inflation. Yeah on every attack, you gotta roll if dodged. If parry. Save for fire on damage shield. Etc etc etc
 

I would think the preferred combat system will depend on what your table wants to emulate. In D&D or a war-gaming style, an independent system would be preferred to give a sense of a skirmish - you're resolving the battle as a whole, rather than exploring the drama of that battle.

On the other hand, if you are playing a more swashbuckling adventure, then a system that allows for a more back-and-forth approach would be better, to better simulate a duel. One of my favorite examples is in Cortex Prime - The instigator rolls to start, and then the target must choose to either roll to beat it, or surrender. If they challenge and win, then it goes to the instigator to react (surrender or raise). If they surrender, the winner gets a small reward as the outcome. however, if the target challenges and loses, then the winner gets a larger reward/outcome.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Related Articles

Remove ads

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top