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
I'll be really blunt; no RPG where death is on the table is particularly likely to treat combat as anything resembling an even risk (barring possibly ones intended as one-offs) unless they also expect combat to be pretty rare. Even games as gritty and prone to sudden-death as the BRP family don't assume that.
I'm trying to think of any RPGs where combat is an even risk. But then who the heck in their right mind tries to get into a fight when the odds are 50/50? Cyberpunk 2020 is fairly deadly, but the player characters are very often better trained and better equipped than their enemies, so not exactly even, but PCs are at least encouraged to stack the deck in their favor before picking a fight. Then there's GURPS, which, again, is pretty deadly but how even the fights are depends on whatever genre you're playing.

I kind of have to agree with your assessment here. The majority of games I've played where combat is pretty common don't typically feature PCs who are on even footing with the NPCs.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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'm not actually sure I get this, but again, in games where there's less chipping away of hit points, I've never seen the time involved for opposed rolls being a big time consumer.
 

I'm trying to think of any RPGs where combat is an even risk. But then who the heck in their right mind tries to get into a fight when the odds are 50/50?

Well, I did qualify it in my post for ones where death was on the table; in games where defeat but not death is a likely result (most superhero games, for example) you can afford to do that at least some of the time.

Cyberpunk 2020 is fairly deadly, but the player characters are very often better trained and better equipped than their enemies, so not exactly even, but PCs are at least encouraged to stack the deck in their favor before picking a fight. Then there's GURPS, which, again, is pretty deadly but how even the fights are depends on whatever genre you're playing.

I kind of have to agree with your assessment here. The majority of games I've played where combat is pretty common don't typically feature PCs who are on even footing with the NPCs.

But of course you don't have to have the system be unrealistic/kind to do that; it just means as we say, then you have to make sure the thumb is on the scale favoring the PCs most of the time when a combat is going to actually occur.
 

I'm not actually sure I get this, but again, in games where there's less chipping away of hit points, I've never seen the time involved for opposed rolls being a big time consumer.
I think just the opposite. Opposed rolls can simplify the game, and unload work for the DM.
Each character has attributes, attack bonus, defense bonus, damage roll, absorption roll...
These calculated by each player. Checked by DM and rarely changes except when you get new equipment, level, ect.

No need for DM to do things like table lookups.

Attacker has +5 attack. Defender has +10 defense. Attacker needs to roll +5 the defender to hit.
If hit, attacker rolls damage. Defender rolls absorption. Subtract. That's damage.
All there is to it.
 


I kind of have to agree with your assessment here. The majority of games I've played where combat is pretty common don't typically feature PCs who are on even footing with the NPCs.
My experience is that sci-fi and supers tend to be much more even.
Classic Traveller assumed most NPCs would be rolled up by the same methods as PCs. A partial exception was the random encounters, but the stat ranges are comparable to 2-3 term characters.
MegaTraveller, SpaceMaster, Phoenix Command and a few others have NPC statblock systems with character-equivalent templates. In Spacemaster, they're at various levels, even.
 

I think just the opposite. Opposed rolls can simplify the game, and unload work for the DM.
Each character has attributes, attack bonus, defense bonus, damage roll, absorption roll...
These calculated by each player. Checked by DM and rarely changes except when you get new equipment, level, ect.

No need for DM to do things like table lookups.

If the combat system has any sophistication, you may still need to look at modifiers.

Attacker has +5 attack. Defender has +10 defense. Attacker needs to roll +5 the defender to hit.
If hit, attacker rolls damage. Defender rolls absorption. Subtract. That's damage.
All there is to it.

You're removing one step I'm thinking of, but adding an additional one, so it probably comes out in the wash.
 

My experience is that sci-fi and supers tend to be much more even.

Supers can get away with it because the immediate consequences are normally less severe.

Classic Traveller assumed most NPCs would be rolled up by the same methods as PCs. A partial exception was the random encounters, but the stat ranges are comparable to 2-3 term characters.
MegaTraveller, SpaceMaster, Phoenix Command and a few others have NPC statblock systems with character-equivalent templates. In Spacemaster, they're at various levels, even.

Usually in combat-heavy versions of most of those games, the difference is in equipment.
 

I think just the opposite. Opposed rolls can simplify the game, and unload work for the DM.
Each character has attributes, attack bonus, defense bonus, damage roll, absorption roll...
These calculated by each player. Checked by DM and rarely changes except when you get new equipment, level, ect.

No need for DM to do things like table lookups.

Attacker has +5 attack. Defender has +10 defense. Attacker needs to roll +5 the defender to hit.
If hit, attacker rolls damage. Defender rolls absorption. Subtract. That's damage.
All there is to it.
Modos RPG agrees with this but:

Defender must choose to parry - otherwise damage is 1 minimum.
GM or PC can halfmax, which simplifies the rolling part for, well, half the die's maximum.

Still simple, still no table lookups.
 

If the combat system has any sophistication, you may still need to look at modifiers.



You're removing one step I'm thinking of, but adding an additional one, so it probably comes out in the wash.
There can be plenty of modifiers, but they are used to pre calculate the combat bonuses. They only have to be recalculated when something changes like a weapon swap etc. Things like parry, dodge skills factored in to defense bonus

Rarely changes during combat, although it can, a Slow spell will lower both your defense and attack bonus. Stunned characters are an auto hit and rely completely on absorption.

No roll for riposte, counter spells, fire shield damage etc. triggered by counterattack bonus. If defense rolls a certain threshold higher than attack roll, counterattack can be triggered depending on skill, spells etc. So don't need extra roll to determine if it happened. If defense rolls high enough, a counterattack turn added.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top