# "Better" Combat Systems in RPGs - Feedback Welcome!



## JohnSnow (Aug 22, 2020)

So, this is not one more thread about making combat in RPGs more tedious. It's my personal thoughts about how to strike the right balance between "realism" (or verisimilitude) and playability.

Obviously, this varies greatly from group to group, depending on both your tastes and how well versed your group is with real combat. Some groups prefer to just have narrative combats governed by "rule of cool," and there's nothing wrong with that. Other groups go the entirely opposite direction to "highly simulative" and try to play out every feint, dodge, parry, and strike, and bring in hit tables and wound charts and the like. And that's fine too. But for me, neither approach strikes the right balance, and most RPG combat systems either get too bogged down on details, or they're designed by and for people who don't really have any understanding of real combat. So I typically find them either too abstract or not abstract enough. Or, in the worst, worst case scenario: a highly tactical skirmish war-game that doesn't make real world sense. Those hurt.

So, what do I feel an ideal combat system should have? First, I'll lay it out based on principles:

1) Combat should be FUN to play.
2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.
3) Real combat is _incredibly_ complex, and no simulative system will ever fully capture that. Don't even try. BUT the system should make real world sense.
4) The combat resolution mechanic should be tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic. Progression can either be tied to class and level or to any number of weapons skills, but it should ultimately feel pretty similar to any other skill.
5) Skill matters, but actual combat is _highly_ variable, and the most skilled combatant usually, but doesn't always, win. So there should be a random element (dice rolls are great). Randomness also helps to account for some of the complexity that is both flatly impossible to capture and very difficult to even attempt to capture without driving yourself nuts.
6) Damage matters, as weapons are DANGEROUS. In the real world, a single blow from a dagger can kill you. Attrition based health mechanics (_cough*Hit Points*cough_) are useful from a gaming sense, but they're problematic for believability. And they can tend to lead to sloggy combats.


Whew! It sounds like I'm attempting to say it can't be done! But fear not, I think it can, and I think some systems do it reasonably well, if imperfectly. Verisimilitude should be about providing the simplest possible mechanical framework for a narrative structure. In further posts, I'll talk about some of my favorite systems, what they get right, and where I think they could use some work. 

Full disclosure, my gaming experience includes every edition of _D&D_ to date, _d20 Modern_, _Iron Heroes_, _Castles & Crusades_, _Top Secret, S.I._, both d6 and d20 _Star Wars_, Palladium's _Palladium Fantasy RPG_, _Heroes Unlimited, Robotech_, and _Ninjas & Superspies;_ _Shadowrun_, _Champions_, and I'm now working on a pending game of_ Savage Worlds_. I'm also familiar with Green Ronin's AGE System and WotC's _Alternity_, but I've never played them. Aside - wow, that's a long (albeit incomplete) list.

Outside of gaming, my hobbies include performing at various Renaissance Faires and studying and performing historical European martial arts - which might be related. So I'm approaching this as someone who has studied narrative combat for fun and (occasionally) profit. So I've had the benefit of getting to talk about some of this with expert sword nerds - some of whom also like roleplaying games.

However, as I go through this, I'd be interested in other people's thoughts as well. I hope people think it's a fun thread.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 22, 2020)

So, with that perspective, and since I started with some of the things that don't work so well, let me first talk about some of the systems I've played, and the things that, IMO, they get right.

Simple mechanics. Whether it's all the _d20-based_ games' "die roll + bonuses vs. difficulty number," the _d6 System_'s "dice pool vs. difficulty number," _Savage Worlds_'s system of "Success plus Raises," or the _Vampire/Hero/Shadowrun_ "Count successes" method, a simple, intuitive die mechanic beats tables and charts every single time. Do I think some work better than others? Sure, but that's mostly a matter of implementation.

I also think it's better if combat defaults to requiring a single action check roll each round, because multiple actions per character turn can quickly get tedious. As such, it is my contention that each character be limited to one, but granted a maximum of 3 actions that require a resolution roll. Why 3? Because it's enough to feel like a lot, but not so many that the system bogs down. d6 System and Savage Worlds both do this well, giving a character the chance to take a second or third action by accepting a cumulative penalty to all actions.

Movement and free actions. Simple movement should be assumed in combat. Most people don't spend a fight standing still and slugging it out. You tend to circle, move, attack, spin, turn, duck, bob, weave, and dodge. This is true whether you're fighting hand-to-hand or shooting. By default, there should be penalties for moving fast, _shooting_ on the run, and specialized movement should merit checks to accomplish. So you should always be able to move and attack. This is also why facing is, IMO, a stupid rule in hand to hand combat. Simple actions are things you can do that take no check, like talking, easy movements, and the like. You only need to use a significant action to open a door if it's locked or hard to move in some way. The GM gets final say on whether something counts as "significant."

No Parry or Dodge _rolls_, and for the love of god, don't use *both*. Palladium did this: Attacker rolls d20, Player 2 rolls to dodge, and if that fails, he rolls a second time to parry. You only get to defend once. And yes, there's variability in how good your defense is, and in how good the other guy's attack is, but all that variability is summed up by one die roll. It does not need two, so cut the other one. Later editions of D&D sorta do this right with having defenders effectively "take 10" on what it calls "Armor Class," but could be more honestly called (and is, in many d20-based games) "Defense." In _Savage Worlds,_ hand-to-hand combat uses something called "Parry" which represents fighting skill and bonuses. Ranged weapons target a _different_ thing, which actually creates a meaningful distinction between hand-to-hand and throwing/shooting (we'll come back to that).

Dynamic initiative: Yes, I'm aware that an initiative check is another die roll (or card draw) and I just said we should be trying to minimize those, but I think this is a complexity worth keeping. It keeps combat flexible and constantly shifting, and that helps to keep it "unpredictable" and reduce "slog time" - i.e. "more fun."

That's all for this post, as I'm trying to keep from having to spend hours writing them without a break. In my next post, I'll switch to talking about damage, hit points, weapon types, and the fundamental difference between "believable" and "realistic."


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 22, 2020)

Okay, time to talk about the elephant in the room of all RPGs that is also the crux of the combat system - how do you handle DAMAGE?

Reading about the early days of either Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson's game, it started pretty simply - one hit, one shot, one kill. All war-games really modeled, or were intended to, was "are they combat effective or NOT?" So the old war gamers, before they ever started doing much in the way of "roleplaying," had characters who were "commanders/heroes" who could take more than a single hit and survive. I've never played Chainmail or the like, so I don't the exact mechanics, but I know the principle behind it. It works, it's cool, and it's vitally important to enable the cinematic skirmishes that form the basis of combat in most RPGs. At first, they just let a character take more than one hit (2, 3, and so forth) before they went down. But that wasn't sufficiently granular for simulation-minded war-gamers. Because common sense says a sword, or an axe, can inflict more damage in combat than a dagger, right? And there were all those cool tables of weapons...

One solution to this, and it worked, was hit points. It's not the only way to handle damage, and it's wonky abstraction has occasioned more than one argument on this forum and others, because they subsume the game world concepts of "not-fatigued," "lucky," "blessed" and "skilled," but somehow still _also_ represent physical damage. D&D made a further mistake here, by having hit points scale with "level." So you can be hit (lose hit points), but not really be hit. This creates a (potentially giant and lengthy) attrition-based mechanic that has no direct meaning when it comes to _narrating a fight._

Early systems also tried to differentiate between different types of armor, different types of weapons, and damage types. You can obviously take this too far, drawing a distinction between two different .45 caliber semi-automatic handguns or two basically similar one-handed swords. But some of that is a good thing, making a player feel better about their choice of this or that weapon or armor vs. another.

A few RPGs have embraced systems to solve some of these. _Savage Worlds, 4th Edition, _and _Star Wars Saga Edition_ all allowed for characters that are minions who go down easily. A one shot drop may not be good for players, but it's great for mowing down a crowd of mooks in a lot of heroic action stories. D&D does this with escalating damage as you level up, and it works.

In fact, most people agree that D&D hits its sweet spot somewhere in the middle-levels, where players both have cool things to do, as well as enough choices to matter that combat feels "fun," but are by no means invulnerable. So, the trick is: how does one maintain that feeling over the whole level range? That's a very good question, and I have some thoughts.

Finally, what level of "risk"makes the game fun? That's a good question. Personally, I think it's important to have a situation where choices and consequences matter, and characters can be genuinely at risk. I like randomness, because it's part of what makes the game fun, but I also want to give some narrative control to players. For example, if a character starts to be less combat effective, or in danger of dying, it seems like they should have the ability to withdraw from combat, or even run away. Or they can know that they're pushing their luck, but if there's something to fight for, then they can choose to take that risk. A little bit of control over fate is a good thing here that encourages people to be creative.

Next post: Luck points, stunts, tricks, zones and meaningful combats.


----------



## Wightbred (Aug 23, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> For example, if a character starts to be less combat effective, or in danger of dying, it seems like they should have the ability to withdraw from combat, or even run away. Or they can know that they're pushing their luck, but if there's something to fight for, then they can choose to take that risk.




Very much agree with this. Individual views on risk and death vary, so the individual players choose if they take the risk of death in this situation. Getting excellent results running rules for this at my table.

Not sure I will agree with your outcome, but really enjoying the thread, and keen to read more.


----------



## RangerWickett (Aug 23, 2020)

I wonder if it would be better for D&D-style action RPGs to just have everyone always have 30 to 50 hit points, and not have that scale by level, nor have the damage PCs or monsters deal more damage at higher level. But _wounds_ are separate from hit points.

You always have enough hit points to survive a few rounds of a fight. But higher level characters could deal with more foes, or ignore the consequences of more wounds. Maybe you can move faster, or throw enemies far distances, or maybe use bigger weapons. But if someone actually lands a hit on you with a weapon, the wound is real.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 24, 2020)

RangerWickett said:


> I wonder if it would be better for D&D-style action RPGs to just have everyone always have 30 to 50 hit points, and not have that scale by level, nor have the damage PCs or monsters deal more damage at higher level. But _wounds_ are separate from hit points.
> 
> You always have enough hit points to survive a few rounds of a fight. But higher level characters could deal with more foes, or ignore the consequences of more wounds. Maybe you can move faster, or throw enemies far distances, or maybe use bigger weapons. But if someone actually lands a hit on you with a weapon, the wound is real.




I think this is the way to go, and I'm not sure that it's not better to have a _Savage Worlds, d6 Star Wars,_ or _Mutants & Masterminds_ style Wound/Condition Track. It's been a while since I read the latter, so forgive me if I'm misremembering. But in _Savage Worlds,_ PCs can endure up to 3 wounds (or a few more with the right edges/bonuses) before the 4th renders them "incapacitated." Up to a point, they can also "soak" wounds, by spending a Benny to "absorb" the damage. And yes, a single attack can cause more than one wound. But your Soak roll can absorb some or all of them. Extras (the mooks) are incapacitated by 1 wound unless they're resilient (2 wounds), or very resilient (3 wounds). The only other thing that increases Wounds for creatures is Size.

_Savage Worlds_ also has another cool nod to complexity that's still highly playable. If, and only if, a character is incapacitated by a strike, they roll to see how serious it was. They could die, have a permanent injury and be bleeding out, or end up with a wound that impairs them for 24 hours or until all their wounds are healed. There's also a cool mechanic called "the Golden Hour" which basically says that wounds that aren't treated immediately can only be healed by high-level magic. It's a cool mechanic that allows for characters to be actually injured. I remember one of the things Monte Cook did in _Ptolus_ that I really liked was that magical healing left scars. Because, IMO, as long as it's not overdone, a good combat system should absolutely support getting scarred, having one eye, developing a limp, or even losing a hand.

And yes, I agree that high level characters should be able to have more options, shrug off their wounds to an extent, affect more enemies, or be better at shrugging off a hit. But it should still be possible to hurt them. And then one can draw a solid line about where heroes pass from being heroic, to legendary, to supernatural. And then decide what degree of magic should be available based on that dial.


----------



## Thirteenspades (Aug 24, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> So, this is not one more thread about making combat in RPGs more tedious. It's my personal thoughts about how to strike the right balance between "realism" (or verisimilitude) and playability.
> 
> Obviously, this varies greatly from group to group, depending on both your tastes and how well versed your group is with real combat. Some groups prefer to just have narrative combats governed by "rule of cool," and there's nothing wrong with that. Other groups go the entirely opposite direction to "highly simulative" and try to play out every feint, dodge, parry, and strike, and bring in hit tables and wound charts and the like. And that's fine too. But for me, neither approach strikes the right balance, and most RPG combat systems either get too bogged down on details, or they're designed by and for people who don't really have any understanding of real combat. So I typically find them either too abstract or not abstract enough. Or, in the worst, worst case scenario: a highly tactical skirmish war-game that doesn't make real world sense. Those hurt.
> 
> ...



You should watch Shadiversity's "Why character levels in RPGs are stupid" on YouTube, he touches on a lot of these points.


----------



## Wightbred (Aug 25, 2020)

Thirteenspades said:


> You should watch Shadiversity's "Why character levels in RPGs are stupid" on YouTube, he touches on a lot of these points.



Nice video. I generally find Shad a bit annoying, but he is on point here.

Couldn’t find a working link to the Cogent system he talks about. Anyone know where to get it?


----------



## Thirteenspades (Aug 25, 2020)

Wightbred said:


> Nice video. I generally find Shad a bit annoying, but he is on point here.
> 
> Couldn’t find a working link to the Cogent system he talks about. Anyone know where to get it?











						Cogent Roleplay
					

Publisher's blurb:  Your stories will unfold in all kinds of worlds and settings, such as classic medieval fantasy, science fiction, space opera, zombie apocalypse, steampunk, superhero – or something entirely your own unique creation. Have fun, be fearless and create your own stories worthy of...




					www.rpggeek.com
				



This might have links to Cogent pdfs. Might also be on the trove (dot) net but keep that on the down low


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 25, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> Okay, time to talk about the elephant in the room of all RPGs that is also the crux of the combat system - how do you handle DAMAGE?
> 
> Reading about the early days of either Gary Gygax or Dave Arneson's game, it started pretty simply - one hit, one shot, one kill. All war-games really modeled, or were intended to, was "are they combat effective or NOT?" So the old war gamers, before they ever started doing much in the way of "roleplaying," had characters who were "commanders/heroes" who could take more than a single hit and survive. I've never played Chainmail or the like, so I don't the exact mechanics, but I know the principle behind it. It works, it's cool, and it's vitally important to enable the cinematic skirmishes that form the basis of combat in most RPGs. At first, they just let a character take more than one hit (2, 3, and so forth) before they went down. But that wasn't sufficiently granular for simulation-minded war-gamers. Because common sense says a sword, or an axe, can inflict more damage in combat than a dagger, right? And there were all those cool tables of weapons...
> 
> ...



We've pretty much solved this issue for our group.  It started with D&D 4e and the idea of bloodied hit points.  We've advanced this concept in 5e as follows:

*Hit Points (HP):* fatigue, skill, luck, and minor physical damage (shallow cuts, bruises, etc. - things easily recovered from). These are determined normally (though for my next campaign I am soft capping HP at level 10 with minimal advancement after that). These are also recovered normally (we play 5e).

*Bloodied Hit Points (BHP): *This real damage, meat points if you will. BHP = [STR mod + CON mod] x Size (Medium = 1), so the biggest, toughest PC only has 10 BHP max, ever.  When BHP hit 0, your dead. You regain BHP at the rate of 1 BHP per extended rest (which is a week in our game) and the use of a healer's kit (for each point of recovery). With a successful medicine check (DC = 20-remaining BHP) you can gain an extra point of BHP or reduce the rest length to a typical long rest.

When you are hit by an attack you take damage from your HP.  When your HP is 0*, you take damage from your BHP; however, the damage is reduced by your armor's DR (armor DR = AC-10).  Armor DR is only used when your BHP is / would be damaged.

*We had a rule that crits do max damage to HP and rolled damage to BHP.  However, my players didn't like it because it became too deadly.  We are not trying it again, but the crit has to be "confirmed" to take damage from your BHP.

Anyway, it works great for us.  It feels more "real" and is fast and puts real tension when your getting close to 0 HP and on crits.  No one wants those to happen.  It makes the Champion fighter better because getting a crit is a bigger deal. It also makes heavy armor more valuable which feels better to us.  Plate can be a real life saver with this system.


----------



## Thirteenspades (Aug 25, 2020)

dave2008 said:


> We've pretty much solved this issue for our group.  It started with D&D 4e and the idea of bloodied hit points.  We've advanced this concept in 5e as follows:
> 
> *Hit Points (HP):* fatigue, skill, luck, and minor physical damage (shallow cuts, bruises, etc. - things easily recovered from). These are determined normally (though for my next campaign I am soft capping HP at level 10 with minimal advancement after that). These are also recovered normally (we play 5e).
> 
> ...



Sounds like Pathfinder, but instead of going unconscious you fight to the bloody death.


----------



## Wasteland Knight (Aug 25, 2020)

Every group needs to decide what type of game _they_ want to play, and the combat system should follow that principle.  
I don't agree with your principles, as you are falling into the trap of "more realistic combat with DANGEROUS weapons" = more fun.  

I disagree.

More realistic combat = potentially less fun, as with more realistic combat more character deaths will result.  Realistic combat is nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving.  

I've played in games where the system was set up around relatively realistic combat.  Lots of deaths and maimings.  Very, very grim and gritty.


----------



## Thirteenspades (Aug 25, 2020)

Wasteland Knight said:


> Every group needs to decide what type of game _they_ want to play, and the combat system should follow that principle.
> I don't agree with your principles, as you are falling into the trap of "more realistic combat with DANGEROUS weapons" = more fun.
> 
> I disagree.
> ...



Exactly, and if they don't like this, they can shrug and do something else. DMG has mentioned this a million times.


----------



## dave2008 (Aug 25, 2020)

Thirteenspades said:


> Sounds like Pathfinder, but instead of going unconscious you fight to the bloody death.



How is this like Pathfinder (I never played PF1 or 3e).  I have the PF2 books, but I don't see how this is similar to that. Though technically it would have to be similar to our approach as we've been doing this for about 6 years in 5e


----------



## Thirteenspades (Aug 25, 2020)

dave2008 said:


> How is this like Pathfinder (I never played PF1 or 3e).  I have the PF2 books, but I don't see how this is similar to that. Though technically it would have to be similar to our approach as we've been doing this for about 6 years in 5e



When you reach 0 hp you fall unconscious. And if you reach a negative value equal to your constitution score you die. At least that's how I remember it.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 25, 2020)

Thirteenspades said:


> You should watch Shadiversity's "Why character levels in RPGs are stupid" on YouTube, he touches on a lot of these points.



I've watched most (okay, a LOT) of Shad's stuff. We share similar sensibilities in terms of the balance between realism and playability.  I have a slightly more narrative background to my HEMA than Shad does, because I both train HEMA and perform it for stage combat, so rule of cool is a thing.

My inclination and intention here is NOT to create a system for gritty/lethal combat, but to model one where it's _possible_ enough (while being avoidable by PCs, if they're careful) to make combat a real threat that makes players face the "do we?/don't we?" dilemma based on how confident they feel and how important the combat is.

I hate having to create a kludge to get around "Julius Caesar was stabbed to death by a group of low-level nobodies, because they all got close and had daggers." And if Caesar is only 4th to 6th-level, but the system goes to 10 or 20, then the system has a serious problem modeling anything remotely approaching "the real world."

Which is fine. Some people like superhero fantasy. And because I think that can be cool, I'll try to make the system scaleable enough to support it, because playing as Thor or Hercules is awesome. But that's not its _primary_ intent. If it's not your cup of tea, there's plenty of systems for people who like to be able to swim through lava.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 25, 2020)

Wasteland Knight said:


> Every group needs to decide what type of game _they_ want to play, and the combat system should follow that principle.
> I don't agree with your principles, as you are falling into the trap of "more realistic combat with DANGEROUS weapons" = more fun.
> 
> I disagree.
> ...



My intention here is decidedly _not_ to actually go for either` "grim and gritty," or "nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving." Nor is the intention to create "realistic combat." I do want to eliminate grind-y combats, where you have to hammer at a foe for 10 hit points a round for 15 rounds.

My goal here is "believable" (i.e. more "realistic" than it currently is) and "fun." As someone who regularly creates narrative combats for stage, I know that there's a huge difference between realistic and believable. I want combats in my games to be the latter, not the former.

It's inspired in part by the Shadiversity post about "levels are stupid," in part by my own frustration with hit points and "studded leather armor," and in part by every thread I've ever seen that has argued (quite persuasively) that "Aragorn is 5th-level." 

In my opinion, no character (regardless of class) should be able to completely shrug off getting stabbed in the gut or neck with a dagger, no matter who's wielding it (no cheating with "sneak attack"). In D&D, after 1st-level, even a critical hit with a dagger (2d4) threatens...who? A low-Con wizard or sorcerer? Maybe?


----------



## Thirteenspades (Aug 25, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> My intention here is decidedly _not_ to actually go for either` "grim and gritty," or "nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving." Nor is the intention to create "realistic combat." I do want to eliminate grind-y combats, where you have to hammer at a foe for 10 hit points a round for 15 rounds.
> 
> My goal here is "believable" (i.e. more "realistic" than it currently is) and "fun." As someone who regularly creates narrative combats for stage, I know that there's a huge difference between realistic and believable. I want combats in my games to be the latter, not the former.
> 
> ...



And of course, believability is part of the fun. So realism plays a role to a certain degree.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 25, 2020)

I like your list of principles but number (1) is tricky, because for some people combat itself is not fun at all, or they want it resolved as abstractly as possible and that's all that counts, other players will enjoy the detail and the moment to moment action. Anyway, my point being this is going to vary significantly person to person.

I'm surprised you have not come across GURPS or any RuneQuest variant in your list. I've very little experience with GURPS but lots of people swear by it, it's certainly too involved for me. As far as detailed combat systems goes RuneQuest 6 or now Mythras is the one I have most experience with. Going through your list

*2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.*
There is quite a lot here. One of the features of Mythras that distinguishes from other BRP games such as earlier RQ editions and BRP games like Call of Cthulhu is Special Effects. These in part tell the 'story' of the combat, so that a fight is generally won by who gains the advantage from the successful use of special effects. Examples of these effects include -
_Trip Opponent -_ which if successful will send your opponent prone, once you are prone your skills are halved so this is serious.
_Choose Location_ - since the system is location based you can decide to target a vulnerable part of the body if it is lightly or un-armoured, or you might target a limb if you are trying to disable a weapon arm.
_Bypass Armour _- if you are lucky and roll a critical you can use this effect to ignore the armour of wherever you hit. Critical hits can be devastating.
_Disarm Opponent _- you can attempt to catch and fling the opponent's weapon away.
There are many more. These are the star of the system but one of its bugbears - there are a lot to choose from and it can lead to analysis paralysis for new players. The best way I have found of handling this is with GM guidance - present a choice of 2 effects to a player when it comes up, gradually they will get the idea and make their own choices. Using NPCs' special effects against players will also teach them the value and tactics available with these effects.

Beyond special effects, weapon choices and tactical choices can mean a lot. Shields are the only weapon which can actively parry missile weapons, so although that Dane Axe is lethal and can chop off someone's arm, if you loose an arrow at the Dane Axe wielder, they can't parry it. Their only defence is to attempt to use their evade skill, which will put them prone. Evading is also harder to succeed at than parrying. Shields can also passively block several locations, this means if a location is struck that is protected by a shield it will stop the damage as if the blow was parried.

_*3) The system should make real world sense.*_
Fitting armour to a PCs body, weapons that work as you would expect, shields which protect your body, and more so the larger they are, armour which absorbs damage rather than making you harder to hit(!) all come into play. Feedback from HEMA and other martial arts practitioners suggests that the special effects system evokes the sense of finding and exploiting an opening during an exchange, I don't have any real fighting experience but the system does have a realistic feel in that sense.

*4) Tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic.*
Combat styles are treated as a professional skill and work like other skills. All skills are based on a d100 percentile system. A range of skills may come into play during combat - Endurance might be tested if you take a serious or major wound, a fail on Endurance may stun you or knock you out. The Brawn skill may be tested if an opponent attempts to trip you and so on.

*5) Skill matters, but actual combat is highly variable, and the most skilled combatant usually, but doesn't always, win. *
In Mythras weapon skills are grouped into a collection of weapons that make sense for a learned Combat Style, as an example a Roman legionary might have a "Legionary" style which includes gladius, scutum and pilum. That one Combat Style skill is rolled when those weapons are used. Combat Style covers both attack and parry. A typical exchange is an attack roll from an attacker countered by a parry from the defender.

_*6) Damage matters, as weapons are DANGEROUS. In the real world, a single blow from a dagger can kill you.*_
Mythras is location based for a PC or creature body, each location may have Armour Points if armoured or tough-skinned as a creature, each location also has HP. Hit points are fairly low and never increase. For example a strictly average human has 4HP in their head, a dagger's damage is 1d4+1 without any character damage bonus for strength and size, so a dagger hit of 4 or 5 to the head means a serious wound which could knock you out. A Dane Axe does 2d6+2 damage and with that can take off a limb or head with one hit. Armour protects from damage point-for-point, so the highest plate armour with no enhancement is 8AP, mail is 6AP and so on. Critical hits can bypass armour.

Human damage bonus (from the strength and size of the character) ranges from -1d4 if you are exceptionally weak and small to +1d6 if you have 18 in both STR and SIZ, very rare. A more typical damage bonus is +1d2 or for a strong fighter +1d4, this damage bonus is added to your melee damage roll, so that dagger would do 1d4+1d2 for a slightly above average fighter.

Although as a whole the combat system is fairly complex, there are ways to pare it down a little. I don't use weapon Reach or the Cycle/Round system for example and I use a slightly faster way of determining attack/parry exchanges. For some people it is indeed still going to be too complex but I appreciate the piecemeal armour/hp system, the differentiated weapons and I enjoy how dramatic combats can be, with a story emerging from the choices, mechanics, chance and circumstance of each melee.

There's a free cut-down version "Mythras Imperative" Downloads which gives you character creation and the core rules system including combat.


----------



## Shiroiken (Aug 25, 2020)

I'm just going to address the premises, so you can get the idea of my views.

FUN is relative, as you already mentioned. You need to find the right market to create the proper type of combat you prefer.
I'll agree that almost every combat system I've seen has very few choice per round, unless you're some kind of spellcaster or special power user. Even supposedly dynamic combat systems, like 4E D&D, still tend to fall back to the same small set of choices. 
I think that having some variability in a character's approach makes a difference, and allowing that to change each turn/round/etc. is a good idea. For example, a character could be in a Full Defense stance, Defensive stance, Aggressive stance, or Full Attack stance, allowing for a variety of penalties and benefits.

A level of common sense should be applied, but the question becomes the level of complexity acceptable. IMO, the use of miniatures has actually been detrimental in this regard, as it forces a level of minutia that becomes problematic. 
You mentioned constant movement in combat, but the use of miniatures pretty much negates that, as characters will plop themselves in the most advantageous position, refusing to budge unless forced. With Theater of the Mind, the battle is more fluid and realistic, since the specifics of position become irrelevant.

 Agreed. One of the aspects of the early 5E D&D playtest had all rolls as ability checks. Saving Throws, Attacks, and Skill rolls were all forms of ability checks, and the differentiation was only for determining what might modify the roll (such as a bonus to attacks).
Rolls are a necessary aspect, and the real question is how much of a factor it should be. In a system using a 1d20 with a modifier, the die roll is going to be more relevant than the modifier most of the time. A system that uses 5d4 is going to have the modifier matter more, since the dice will be much closer to average each time. 
This is one of the reasons I like 5E D&D proficiency die, because with two dice rolled, the result will tend closer to the median. A system that used an ability die, skill die, and randomness die would cause a skilled person to win most of the time, but a few lucky rolls can swing things dramatically.

Hit Points, like combat rounds and other combat mechanics, are a poor attempt to simulate the effects of combat while retaining a game aspect. The origin of Hit Dice is the average number of hits a character can take before death, and they didn't get particularly high in the original game, nor in AD&D. Most games have inflated these, probably as a result of player demand carried over from CCRPGs.
A system that I liked, even though it had some issues, was from the Pinnacle version of Deadlands. You had a Wind score, which was the equivalent of HP, and when you ran out you were too winded to act until you recovered (usually in a round or so). In addition, each part of your body had a number of maximum wounds it could take (always 5 IIRC). When you took "damage," you divided it by your "body" score (determined by size). The whole number was the number of wounds the part of your body hit took, with the remainder becoming loss of Wind. You suffered various penalties for using the wounded location depending on the number of wounds, which created the dreaded death spiral, but the concept is sound. A character could have HP that represent their endurance to continue on, but still suffer physical wounds until they take too many (again, based on size) and they die.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 25, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> I like your list of principles but number (1) is tricky, because for some people combat itself is not fun at all, or they want it resolved as abstractly as possible and that's all that counts, other players will enjoy the detail and the moment to moment action. Anyway, my point being this is going to vary significantly person to person.
> 
> I'm surprised you have not come across GURPS or any RuneQuest variant in your list. I've very little experience with GURPS but lots of people swear by it, it's certainly too involved for me. As far as detailed combat systems goes RuneQuest 6 or now Mythras is the one I have most experience with. Going through your list
> 
> ...



I know that some people prefer full narrative or quick resolution combat. Personally, I find the "player can make naughty word up" just a little TOO freeform for my tastes.

I had GURPS recommended by some exceptionally simulative gamers who always liked tables, charts and so forth. They'd talk about how GURPS was good because it could model dodge vs. parry and different damage types, and my eyes started to glaze over. So, I never really gave GURPS a try.

I have an earlier version of Runequest (I think?), but I always found it a bit too simulative. I found it to be trying too hard (damage types and separating Parry and Dodge, again).

Full disclosure: I have a pet peeve on distinguishing too much between dodge and parry (sorta) because of experience with the Palladium System, where you could respectively Dodge, Parry, and Roll with the _same attack_ before comparing it to your Armor Rating. It was...exhausting.

I'm cool with there being a distinction between Parry and Dodge (in fact, I think there should be), especially when it comes to distinguishing between melee and ranged combat. Shields were great (and highly favored up until full plate armor was developed) in part because they helped in melee, but also because they were _incredibly_ useful against arrows and other ranged weapons. But in melee, you should only get one defense, that combines both parrying and dodging (the distinction between which is usually a bit muddy in sword combat anyway, at least in my experience).


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 25, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> I have an earlier version of Runequest (I think?), but I always found it a bit too simulative. I found it to be trying too hard (damage types and separating Parry and Dodge, again).
> 
> Full disclosure: I have a pet peeve on distinguishing too much between dodge and parry (sorta) because of experience with the Palladium System, where you could respectively Dodge, Parry, and Roll with the _same attack_ before comparing it to your Armor Rating. It was...exhausting.
> 
> I'm cool with there being a distinction between Parry and Dodge (in fact, I think there should be), especially when it comes to distinguishing between melee and ranged combat. Shields were great (and highly favored up until full plate armor was developed) in part because they helped in melee, but also because they were _incredibly_ useful against arrows and other ranged weapons. But in melee, you should only get one defense, that combines both parrying and dodging (the distinction between which is usually a bit muddy in sword combat anyway, at least in my experience).




The Mythras parry combines some elements of footwork and an actual weapon parry, there's effectively no "dodge" unless you evade which you almost never want to do. There are no damage types, just damage. Unlike previous weapon skills in RQ, the one combat style skill covers attack and parry with all weapons in that combat style.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 25, 2020)

Shiroiken said:


> (SNIP)
> 
> Hit Points, like combat rounds and other combat mechanics, are a poor attempt to simulate the effects of combat while retaining a game aspect. The origin of Hit Dice is the average number of hits a character can take before death, and they didn't get particularly high in the original game, nor in AD&D. Most games have inflated these, probably as a result of player demand carried over from CCRPGs.
> A system that I liked, even though it had some issues, was from the Pinnacle version of Deadlands. You had a Wind score, which was the equivalent of HP, and when you ran out you were too winded to act until you recovered (usually in a round or so). In addition, each part of your body had a number of maximum wounds it could take (always 5 IIRC). When you took "damage," you divided it by your "body" score (determined by size). The whole number was the number of wounds the part of your body hit took, with the remainder becoming loss of Wind. You suffered various penalties for using the wounded location depending on the number of wounds, which created the dreaded death spiral, but the concept is sound. A character could have HP that represent their endurance to continue on, but still suffer physical wounds until they take too many (again, based on size) and they die.



Thanks for the comments. I really liked some of your points and I appreciate the feedback. 

Just as a comment, _Savage Worlds_ (which is also from Pinnacle) shifted the concept from "Wind" to just "Wounds" and obliterated the hit location table. The wound location remains abstract, unless the character is incapacitated, at which point you roll to see both if and where a serious injury may have occurred.

By default, a character has 4 wounds, although the right edges can raise that slightly (and bigger characters/creatures have more). There's a bit of a "death spiral" in play, as each wound causes a -1 penalty to checks (which is a big deal in _Savage Worlds_) but I tend to see those penalties as one of the indicators that maybe it's time to quit combat, if you have a choice. The Bennies concept also allows a PC to soak a certain number of wounds, or preroll bad results, which gives the PCs more control.

Honestly, I think _Savage Worlds_ would probably run just fine if every character had 4 wounds, but most "mooks" don't, and are incapacitated from just one. This creates a degree of "Stormtrooper syndrome" that suits certain genres well, but not others. It is, however, easy to opt out of, and even _Savage Worlds_ has the option for making certain "Extras" tougher but still not getting Bennies (Resilient or Very Resilient).

The most swingy thing in the system in _Savage Worlds_ is the Wild Die, which explodes on an Ace. I'll have to see how nutty that is in play, as my game hasn't gotten off the ground yet.

To be honest, I like a lot about how Savage Worlds handles this stuff, but years of D&D have left me with a fondness for d20 skill checks. So I'm largely looking at a system that captures what I like in _Savage Worlds_, while addressing some of its potential shortcomings, that also makes use of my beloved d20.


----------



## aramis erak (Aug 25, 2020)

From my perspective, the desirable elements...


Simple roll mechanics that players don't need to wait for a GM pronouncement to gather the needed dice. (that is, dice not by difficulty unless it's an opposed roll.)
No tables required during combat.
Parry, Block, and dodge
The choice between parry, block, dodge, or take the hit is meaningful.
Damage is cumulative
Damage is not "fine until ko'd" nor "fine until dead"
Options include gridded play.
No tools needed for determining arcs when on gridded play.
Options more varied than "Attack, defend, flee, move"
Initiative once per combat, but slots swappable with correct abilities.
Reasonable movement rates


----------



## Wasteland Knight (Aug 25, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> My intention here is decidedly _not_ to actually go for either` "grim and gritty," or "nasty, quick, brutal and unforgiving." Nor is the intention to create "realistic combat." I do want to eliminate grind-y combats, where you have to hammer at a foe for 10 hit points a round for 15 rounds.
> 
> My goal here is "believable" (i.e. more "realistic" than it currently is) and "fun." As someone who regularly creates narrative combats for stage, I know that there's a huge difference between realistic and believable. I want combats in my games to be the latter, not the former.
> 
> ...




I’d suggest trying a system like Mythras then, where the combat system is built around “not getting hit”, because “hp” are basically static, no one gas. Any, and combats hurt/maim/kill easily.

D&D is built around the HP Sponge paradigm.  There are ways to tinker with this, but in my tinkering experience, these changes are klugey in practice.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 25, 2020)

I don't know what a "better" combat system should have, but I know what it shouldn't have:
1. The chance for a PC's entire combat turn to feel like doing nothing.
2. Analysis paralysis.  The only thing worse than accomplishing nothing on your turn is watching other players being indecisive (while you're doing nothing).
3. Negating rules, like when a PC scores a "hit," which then doesn't become a hit because her opponent dodged.  Or when a hit results in zero damage.  A failed attack should be a failed attack from the get-go.  There's little point in following rules just to undo earlier decisions.
4. Visual hindrances.  When I start counting squares on a grid, it means I've stopped being a character in a scene.  The smoother that miniatures-usage goes is the more immersive that the experience is.
5. Math.  Math is for two types of characters: snipers and generals.  The sooner I'm done doing math is the sooner I'm imagining my Meteor spell frying all of my opponents (and, maybe, some allies).

In this post, I'll talk about one of my favorite systems (Modos RPG), what it gets right, and where I think it could use some work.


aramis erak said:


> Simple roll mechanics that players don't need to wait for a GM pronouncement to gather the needed dice. (that is, dice not by difficulty unless it's an opposed roll.)
> No tables required during combat.
> Parry, Block, and dodge
> The choice between parry, block, dodge, or take the hit is meaningful.
> ...



1. Uses one die for outcome determination, and one die for damage.  Every time.
2. No tables.
3. Parrying is a skill, blocking is done with shields (improving parry) or armor (reducing damage), dodge is a skill (though less effective than parry).
6. Damage is "fine until dead" but at player discretion.  Players can earn rewards for handicapping themselves.
7. No grid support.  Theatre of the mind is okay, but I wouldn't mind using a hex grid for combat - it would feel more organic than a square grid.
9. Options are "attack, defend, flee, move," but every action ends with narration by the PC and GM.  The result is that an option becomes a scene or event.  The changing scene then makes later options more interesting.
10. Swappable initiative at the cost of temporarily losing initiative.
11. No movement rates.  Not sure that I'd want any, since only three really matter: obviously slower, iffy, and obviously faster.  



JohnSnow said:


> 1) Combat should be FUN to play.
> 2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.
> 3) Real combat is _incredibly_ complex, and no simulative system will ever fully capture that. Don't even try. BUT the system should make real world sense.
> 4) The combat resolution mechanic should be tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic. Progression can either be tied to class and level or to any number of weapons skills, but it should ultimately feel pretty similar to any other skill.
> ...



3. Following 9 above, each option makes as much real world sense as the GM and PC decide is necessary.  There is usually a meaningful choice, because the narration requirement means that the combatants are always part of a scene, not just a token on a grid.
4. One "mechanic" to rule them all.  Attacking is a skill, just like any other.  In particular, it's a "physical" skill, so characters who are more physical (than, say, mental) do it better.
5. Weapons and armor have a greater impact on combat outcomes than skill.  Don't take a knife to a gunfight, and don't get into a gunfight without some ballistics protection.  There's no specific rule for cover (essential for gunfights), but short of adding a new rule, there are a couple of rules that come close.  Also, weapons and armor each use a single die, so better gear makes you a better fighter on average, but in practice (specific instance), combat is _highly variable_.
6. A single dagger blow isn't likely to kill you in combat, which simulates the difficulty getting a good stab on someone who's fighting back.  However, a character's capacity for damage doesn't increase much over levels, so a dagger doesn't become worthless at high character levels.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 26, 2020)

Great feedback and thoughts guys! I know I have my own biases, but I am trying to make a system that can be tailored. In the end, I may end up designing a new RPG around it, but if it works as intended, I may also include rules to make it a usable add-on/plug-in for, say, _D&D_ and _Savage Worlds_. So, back to our regular programming...

*Movement, Stunts, Tricks and Zones:*
From my personal experience, melee combat is highly dynamic. As Mohammed Ali put it, you have to "float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee" if you want to win. Standing still for more than a moment will get you creamed. So, what does that mean for rules?

1. Simply put, there's no benefit for just standing still with a melee weapon. With ranged weapons, there should probably be some kind of benefit for "aiming." That's logical, intuitive and pretty straight-forward.

2. Typically, a character is splitting their energy and attention between moving, attacking, and defending. The best way to handle this is, in my opinion, have the following options "Defend," "All-Out Attack," and "Flee."

"Defend" is like D&D's Total Defense or Savage Worlds' "Defend" - you forego attacks for a higher defense.
"All-Out Attack" takes the place of D&D's "Full Attack" or SW's "Wild Attack" - you forego defense for a better attack.
"Flee" is withdrawing from combat - you forego attacks for a defended escape - Normal Defense but better movement.
3. Zones - I first encountered Zones in Monte Cook's Iron Heroes, where they were a way of letting non-magical characters do cool stuff with the environment. Some examples of zones:

Terrain/obstacles that requires characters to make some kind of check to keep their footing or move as normal.
Ropes, Chandeliers or the like that a character can use to increase their movement rate/bypass an opponent or the like.
Damaging zones, such as a fire pit, cliff, pit, or something similar.
Areas that provide some form of cover.
Objects that can be pressed into service as cover or used as improvised weapons (tables, chairs, liquor bottles, etc.).
4. Stunts or Tricks - I like the idea of giving PCs the ability to pull off tricks that can impose certain conditions on their opponents, such as a disarm, push, or trip or making a skill check in order to move further, impose some penalty on your opponent, or gain some benefit to an attack. In a way, Stunts are like player-initiated Zones, and the two things should have a similar resolution mechanic - a combat/skill test to either gain a benefit, impose a penalty, or inflict some kind of damage.

5. Aside about "multiple actions" - The best way to handle multiple actions (IMO), is to impose a penalty to all actions for choosing to take more than one significant action in combat. How many multiple actions? I'd say 3, with increasing penalties the more actions you take. Why 3? Because it's enough to feel like a lot, it's few enough not to bog down combat, and it's a semi-realistic number of distinct actions to pull off in 6-10 seconds. Moving outside of medieval technology, semi-automatic firearms could complicate this a little bit, but I think that's rectifiable with good firearms rules.

The thing I like about these systems is that none of them _require_ the use of a combat grid. By abstracting combat, but providing interesting options, you encourage players to do clever things. Characters in a  gunfight or subject to arrow fire _should_ seek out cover if it's available. Swordfighters who are at a disadvantage should try to get to the other side of a table. As a DM, I like the idea of coming up with more interesting areas for combats to occur, but I also want to support players coming up with something that I, as the DM didn't think of.

As an aside, there's few easy ways to think about incorporating this mechanically, by allowing the player to spend an
"Action Point" to, for example, offset the penalty for extra actions. Or you could have a feat or edge called, say, "Swashbuckler" that allowed a character to take one free non-attack action without a penalty. Or one that separately enabled that for attacks. A DM who wanted more "swashbuckling action" could just allow that edge to all PCs, and so on.

That's all the thoughts I have for now. Can't remember what I said would be next after this. I'll figure out what topic I think makes sense and post about that next.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2020)

*Randomness, Action Points, and Narrative Control:*
One truism of games is that we're always trying to balance random chance with giving players a degree of narrative control. Some groups take the attitude of letting the dice fall where they may, whereas others prefer a cooperative storytelling game where NOTHING is random. And as usual, many (most?) people's ideal is somewhere in the middle.

In my opinion, the ideal system would give players some degree, but not complete, control over their characters' fate. One way to do this is to create a system that is "fair," and then deliberately create things that tilt the odds in favor of the PCs, who are, after all, heroes in this scenario. If these dials exist and are explicitly spelled out, a group that prefers "grittier" outcomes can simply remove some of the things that give the PCs more control over their fate. So, what should we do to balance this?

The first is a way to offset the inherent randomness of the basic determinator - for example, one could give Player Characters (and important NPCs) a permanent +1d6 to all checks - exactly what "Action Points" did as an option. This is great way to set heroes (and significant villains) apart from "ordinary people." Why are these people special? Simple. Because they're the scenario's important characters. Personally, I don't think that Stormtrooper #6 should have as much control over the outcome as, say, Han Solo, but Boba Fett probably should. YMMV.

Another thing is to provide some kind of Luck Points, by whatever name you want to call them, that are a limited resource, spendable _by the player_, to gain a little more control over the game's outcome. This can be a delicate balancing act - give too many and the game ceases to be a challenge, but if there are too few, the players can start to feel like they have no control. Note that this metric is entirely capable of being dialed to whatever level suits a particular group. Do you want your players to be a little more "favored by the gods" and/or be able to do more wild stuff? Just give them more Luck Points. As an aside, _Savage Worlds_ suggests giving out more Bennies (its version of this) for good roleplaying, making the game fun, or even for being clever, heroic, or particularly imaginative. 

Finally, let's talk about wounds. Personally, I like a mechanic that lets PCs survive being hit more times than the average bad guy, but I'm not sure if I need or want to have to track conditions like that for every single NPC. I'm not 100% sure where the sweet spot is, but in principle, I kinda like how _Savage Worlds_ does it.

If a character is hit, absent spending a Benny (the SW version of Luck Points), they can be either okay, shaken or wounded (to varying degrees). The mechanic works like this:

On a successful hit, roll damage vs. Toughness (Armor provides a bonus to Toughness - DR in D&D terms).
Success - The target is Shaken.
Each "Raise" - The target takes a wound.

A "Shaken" target who is shaken again (but has no wounds) takes a wound...and is still Shaken. This is a way of representing the ability for multiple small hits to wound. A "Shaken" character can either make a successful Vigor check as a free action to try to recover, or spend a Benny to lose the condition at any time.

In many ways, the _Savage Worlds_ system works exactly like the Damage Track from Green Ronin's _Mutants & Masterminds_. In essence, the core of both systems is: the result of a die-roll vs a Target Number results in one of a number of conditions.

In my next post, I'll cover "Conditions," injuries, and take my first stab (heh) at a damage track/system.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 27, 2020)

The role of combat plays in the sort of narrative you’re aiming to co-create leads to “better” answers.  And of course personal taste trumps everything.   

For over the top combat, I like what Feng Shui/Wuxia can do.  D&D and Pathfinder have their place, for sure.  And while I’m sorta tired of them both, I know I’ll use them to sell heroic saga type stories. 

But where I am these days, these are the things I’m trying to do with games and what systems work well for those .

*Combat Invites Disaster*
 Personally, I’ve grown tired of games dominated by heroic/super heroic combatants.   I totally get the appeal of cinematic and stylized  violence in gaming, but I’m bigger at the moment on how brutal and dangerous fights can be.  Entering combat is inviting risk of disaster and any scrap is meaningful and potentially deadly.  So, we eschew attrition/hit points and embrace vulnerable characters and critical hit mechanics.  BRP-derived games give that sense of vulnerability.  I’ll include Warhammer FRP in there, but I’m talking Call of Cthulhu and Mythras/RuneQuest primarily.

*Fighting is not Passive (Offense and Defense)*
Combat systems where you wait your turn to attack leave me cold.  Whether you’re going on offense or defending against an attack, you should be  always on — in my mind that means testing your combat skill.   Parrying, dodging, “fighting back”.  So you roll when you attack and when you are attacked.   Making fights opposed checks where you compare the quality of the attacker and defenders results feels good.  My players love this vs. waiting until it’s your turn again.   Again, Warhammer, Mythras, CoC.

*Soak/Armor Points vs. AC*
Getting hit and getting hurt are two different things.  Armor’s more about the latter than the former, so I love systems where armor just means your suit of mail absorbs some of the damage dealt to you.   This matters to me more than it should, but it is very intuitive and again players grok it and never look the same at AC after playing in a game with sensible armor rules.  WFRP and Mythras.  BRP.

None of this is really any more complicated than what people do in “accessible” games like 5e, just different.  I like few and brutal fights where every scrap is memorable.  Quality vs. quantity of fights.  Mythas and Warhammer right now are giving us exciting/terrifying fights — and ultimately that’s what I want an RPG combat system to deliver.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 27, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> Another thing is to provide some kind of Luck Points, by whatever name you want to call them, that are a limited resource, spendable _by the player_, to gain a little more control over the game's outcome. This can be a delicate balancing act - give too many and the game ceases to be a challenge, but if there are too few, the players can start to feel like they have no control. Note that this metric is entirely capable of being dialed to whatever level suits a particular group. Do you want your players to be a little more "favored by the gods" and/or be able to do more wild stuff? Just give them more Luck Points. As an aside, _Savage Worlds_ suggests giving out more Bennies (its version of this) for good roleplaying, making the game fun, or even for being clever, heroic, or particularly imaginative.




Luck Points can work well in a system that is typically lethal, but you're right that the balance is delicate. Older RuneQuest had the reputation of being ridiculously lethal where limbs would go flying every fight, while this might be fairly realistic it could be grim for players. The game got around this by having powerful magic, from magical armour to healing spells which could re-attach limbs, this is the approach RuneQuest in Glorantha takes, which does not have luck points. This is ok for highly magical campaign settings, not so great for other settings. RQ6/Mythras luck points in my experience have worked. They are useful enough to alleviate the potential lethality of dangerous combats but not make the game so easy players are blase. This can vary from group to group though since you might decide to let luck points regenerate between adventure or between sessions, or allow group luck points and not just PC luck points. The Mythras game Odd Soot has the interesting idea of using 'negative' luck points which a player can call on if they run out of luck points, going into negative luck means the GM gains luck points of their own to use at a later time.

There's an interesting twist with Mythras luck points in the way they can manipulate the dice. Since it's a d100 system you can use luck points to reverse a roll so that a roll of 60 can be reversed into a 06, which could make it into a critical depending on the PC's skill. This is in addition to using points to re-roll or save a character from a lethal wound, or take a heroic extra action.




SavageCole said:


> None of this is really any more complicated than what people do in “accessible” games like 5e, just different. I like few and brutal fights where every scrap is memorable. Quality vs. quantity of fights. Mythas and Warhammer right now are giving us exciting/terrifying fights — and ultimately that’s what I want an RPG combat system to deliver.




This is certainly very close to my thoughts. I much prefer a style where the outbreak of combat is rare and where the detail counts. If you're used to dungeon bashes and several melees in a single game session you are going to find detailed combat a real pain, people who prefer abstraction and speed can accommodate a lot more fighting than if they are playing a detailed system. It comes down to whether you care about whether that bandit helmet will fit you, _it's the right size? oh great, I'm scavenging that, _or whether you are in range to throw that hatchet and choose where it hits, should I shift my shield ward to cover my wounded leg, is it worth learning to use a javelin to disable shields or can I find a teacher to learn to use a 2h axe? 

In more high-powered or high-magic style games my sense is that detailed combat becomes less important because other things take over, whether it is superpower-like abilities, or equipment or the existence of the dominance of magic, it's likely the smaller tactical nuances are going to be lost or treated as unnecessary detail.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 27, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> If you're used to dungeon bashes and several melees in a single game session you are going to find detailed combat a real pain, people who prefer abstraction and speed can accommodate a lot more fighting than if they are playing a detailed system.




This hasn’t been my experience with players coming from D&D & Pathfinder to Warhammer and Mythras.  With very few exceptions, my d20 players quickly come to prefer Warhammer & Mythras fights.  The biggest shocker for them is how deadly and QUICK combat can be.  Instead of slogging through stockpiled hit points where you feel somewhat safe for the first half-dozen rounds, they’re desperate from the jump and fights rarely last more than a few rounds.  Any fight can end in a single round— and many do.  It’s not just death that they fear, but being maimed.  Aside from the Mythras special effects mechanic, the other mechanics aren’t a pain to pick up — I find players are amused by hit locations and critical hit tables, feel energized and more involved by making defensive rolls, and appreciate how quickly and colorfully fights play out.

Of course, my players are capable of dividing by ten on the fly.  They’re also willing to buy in to the concept of having characters who aren’t superheroes and that combat is chaotic, brutal, and dangerous.   That to me is the biggest hurdle.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 27, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> Of course, my players are capable of dividing by ten on the fly.  They’re also willing to buy in to the concept of having characters who aren’t superheroes and that combat is chaotic, brutal, and dangerous.   That to me is the biggest hurdle.




Well that's good to know, and certainly how decisive Mythras can be is a shocker to some players, it can all be over in the first cycle. On the subject of calculations, the only tricky maths area with Mythras is working out difficulties on the fly, for Hard, Formidable or Easy, Very Easy. I am spoiled since most of my games are run online and with the Roll20 sheet there's no calculation involved but in person it's not as clear when this comes up, there's a reference table but it feels clunky.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> This hasn’t been my experience with players coming from D&D & Pathfinder to Warhammer and Mythras.  With very few exceptions, my d20 players quickly come to prefer Warhammer & Mythras fights.  The biggest shocker for them is how deadly and QUICK combat can be.  Instead of slogging through stockpiled hit points where you feel somewhat safe for the first half-dozen rounds, they’re desperate from the jump and fights rarely last more than a few rounds.  Any fight can end in a single round— and many do.  It’s not just death that they fear, but being maimed.  Aside from the Mythras special effects mechanic, the other mechanics aren’t a pain to pick up — I find players are amused by hit locations and critical hit tables, feel energized and more involved by making defensive rolls, and appreciate how quickly and colorfully fights play out.
> 
> Of course, my players are capable of dividing by ten on the fly.  They’re also willing to buy in to the concept of having characters who aren’t superheroes and that combat is chaotic, brutal, and dangerous.   That to me is the biggest hurdle.



Personally, I like combat in games. But I like fun, over-the-top, cinematic action combats that feel like they were pulled straight out of a _Three Musketeers_ or _Indiana Jones_ movie. Simply put, combat in D&D doesn't feel like that. Grim and gritty "Realistic" systems also don't generally feel like that, either. What I'm trying to build is a system that allows for the creation of believable, on-the-fly, cinematic combat. It doesn't have to be "real" (because as has been pointed out many times, most realistic combat with weapons is typically nasty, brutish and short). What it has to be is "plausible," and in order to turn combat into something the protagonists have a reasonable chance of surviving, D&D (and many other systems) tend to sacrifice all the things that make combat interesting in the first place.

Trying for "cinematic" is not me saying that there aren't plenty of bad fight scenes in movies and on stage. Fight scenes can seem fake, drag on too long, or have characters get hit in ways that are simply NOT survivable. Or they can be made so realistic that they're unsatisfying. Learning to strike the right balance between believability and theatricality is what some stage combat people (like myself) work really hard for. 

To draw an analogy, D&D feels like bad theatrical stage combat - lots of "big pirate, little pirate" on a wide open platform that doesn't remotely resemble a real fight. Sure, it's not remotely realistic, but it allows you to play out a fight scene. There is a "sweet spot" in D&D where it can almost start to strike the right balance, as players have enough options to do some interesting stuff in combat, and enough hit points that combats can actually last a few rounds, but then it evaporates into a torrent of slogging through foes via too lengthy attrition and then goes back to the early levels of swingy-ness, this time with magical rocket tag (this is a feature of the hit point system, and why it probably needs to die in a fire, even if it never will).

More "realistic" games (like _Warhammer_), at least in my experience, tend to swing to the other extreme, and drill deep into the nitty gritty of maiming or killing someone in a fight that lasts 8 seconds. It's 30 seconds of whatever realistic meat grinder medieval combat scene you last watched, where none of the PCs are "named characters." And, to make matters worse, if you have any experience with western martial arts, they often get the nitty gritty stuff _wrong_. Honestly, I suspect my problem with _Mythras_ would be the same one I always have with games that try to get too simulative, but I'll check it out. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised.

The problem with getting into something like "swordplay/European martial arts" as a hobby can be the burden of having "too much knowledge" about that topic. Anyone who gets into swordplay has their own "sweet spot" for the exact right combination of "representative" vs. abstract. If it's too simulative, we start seeing it tripping over reality, but if it abstracts things out too much, it doesn't represent the tradeoffs "correctly" (as we see them). And yes, this applies to movie fight scenes too - there's plenty I enjoyed more before I got into this as a hobby. This "burden of knowledge" phenomenon is not unique to swordplay, as I know plenty of people who just about can't watch certain "historical" movies because of how badly they botch period costuming. 

As an aside, this is why many guys with HEMA as a hobby tend to have such a mad-on for getting rid of "studded leather armor," or renaming the single-handed cutting sword from Longsword to "Arming Sword" or just "Sword." Sure, we could just deal with it, but it'd be like asking someone to accept you calling every "car" in a modern game an "SUV." Sure, an SUV is a car, but not all cars are SUVs, and referring to generic cars as "SUVs" is annoying.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 27, 2020)

I don’t think Warhammer is simulative, but with its weapon size rules, etc. I could see how one could level that label at Mythras.   But I don’t think gritty is necessarily synonymous with simulationist.   Likewise, I struggle to see how Indiana Jones of Three Musketeers gets mapped to plausible. 

With that said, it’s all about the group’s sensibilities and even moods.  I  find my preference shifts and rotates.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> I don’t think Warhammer is simulative, but with its weapon size rules, etc. I could see how one could level that label at Mythras.   But I don’t think gritty is necessary synonymous with simulationist.   Likewise, I struggle to see how Indiana Jones of Three Musketeers gets mapped to plausible.
> 
> With that said, it’s all about the group’s sensibilities and even moods.  I  find my preference shifts and rotates.



Well, the last version of Warhammer I played had...


Hit location tables
Grievous Injury tables
Per strike attack rolls - i.e. two swings equals two attacks
Separate Parry and Dodge rolls

Granted, that was the _Warhammer Fantasy RPG_ 2nd Edition (by Green Ronin) from, oh, 15 years back or so. Maybe it's simplified since.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 27, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> On the subject of calculations, the only tricky maths area with Mythras is working out difficulties on the fly, for Hard, Formidable or Easy, Very Easy. I am spoiled since most of my games are run online and with the Roll20 sheet there's no calculation involved but in person it's not as clear when this comes up, there's a reference table but it feels clunky.




There are aspects of VTT games that I don’t want to lose when we get back to face-to-face games.   If you’re not using the quick rules with flat % modifiers, I could see that being work.  Most of my nerd players are quite numerate — many thanks to gaming as kids.   Playing James Bond 007 RPG as a kid with Ease Factor multiplication  and the Quality Rating formula probably set me up for the career (and gaming) success I’ve enjoyed in life.  And I’m not even in the top three of quant jockeys at my table.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 27, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> Well, the last version of Warhammer I played had...
> 
> 
> Hit location tables
> ...




Eye of the beholder I guess.  Those things lean more to plausible than simulationist  to me.

When I think simulationist, the games that leap to mind for me are Aftermath! and an old game from late ‘80s by BTRC called Time Lords.  

Why do you see separate parry and dodge rolls as simulationist?  Those are two entirely different actions.  (I’m something of an Eastern (kenjitsu and tae kwon do) and Western (epee) martial arts guy myself.


----------



## Deset Gled (Aug 27, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> So, what do I feel an ideal combat system should have? First, I'll lay it out based on principles:
> 
> 1) Combat should ...




There's one principle that you hint at in a number of these, but I think deserves it's own point: Scalability.

Scalability 1).  In-game mechanics.  The "basic" rules that you learn at level 1 should still apply at level 20 (or higher).  This is actually really difficult to manage.  Sometimes the rules get so complex that the basic mechanics get forgotten.  Sometimes the numbers get so ridiculously high that they become cumbersome to play with.  If you don't plan for mechanical scalability from the ground up, it's basically impossible to patch it in later.  Picking limits (top and bottom levels, stages of advancement, etc) is the most common first step to addressing this.

Scalability 2).  Rules complexity and the meta-game.  If a set of rules is so complex that a beginner can't sit down and play an RPG in the first XX minutes, people will complain that it's too hard to get people into the game, or even that it's exclusionary.  OTOH, if a game is too simple, veteran players can get bored and high level play becomes same-y.  Learning curves, capability plateaus, and powergaming must be considered.  In most cases, deciding the market of players that you are aiming for is the critical first step in figuring out how to deal with this.



JohnSnow said:


> I know that some people prefer full narrative or quick resolution combat. Personally, I find the "player can make naughty word up" just a little TOO freeform for my tastes.




This style of game design seems to be coming up a lot more often in discussions.  I can't tell if it's a natural result of RPGs becoming a bit more mainstream, an effect of 5e being inherently more rules light than previous editions, or just me hanging out at the wrong gaming site.  But it's a trend I have a strong desire to push back against.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 27, 2020)

There are a couple of descriptions of RQ6/Mythras that give a sense of the system, this one is from a thread called "Sell RuneQuest 6 for Savage Worlds players" (Sell RuneQuest 6 for Savage Worlds players)



> BiggerBoat
> Re: Sell RuneQuest 6 for Savage Worlds players
> 
> Did you have a campaign in mind? I'd argue for selling the setting and the potential for cool characters before you sell the system. Runequest is a great fit for Sword & Sorcery, historical campaigns, or settings tinged with gritty history (Vikings, dark ages, Grecian antiquity, that sort of stuff). When I think of a Runequest campaign, I think of muddy villages at the edge of deep forests, the hammering of spear against shield, brotherhoods poised to fight the darkness (or sworn to usher it forth). A character in Runequest is shaped from his background and culture. He's part of a community. His skills are a product of his talents and his upbringing. He has relatives and mentors, allies and enemies.
> ...




And another account of a brief but fairly detailed combat (back in its Mongoose RuneQuest II form): (101 Days of MRQ II!)



> Day 28. Battle With the Broo!
> 
> As promised, the first session's combat. I tried to take notes, but as I was juggling the new system and setting, it may be off a little. Still, I think it is pretty close. I am also interjecting more system specific notes, per the requests I have had.
> 
> ...




I do think though, if you go in looking for problems and things you don't like, you will almost certainly find them! If you already like Savage Worlds, just stick with it and throw in a few houserules. Another consideration is players and their interests, whatever you're running has to be of shared interest with whoever is in the group and the system should be bent around according to the group's preferences.

Personally I don't care that much about distinctions and questions around simulation/simulationist/realism/gamist etc. but just whether it feels like it makes sense and allows you to make interesting decisions. All flavours of D&D are clearly FUBAR, but that's what most people want. I've enjoyed the Year Zero engine games which are interesting and pretty fun to play but are quite far from the detail of RQ/Mythras or even SW.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 27, 2020)

Of all the games I've played lately, I've found that the one that was the most satisfying and still had that "realistic" combat is deadly and risky vibe was one that was more narrative based. The key feature that makes it work so well is that it gives the players a resource that they can bring to bear to mitigate damage that is inflicted on their character. 

This removes the attrition approach of HP, and gives the GM the ability to push hard with the consequences of combat because the players have the means to reduce the outcome. It also puts a lot of the decision making in the players' hands, which I think is good. The result is that there are far fewer rolls to make in a given fight when compared to D&D, but each roll is significantly more meaningful, and the players have lots of choices to make about how things go and how to use the resources at their disposal. 

I think that approaching it from another angle like that.....where the player decides how to deal with a hit to their character....can lead to some interesting takes. Otherwise I think all you'll do is wind up with something that's very much the Armor Class and Hit Point system of D&D, except either more or less invovled than the D&D version.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 27, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I think that approaching it from another angle like that.....where the player decides how to deal with a hit to their character....can lead to some interesting takes. Otherwise I think all you'll do is wind up with something that's very much the Armor Class and Hit Point system of D&D, except either more or less invovled than the D&D version.




The idea that anything with HP is the same as D&D is a bit of a red herring because of piles of hit points and escalating levels adding to it, not everything that uses HP has that problem.

I've found another issue with "narrative" systems which is 'narrative fatigue', not only can you describe what has just happened based on a result or a spend, you _have to_ describe what's happened, every time it does. In contrast to that if you have a system which effectively is constructing the story of the moment to moment events because that story emerges out of player choices, the mechanics of the system, and some chance factor, you don't have to continually invent, it's emerging as you go, supported by the system.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 27, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> Eye of the beholder I guess.  Those things lean more to plausible than simulationist  to me.
> 
> When I think simulationist, the games that leap to mind for me are Aftermath! and an old game from late ‘80s by BTRC called Time Lords.
> 
> Why do you see separate parry and dodge rolls as simulationist?  Those are two entirely different actions.  (I’m something of an Eastern (kenjitsu and tae kwon do) and Western (epee) martial arts guy myself.



So, I'll try to explain my thinking, and I grant that this is largely from an early to pre-modern (Renaissance and medieval) European swordplay perspective, although I have studied a variant of Kenpo and done some kickboxing as well...

Typically in a dynamic sword fight, the point is to avoid getting hit, and the tendency is to either evade and interpose your blade, or move, evade and parry, and then wind into a counterattack. It is, in my experience, atypical to opt for just one or the other, as opposed to both. The better you are, the easier it is to prevent an attack from making solid contact, and it all comes down to fighting skill, but the distinction between parrying and dodging can be...murky at times.

Case in point: let's say someone is coming with a fendente (overhead downward cut) for my head, and I sidestep their attack and make a hanging parry with my sword to deflect the downward stroke, then once their strike has been deflected, I carry my blade around with a return cut to their head. I've used this move a lot.

You could say I dodged, because that's the primary move, or you could say I parried, because the blade made contact with mine. Regardless, this is very distinct from simply setting a block or making a slap parry. Or if I'd simply sidestepped, I could potentially have made a quicker counter-thrust. If we try to get into the minutiae of how the fight plays out, the system has to start taking into account the variant choices between those options, and draw a distinction.

Or we could simply leave it at: "Character A used their fighting skill to avoid being struck with a sword, and launched a counterattack." That lets the character's ability be what determines whether the choice was a good or bad one, and subsumes the difference into the randomness of die rolls.

Separately, you sometimes can both parry and dodge, and if they're not combined into a single thing called defense, you can quickly get to the absurdity of the old Palladium system that tried to resolve every single blow and part of the action individually...

A makes an attack roll, and gets a *17*.
B rolls to dodge, and gets a *15*: _Fail_*.*
B rolls his parry, and gets a *9*: _Fail._
B is wearing Mail Armour (AR 16), so the point of A's sword slips through their armor for *16* points of damage.
B decides to roll with punch/fall/impact for _half damage_, and succeeds!

Now, after one attack roll, 3 defense rolls, comparing to the AR, and a damage roll, B deducts *8* points of SDC damage - just a nick compared to their total of 40 S.D.C. and 23 hit points.

And since A has 5 attacks per round, we now repeat this for their other 4 other sword strikes. And then we repeat this for every PC and all their adversaries. 

This is not hyperbole. It's a 100% realistic scenario from the salad days of the Palladium System. Just fyi, this is at 1st-level. And actually, it's pretty moderate. Ask anybody who played RIFTS.

All that said, I'd be mostly okay with a system where the PC could choose whether to parry or dodge, or some combination as I mentioned above, but it should be either a static defense or a single die roll. IMO.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 27, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> The idea that anything with HP is the same as D&D is a bit of a red herring because of piles of hit points and escalating levels adding to it, not everything that uses HP has that problem.
> 
> I've found another issue with "narrative" systems which is 'narrative fatigue', not only can you describe what has just happened based on a result or a spend, you _have to_ describe what's happened, every time it does. In contrast to that if you have a system which effectively is constructing the story of the moment to moment events because that story emerges out of player choices, the mechanics of the system, and some chance factor, you don't have to continually invent, it's emerging as you go, supported by the system.




I don't know if the Hit Points is a red herring.....my point is more to be cautious because I think using them does tend to wind up with something akin to D&D. Which may or may not be fine, depending on the desired outcome. And yes, there is the possibility that one system that uses HP can be different from another.....I just think the chances are slim, and also that the general pacing will be very similar; the drama of hit points is the attrition.

I can't currently think of any games off the top of my head that use HP that don't largely play the way D&D does. I'm sure there are or could be some, but I can't think of any. Do you have any examples?

As for the narrative system, I think that letting the action determine the stakes and the result is very much in line with the approach I'm talking about. Generally speaking, you telegraph the trouble ahead of time. You make it clear, or at least give a good idea of, what the stakes are. Certainly something like "the dragon gnashes his sword-like teeth at you, and you know you likely only have one shot" sets up a far more dangerous and potentially harmful situation than "the street urchin, weak from hunger and illness, holds a rusty dagger in a shaking hand". I think this approach aligns with your description of "emerging as you go, supported by the system."


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

*Conditions, Wounds, Damage, and Death Spirals*
So, at this point, I want to take a minute to talk about a system for tracking damage that I've seen variants of in several games. Most recently, this system is in Savage Worlds, but something very similar to it exists in d6 _Star Wars_, _Mutants & Masterminds_, and, I believe, _True 20._

That system is the Conditions & Wounds system. It works like this: A character starts fine. If they take a hit, and the damage equals their Toughness (Armor provides a bonus), they become "Shaken," and cause a wound for ever "raise." A Shaken character who takes physical damage again is now wounded (and still shaken).

The average PC can take up to 3 wounds (each of which inflicts a -1 penalty) and still function more or less "normally," albeit with penalties. On the fourth wound, the PC is incapacitated, and at this point, the player must make a vigor roll to see how serious the wound is. Failing inflicts a permanent injury (there's a table) and means the PC is bleeding out. If the roll is a critical failure, the character dies. Success means the injury is either temporary until the character is healed of all wounds, or it goes away in 24 hours, even if he doesn't get healed before then. Obviously, if he's healed of all his wounds, this injury goes away too. A player who has Bennies can choose to spend one to make a Soak roll to minimize the damage from an attack with each success and raise absorbing one wound. Soaking _all_ the damage means you lose the "Shaken" condition as well (even if it's from previous damage).

Permanent injuries mean the character might need serious healing magic. Or barring that, a prosthetic or an eyepatch. 

"Lesser" NPCs are incapacitated if they take a single Wound. But some NPCs/monsters are resilient (2 wounds), very resilient (3 wounds), or Wild Cards just like the PCs (4 wounds).

And yes, this system does have a "death spiral" of sorts, as a more injured character takes penalties to his actions, including the ones to keep from bleeding out. Personally, I like the idea of characters becoming less effective as they get hurt, but YMMV. Someone who wanted a less granular system could simply do something like Fine, Bloodied (minor penalty), Injured (bigger penalty), and Incapacitated.

The method for determining "wounds" is obviously pretty important in a system like this. _Savage Worlds_ resolves it by comparing the damage roll with a score called "Toughness," whereas _Mutants & Masterminds_ had the Player make a Toughness Save, but the principle is basically the same. And of course, the "realism" quotient of the system is clearly highly dependent on how quickly the PC can recover from "wounds." (FYI, _Savage Worlds_ also has a somewhat neat rule here that helps to draw a line between serious and minor wounds, but I do realize that it's not for everyone).

Personally, I like the balance of abstraction vs. realism here. It doesn't really matter where a character's PC's minor wounds are, until they take one that's substantial enough that it nearly kills them. And that should happen rarely enough that checking location tables at that point bothers me less. For the record, the generic rule on called shots is that they add to damage, and I'd certainly bypass rolling on the injury table if a character was incapacitated by, say, a called shot to the head (because rather obviously, it was _to the head_).


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if the Hit Points is a red herring.....my point is more to be cautious because I think using them does tend to wind up with something akin to D&D. Which may or may not be fine, depending on the desired outcome. And yes, there is the possibility that one system that uses HP can be different from another.....I just think the chances are slim, and also that the general pacing will be very similar; the drama of hit points is the attrition.
> 
> I can't currently think of any games off the top of my head that use HP that don't largely play the way D&D does. I'm sure there are or could be some, but I can't think of any. Do you have any examples?




Well, the AGE system uses HP, but Armor functions as DR. Also, the math is rather different, as heroes start with between ~20 (for a low-Con Mage) and ~38 Hit Points (for a high-Con Warrior), and only gain 1d6 + Con per level. Which means by Level 10, the Mage would have about 50, give or take, and the Warrior about 100, meaning they stay in line. After level 10, you only get your Con Score (up to 4, but at least 1 hp per level), so our piddling Con Level 20 Mage now has 60 HP, and his Warrior pal now has 140.

Just so you know, this is a system where a fist does 1d3, a throwing knife does 1d6, a one-handed sword does 2d6, and a two-handed sword or axe does 3d6. And for the record, I don't think Armor is protective enough in the AGE system, but that's rather beside the point.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 28, 2020)

@JohnSnow - Palladium is a great system to showcase for the simulationist nightmare,  and now I see that you’re talking about a dodge and a parry in the same turn vs. an attack.  I totally agree with you there and appreciate your taking the care in the example you shared.  

For points of game abstraction, I wouldn’t think of beating a blade as an actual parry but more of an attack.  Likewise, simple footwork involved when parrying and preparing a counter attack wouldn’t  strike me as a dodge.  

But I would suggest the way Mythras, BRP, and Warhammer rule on dodge and parry isn’t in the Palladium family by a long shot.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> I don't know if the Hit Points is a red herring.....my point is more to be cautious because I think using them does tend to wind up with something akin to D&D. Which may or may not be fine, depending on the desired outcome. And yes, there is the possibility that one system that uses HP can be different from another.....I just think the chances are slim, and also that the general pacing will be very similar; the drama of hit points is the attrition.
> 
> I can't currently think of any games off the top of my head that use HP that don't largely play the way D&D does. I'm sure there are or could be some, but I can't think of any. Do you have any examples?




Sure, this is from RQ6/Mythras:







Looking at this section from a character sheet, you see the PC has piecemeal armour, the strongest is the helmet with "AP 5" (Armour points 5) this will protect against 5 points of damage. Each of the 7 hit locations has it's own armour, AP and hit points, HP. In the box labelled "Shield" the locations list are the locations that are warded if the PC is using the shield as a passive ward, the particular shield they are using will block damage over 4 connected locations. Assuming the PC has a weapon in their other hand they can also actively parry with that weapon, leaving the shield in place covering their arms, which are unarmoured, chest and abdomen which if wounded may knock you out.

Let's say this PC is attacked successfully and they fail their parry. As stated, the shield is blocking their central body and arms. The attacker, because they beat the PC's parry now will not only hit, but also is granted a special effect. A special effect might be Trip Opponent, Disarm, and so on, let's say the attacker chooses "Choose Location". Using Choose Location means that they can choose the location they hit instead of rolling a d20 (see the 1d20 list on the left side). 

_Where does the attacker choose to hit?_ Let's also say the attacker is using a Celtic Longsword, that does 1d6+2 damage, and the attacker has no damage bonus from their STR and SIZ. The longsword is only a 'medium' sized weapon, so hitting any location warded by the shield will be entirely blocked, if it was a "Huge" weapon, half the damage would get through the shield ward. So that leaves sensible targets as one of the legs or the head. We can see the head is protected by an iron Open Helmet with 5 AP, quite study, and the chances are it will block most of a hit from the longsword. The legs are lightly armoured protected by 1AP hide boots. 

The attacker chooses Right Leg, and rolls their damage - they roll a 3, plus 2 is 5 points of damage to the Right Leg, 4 damage goes through leaving 1hp left in that leg. If HP is above zero, it's counted as a minor wound, no other effects. Let's say the roll was a 4, plus 2 is a 6, this would take the leg down to 0hp, now this is a "Serious Wound". The PC has to make an Endurance check to see if they fall prone from the hit, and they are distracted for 1d3 turns as they deal with the pain, this puts them on the defensive - they can move and take defensive actions but they can't attack for those turns. If the PC _fails_ their Endurance skill check, they fall prone and they are now at a disadvantage - their Combat skill is now halved, that's half the chance to defend and attack, the circumstances of the fight has just changed and they are in trouble.

So if something takes a Serious Wound there are immediate consequences depending on where they were hit, Head, Chest and Abdomen have worse consequences than a limb, an arm hit may result in dropping a weapon and so on. Going prone is bad, but there could have been other effects depending on what the attacker chose to do.

All of this is to say - this is how the system differs from D&D. Mythras still uses "hp" but not in a big pile that is ever increasing. Most PCs will never increase their hit points in those locations. You _can_ increase your armour, which is usually very sensible to do, but armour is expensive and may be hard to come by depending on the campaign. PCs, NPCs and creatures will always be vulnerable, critical hits can bypass armour, so even the heavily kitted out warrior is vulnerable to a lucky hit.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

That's a really fascinating system. I'm intrigued by how it handles locations, HP, and armor. I'm still not entirely certain how I personally feel about having to make a location roll as a default, but I can see how it could work. If I recall correctly, _Top Secret, S.I. _had a not totally dissimilar system, but I recall it being clunky in play. Or maybe it was just that the fancy picture and wound boxes seemed to make it hard to use hand-drawn character sheets. 

I'll give Mythras a read. It certainly seems like it's worth a look.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 28, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> That's a really fascinating system. I'm intrigued by how it handles locations, HP, and armor. I'm still not entirely certain how I personally feel about having to make a location roll as a default, but I can see how it could work. If I recall correctly, _Top Secret, S.I. _had a not totally dissimilar system, but I recall it being clunky in play. Or maybe it was just that the fancy picture and wound boxes seemed to make it hard to use hand-drawn character sheets.
> 
> I'll give Mythras a read. It certainly seems like it's worth a look.




That sheet might look a bit overblown when it comes to the locations, another way of expressing the same thing would something like this:

    5/5
0/4   2/7   0/4
1/5   2/6   1/5

As I used to write in my school textbooks... once you know what you're looking at it's easy to read.


----------



## hawkeyefan (Aug 28, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> All of this is to say - this is how the system differs from D&D. Mythras still uses "hp" but not in a big pile that is ever increasing. Most PCs will never increase their hit points in those locations. You _can_ increase your armour, which is usually very sensible to do, but armour is expensive and may be hard to come by depending on the campaign. PCs, NPCs and creatures will always be vulnerable, critical hits can bypass armour, so even the heavily kitted out warrior is vulnerable to a lucky hit.




That's definitely very different from D&D. It uses the term Hit Points, but the rest of the system is so significantly different as to create a very different play experience. 

I should probably modify my earlier statement to be more about games that have a pool of HP for the PC playing like D&D. The system you've described uses the term Hit Points, but in a significantly different way.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

hawkeyefan said:


> That's definitely very different from D&D. It uses the term Hit Points, but the rest of the system is so significantly different as to create a very different play experience.
> 
> I should probably modify my earlier statement to be more about games that have a pool of HP for the PC playing like D&D. The system you've described uses the term Hit Points, but in a significantly different way.



OpenD6 also has a Body Points option for damage that is a pool somewhat like Hit Points, and includes (for those who want them) the optional conditions of "Stunned," (>20% lost) "Wounded,"(>40%) "Severely Wounded,"(>60%) and finally "Incapacitated," (>80%) before it gets to "Mortally Wounded" (cf. "dying" or "bleeding out") (>90%) and finally "Dead."

In that system, characters do suffer from increasingly diminished capacity until they finally fall unconscious from their injuries. In 5e D&D terms, "Mortally Wounded" is like being reduced to "0 hit points."

That's a big pool like D&D's Hit Points, but the effect is progressive.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> For points of game abstraction, I wouldn’t think of beating a blade as an actual parry but more of an attack.  Likewise, simple footwork involved when parrying and preparing a counter attack wouldn’t  strike me as a dodge.



I hear what you're saying, but if someone is making a downward strike at my head and I use a beat parry, the momentum of their strike now carries their blow "off-line," opening them up to an immediate counterattack. This trick works quite well with both one and two-handed swords, and it absolutely IS a parry, as opposed to an attack.

There are also moves where you beat aside your opponent's blade so you can make an attack, and there I'd agree with you, but what I'm talking about is very much a reaction to a strike. Because if you didn't do it, the sword would hit you. 

Maybe there should be the option of sacrificing your attack (or most of it?) for an evasion/dodge, and it should certainly be possible to choose to "dive for cover" against an incoming ranged attack.

I was reading through the OpenD6 rules, since my old _d6 Star Wars_ books are in storage. And I'm reminded that it had some very intriguing options that have long informed my game sensibilities (I played a lot of _Star Wars_ in high school and college). It also had some impact on 3e D&D because Bill Slaviscek was the developer when he worked at West End. I note, for example, that the concept of "difficulty levels" is lifted almost line for line from d6 (oddly, 10 is moderate because it's roughly the statistical mean of both 3D6 and 1D20: 10.5 in both cases).


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 28, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> *Conditions, Wounds, Damage, and Death Spirals . . .*
> That system is the Conditions & Wounds system. It works like this: A character starts fine. If they take a hit, and the damage equals their Toughness (Armor provides a bonus), they become "Shaken," and cause a wound for ever "raise." A Shaken character who takes physical damage again is now wounded (and still shaken).
> 
> The average PC can take up to 3 wounds (each of which inflicts a -1 penalty) and still function more or less "normally," albeit with penalties. On the fourth wound, the PC is incapacitated, and at this point, the player must make a vigor roll to see how serious the wound is. Failing inflicts a permanent injury (there's a table) and means the PC is bleeding out. If the roll is a critical failure, the character dies. . .
> ...



The last Savage Worlds fight that I played involved me rolling a hit with my Fight skill, and then no wounds because the damage was too low.  So I guess it wasn't a hit.  And then when I did wound the boss (Wild Card), it still wasn't a hit, because he'd use a bennie to undo the wound.  Is that how it's supposed to work?

I like the wounds system better than hit points, though.  It means you can get hit/hurt in combat, like with hit points, but the idea of a "wound" is more immersive for a player than watching a (potentially large) number tick downward.  That being said, a "death clock" might be a more immersive improvement to hit points on a character sheet, although it might limit HP counts to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60.

"Death Spiral" should be re-branded, since it implies that death is inevitable (which is true, but maybe not in the fight in question).  Taking wounds is a character's hint that it's time to flee, parlay, forfeit, call reinforcements, or do something other than FIGHT MOAR!  So really, there are branches on the death spiral.  It's more like a Death Tree, if I may.



Bilharzia said:


> Sure, this is from RQ6/Mythras:
> . . . character sheet, you see the PC has piecemeal armour, the strongest is the helmet with "AP 5" (Armour points 5) this will protect against 5 points of damage. Each of the 7 hit locations has it's own armour, AP and hit points, HP. In the box labelled "Shield" the locations list are the locations that are warded if the PC is using the shield as a passive ward, the particular shield they are using will block damage over 4 connected locations. Assuming the PC has a weapon in their other hand they can also actively parry with that weapon, leaving the shield in place covering their arms, which are unarmoured, chest and abdomen which if wounded may knock you out.
> 
> Let's say this PC is attacked successfully and they fail their parry. As stated, the shield is blocking their central body and arms. The attacker, because they beat the PC's parry now will not only hit, but also is granted a special effect. A special effect might be Trip Opponent, Disarm, and so on, let's say the attacker chooses "Choose Location". Using Choose Location means that they can choose the location they hit instead of rolling a d20 (see the 1d20 list on the left side).
> ...



Crunchy.  I might do it if I could figure out a way to put a cool picture on my character sheet in place of Stay Pufft.  It is possible to use hit locations and wounds without all the extra rules, though:

GM: Next round.  The melee rages around you - you're pretty sure you just saw a fellow Celt's head drop from his shoulders.  It's your turn.

PC: Bloody.  Hell.  I pick myself up and swing my sword upward in an arc - maybe I can cut the Norseman in half? (Rolls attack.)

GM: With your longsword?  (Rolls defense) it's an awkward swing, which made it easy for the Norseman to deflect it with his shield.  Roll damage.

PC: (Rolls) 4.  I'll attack again, now that I'm on my feet.  What happened to his shield?

GM: He stooped a bit, blocking the low attack.  He left the shield low, fearing that your longsword might sever his hide boots from his legs.  But his axe is going high while you're low.

PC: (Rolls attack) I'm going after those naked biceps.  I step to the side to get away from the axe and to facilitate my spinning attack into his shield-arm.

GM: (Rolls attack) his axe comes down towards your iron helm as you step away.  Roll damage.  (Rolls) he does 6 damage to you.

PC: (Rolls) 10!  Maximum.  Um, he probably didn't hit my head, since my hit did max damage, so he hit my leg while I was spinning.  I'll take a Flaw, "leg wound," and see if he can make me regret it.

GM: 10 damage means you cut into his shield when he brings it up, and the splinters dig into his arm.  It bleeds badly.  I'll give you a hero point each time you use your new Flaw.

By the way, the idea of the iron helm blocking "most of a hit" from a Celtic longsword is dangerous, at best!


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

DMMike said:


> The last Savage Worlds fight that I played involved me rolling a hit with my Fight skill, and then no wounds because the damage was too low.  So I guess it wasn't a hit.  And then when I did wound the boss (Wild Card), it still wasn't a hit, because he'd use a bennie to undo the wound.  Is that how it's supposed to work?



Full Disclosure: I've read_ Savage Worlds_ extensively, but while we were about to start our game when the pandemic hit, I haven't actually played or run a game. But I've been active on the PEG boards, so...

1) Toughness = 2 + Half Vigor + Armor. So yes, you can absolutely roll low enough for damage that the hit isn't "serious." These things represent nicks, lacerations, bruises and scrapes. Non-serious injuries aren't "wounds" in _Savage Worlds_. Success on a damage check only means that a character is "Shaken," which means the damage has gotten past the character's armor and natural resilience. Only a raise inflicts a wound (or, as of the new edition, given "Shaken" to a character who's already "Shaken". This is how _Savage Worlds_ deals with both protection due to armor and the concept of resilience that's hidden in a Hit Point system.

As an aside, I've also spoken to some people who've studied what information is available about professional Roman Gladiators, and this models them rather well. Professional Gladiators were specifically conditioned so that they could take multiple bleeding injuries (for the spectacle of it) without being in any mortal danger (i.e. "High Toughness"). That sort of damage would often heal in a few days. Only when they took serious injuries (wounds) would they be sidelined for a while.

2) It sounds like the boss, as a Wildcard, used a Benny to "Soak" the damage. And yes, that's absolutely a thing (although it takes a successful Vigor check). But it's one of the few ways that characters can avoid going down to a single lucky shot, so it's a balancing element. The best cinematic example of this I can give is Inigo shrugging off Rugen's thrown dagger to his belly in the climactic fight in _The Princess Bride_. You do have to make a check to pull it off, and Bennies are a limited resource, so he wouldn't be able to _keep_ doing that. Finding the right balance of "How many Bennies" is something that I've been told every table has to discover for themselves - because it comes down to personal taste.

I will say that the system in _Savage Worlds_ is designed to encourage characters to use tests and other things to try to lower their opponent's trait checks, rather than just slugging it out with Fighting checks versus their Parry (i.e. use Tests to make a character Distracted or Vulnerable, try making an All-Out Attack, etc.).



DMMike said:


> I like the wounds system better than hit points, though.  It means you can get hit/hurt in combat, like with hit points, but the idea of a "wound" is more immersive for a player than watching a (potentially large) number tick downward.  That being said, a "death clock" might be a more immersive improvement to hit points on a character sheet, although it might limit HP counts to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, and 60.



I concur completely. And as I said in a previous post, OpenD6 has 2 optional damage systems, one that just tracks wounds and the other of which tracks wounds as a feature of declining "Body Points" (which are mostly just Hit Points by a different name, but with some of the abstraction taken out).




DMMike said:


> "Death Spiral" should be re-branded, since it implies that death is inevitable (which is true, but maybe not in the fight in question).  Taking wounds is a character's hint that it's time to flee, parlay, forfeit, call reinforcements, or do something other than FIGHT MOAR!  So really, there are branches on the death spiral.  It's more like a Death Tree, if I may.



I concur. I hate the term "Death Spiral," because I think it's "A Good Thing"(TM) that the character starts to become less effective, because it encourages _the player(s)_ to sometimes think "This isn't going well - naughty word, maybe I/we should run..."

And, IMO, that's not a bad thing. It would also help a caster PC feel really good about spending the energy on mid-combat healing magic. Because it could make the difference between your team having to quit the field and being able to keep the fight going. And that's cool.



DMMike said:


> Crunchy.  I might do it if I could figure out a way to put a cool picture on my character sheet in place of Stay Pufft.  It is possible to use hit locations and wounds without all the extra rules, though:
> 
> GM: Next round.  The melee rages around you - you're pretty sure you just saw a fellow Celt's head drop from his shoulders.  It's your turn.
> 
> ...



That's a pretty cool read. I'm not sure I like the idea of all that happening in one round, so I hope it represents multiple rounds of a single duel.

And on your last point, I dunno. If helmets never prevented damage, people wouldn't have worn them.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

*Experience, Skills, & Skill Points*
It's hard to talk about combat without talking about skills.

In any game that doesn't have "Classes," using weapons is rather obviously a subset of the skill system. OpenD6, which allows you to actively defend as an action in combat, also calls out Dodge and Parry as separate skills. And of course many systems use (or at least allow) specialty versions of the above: separating Unarmed from Armed Melee combat, or splitting weapon use into Fighting(blades), Fighting(axes), and so forth. Personally, I tend to think of keeping it mostly in broad terms - Fighting (melee), Shooting, and Throwing (which maybe is part of athletics...). _Savage Worlds,_ which doesn't generally require specialties (although it's an option), does have a cool narrative rule that allows a GM to rule that a character is "unfamiliar" with a particular use of a skill - the kid who's used to fighting with a quarterstaff, but picks up a sword in combat, for example. He'd be unfamiliar and take some penalties, but he's not going to be as total rubbish as someone with NO fighting skill.

I am also increasingly inclined to the opinion that skill points should buy the same amount of "ranks" regardless of the skill that you apply it to. Back in 3e, D&D tried to preserve niche protection with the concept of Class Skills, and even _Savage Worlds_ tries to keep skills directly tied to Attributes - raising a skill above an attribute is pricier than buying ranks that are below it.

I notice that D&D, rather interestingly, basically defines the concept of "Class" using five things:
1) General competence with skills (Skill Proficiencies).
2) Training with weapons and armor (Weapon & Armor Proficiencies).
3) General ability to avoid and resist getting hurt (Hit points).
4) Specialty talents (Class features or bonus feats).
5) Access to magic (Spells).

I note that most of those could be thought of as either skills or particular edges, and several of them are directly connected to combat prowess. Which I guess shouldn't surprise me, but it further supports the notion that one could totally go "classless" with a decent skill system (as for example, GURPS does). But I digress.


----------



## JohnSnow (Aug 28, 2020)

As an aside, the final result of this musing may take up to 3 forms:

A combat rules supplement for 5e.
A combat rules supplement for_ Savage Worlds_.
A completely new game.

In the end, I just hope people find this discussion useful and productive, even if everyone is not 100% happy with the "Final Product(s)."

I'm almost done with my preliminary musings, and I thank you all for bearing with me and giving me feedback as the system evolves.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 29, 2020)

DMMike said:


> Crunchy.  I might do it if I could figure out a way to put a cool picture on my character sheet in place of Stay Pufft.




Haha! yeah it's not the most inspiring of images. After finding the character sheet from Top Secret that John mentioned I realised I've gone down that direction myself, this is the character sheet of my mega-boss from a climatic encounter, (a 9-headed hydra Mushushu, each head with a different attack) who eventually met its end, I split the armour and HP into two rows of bubbles, it's doesn't have to be the stay-puft man, although it can be someone's nightmare: (digital scribbles are the tracking marks from me as I ran the game online)






Perhaps a better example (not mine) a full character sheet from the RuneQuest 3 days:









DMMike said:


> It is possible to use hit locations and wounds without all the extra rules, though:
> 
> GM: Next round.  The melee rages around you - you're pretty sure you just saw a fellow Celt's head drop from his shoulders.  It's your turn.
> PC: Bloody.  Hell.  I pick myself up and swing my sword upward in an arc - maybe I can cut the Norseman in half? (Rolls attack.)
> ...




Narrative/Story telling is definitely a different approach which appeals to certain players. It does illustrate something I noted earlier though which is "narrative fatigue". You have to keep inventing and telling a story about what is happening, because the mechanics behind the story is the hit-point-attrition system. The issue with this way of running and participating in the game is that you have to keep this up, keep inventing and telling this story because there's not much happening other than the HP attrition. Of course this is great for players and GMs who prefer to be largely free of the mechanics and improvise the story of the action. The problem with this is that not everyone _does_ prefer this, and in fact I'm not sure most people do, my experience is most players are _not_ that inventive and are not that good at this kind of improvised story telling(!), if it's not supported by the mechanics.

This is what I mean about the story emerging from the system. The players are making decisions and are embellishing to some degree but they aren't creating a story - they are responding to the events and actions around them, through their own decisions and actions, and the consequences of some randomness. If there is a story it is told after the encounter. I would find the way of playing you are describing unsatisfying largely because the mechanics aren't interesting and the level of story-invention is irritating (to me), equally I can see many people are turned off by the detail of a system like Mythras.



DMMike said:


> By the way, the idea of the iron helm blocking "most of a hit" from a Celtic longsword is dangerous, at best!



I'm intrigued by this but I don't know what you mean!? Can you say what you mean here?


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 29, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> *Experience, Skills, & Skill Points*
> It's hard to talk about combat without talking about skills.
> 
> In any game that doesn't have "Classes," using weapons is rather obviously a subset of the skill system. OpenD6, which allows you to actively defend as an action in combat, also calls out Dodge and Parry as separate skills. And of course many systems use (or at least allow) specialty versions of the above: separating Unarmed from Armed Melee combat, or splitting weapon use into Fighting(blades), Fighting(axes), and so forth. Personally, I tend to think of keeping it mostly in broad terms - Fighting (melee), Shooting, and Throwing (which maybe is part of athletics...). _Savage Worlds,_ which doesn't generally require specialties (although it's an option), does have a cool narrative rule that allows a GM to rule that a character is "unfamiliar" with a particular use of a skill - the kid who's used to fighting with a quarterstaff, but picks up a sword in combat, for example. He'd be unfamiliar and take some penalties, but he's not going to be as total rubbish as someone with NO fighting skill.




RQ/Mythras essentially revolves around a unified percentile skills system. Character generation is split between Culture, Career, and player choice. A character's initial combat skills are going to come out of this process. The most important combat skill is "Combat Style" which varies across different cultures and careers.

A cultural style can be picked up at the "Culture" stage in character creation and this would be one that a teenager growing up might be expected to learn, so it could look something like this:
*Citizen Militia* - _Weapons:_ Longspear, Scutum Shield - _Traits:_ Shield Wall
A PC could start with this and stick with it, coming out of chargen with a skill in the 60s to 70s percent using these two weapons and knowing the Shield Wall trait, which increases the number of locations protected, and makes you resistant to knockback if used with others in a shield wall.

The same PC could decide at the Career stage to learn another combat style, if their career allowed it, so a soldier career might have available:
*Citizen Cavalry* - _Weapons:_ Javelin, Short Spear, Target Shield -_ Traits: _Skirmisher, Mounted Combat
Since this is a career combat style, there are more weapons included and more traits learned. Skirmisher allows you to make attacks on the run and Mounted Combat allows you to ignore the cap on combat skills normally imposed by your Ride skill.

All skills start out using two of their characteristics added together, Combat Style skills use a STR+DEX calculation, so an absolute average would be a 22% skill at base, higher characteristics will give you a higher base, so the maximum possible human combat style base is 36%. In character creation you can add a maximum of +15 at each stage, since there are 3 stages it's possible to come out with a maximum of +45% experience added to your base. A completely average human PC can come out with a skill of 67% in their cultural combat style.

The Combat Style skill covers primarily attacks and parries but it can be also used in other tests, especially when resisting Special Effect tests (such as disarm). There is no "dodge" skill as it's covered in part by the parry action itself and by the Evade skill which is more desperate than players might be used to since it leaves you prone.

During play it's possible to increase your combat style skill through experience and training a combat style, you can add a weapon to a combat style if it makes sense, or learn or create a new combat style with a number of different weapons given time and experience, it is also possible to learn new traits to use as part of your style. Picking up and using weapons you don't know is possible, and your skill with them depends on how similar that new weapon is to one of the weapons you already know how to use. You will take a penalty based on how close or far it is.

There are a number of skills you use during combat - Endurance is tested to hold off fatigue if the fight goes on too long, it can also be tested in the event of a Serious or Major Wound, Brawn can be checked if an opponent tries to trip you, your Evade skill is tested if you are trying to disengage, Willpower is tested if a Compel Surrender demand is attempted and so on.


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 29, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> Narrative/Story telling is definitely a different approach which appeals to certain players. It does illustrate something I noted earlier though which is "narrative fatigue". You have to keep inventing and telling a story about what is happening, because the mechanics behind the story is the hit-point-attrition system. . .
> 
> This is what I mean about the story emerging from the system. The players are making decisions and are embellishing to some degree but they aren't creating a story - they are responding to the events and actions around them, through their own decisions and actions, and the consequences of some randomness. . .
> 
> I'm intrigued by this but I don't know what you mean!? Can you say what you mean here?



Narrative fatigue makes sense, but I think it can have a meta-quality to it: you might start to actually feel what your character feels.  Something that gets overlooked in a lot of games: fighting takes energy.  Anyway, if you start getting narrative fatigue, you could fall back on just "I hit, I miss," or start referencing your character picture and the ones-digit on your attack/defense die (numbering the locations clockwise).

It makes sense for the system to say "this is where you hit," if the system is already saying whether you hit or miss.  But I feel a player-agency issue there; just like I don't want my GM telling me what my character does, I'm not sure I want the rules doing it, either.

Oh, with the sword: I'm guessing a Celtic longsword is a big hunk of metal, with fair amounts of sharpening in places.  That's not something I'd want anywhere near my head, whether or not it's in motion, and whether or not I'm wearing a helm.  Even if the above character had enough head-health to survive the hit, it would seem like the definition of getting your bell rung.



JohnSnow said:


> And, IMO, that's not a bad thing. It would also help a caster PC feel really good about spending the energy on mid-combat healing magic. Because it could make the difference between your team having to quit the field and being able to keep the fight going. And that's cool.



This.  Being afraid of the Death Tree is like saying, "I don't trust my teammates" or "I don't have teammates."  The former is bad.  The latter can be unavoidable, but that's why the Tree has branches.  Anyway, being the Party Cleric takes on new meaning when you're playing a game with Death Trees.


----------



## practicalm (Aug 29, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> 1) Combat should be FUN to play.
> 2) Characters should have meaningful choices to make in combat.
> 3) Real combat is _incredibly_ complex, and no simulative system will ever fully capture that. Don't even try. BUT the system should make real world sense.
> 4) The combat resolution mechanic should be tied directly to the game's skill resolution mechanic. Progression can either be tied to class and level or to any number of weapons skills, but it should ultimately feel pretty similar to any other skill.
> ...




For GURPS it covers most of the points above.

1.  Probably not.  High level low tech melee combat can be a stalemate of attack versus active defense.  But you only get 1 active defense roll (except when all out defense).  Feign attacks to lower the enemies skill is common when the skills are above 15.

2.  One second turns and the players need to decide step and attack, stay put and all out attack, or move and attack at a penalty.
Ranged attacks you have to decide if you are going to take a second to aim or make snapshots

3.  GURPS tries to fact check everything. There are a lot of modifiers but it's maybe 2-3 charts that are not that complex.  Speed, Size, cover

4. Your attacks are based on your stats and your skill and situational modifiers.  Use as many of those modifiers as you want just be consistent.

5.  Because a lucky shot to the vitals can ruins your day, there is a lot of luck but combat usually does go to the skilled opponent

6.  GURPS has crossbows that will ruin your day.  Once you've taken your HT in damage you can scramble along but it's a lot harder.  A dagger to the head will also make your day unhappy.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Aug 31, 2020)

I always house-rule combat; 5e especially.

What me and my gamers look for in a melee setting:

1) Hit locations. We use a dice that notes the affected area.

2) Armor that reflects reality. Light armor is harder to hit, easier to hurt, and heavy is vice versa. Armor absorbs damage; for example, ring mail on the torso absorbs d10 damage per strike. The damage armor absorbs also damages the armor, reflecting an attacker hammering a damaged place.

3) Shields work like armor, but they go quicker, and an attacker can specifically target the shield. Shields also can only work on attacks coming from the front or left side. Overhead is possible depending on the type of shield.

4) Damage is more than just whittling away at hit points. If a hit of more than X amounts of hit points (based on level) there is a chance you take a bleeding wound, broken bone, punctured eye, etc., based upon location. Each of these wounds bring on a unique penalty, and none are minor. 

5) Weapons interact with armor in different ways. War hammer damage, for example, only faces half armor soak.

6) There is no coming back from death, and when you hit zero you are dying, and only medical treatment in a timely fashion will save you (so don't go too far from the others).


----------



## GMMichael (Aug 31, 2020)

Since "better" is subjective:



Jd Smith1 said:


> I always house-rule combat...
> 
> 1) Hit locations. We use a dice that notes the affected area.
> 
> ...



What about movement?  Can a giant's club toss someone across the room, or is it still a Shove Action worth five feet of movement?

Can heavy armor reduce a "hit" to zero damage?

What's the drawback to using a warhammer?  So far, it sounds like the best weapon, ever.

Light armor providing mobility is Better.  Wounds with consequences are Better.  Shield damage is Better...as long as weapons get damaged too.



practicalm said:


> For GURPS...
> 
> 1.  Probably not.  High level low tech melee combat can be a stalemate of attack versus active defense.  But you only get 1 active defense roll (except when all out defense).  Feign attacks to lower the enemies skill is common when the skills are above 15.
> 
> ...



Limited active defense is Better.  It drives me nuts when someone's full defensive capability applies to all, and unlimited, attacks.

Luck & skill is Better.  Does the scale tip to Luck when the battlefield is more chaotic?

I'm not a fan of the one-second turn and fact-checking; it sounds like very slow-mo combat.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Aug 31, 2020)

DMMike said:


> What about movement?  Can a giant's club toss someone across the room, or is it still a Shove Action worth five feet of movement?




I don't use giants in the manner of the MM. The biggest humanoids I've used are just over 9'. Nobody uses clubs, too much damage dispersal. you want a narrow edge to focus kinetic energy.



DMMike said:


> Can heavy armor reduce a "hit" to zero damage?




Sure, if the damage roll is poor and the armor roll is good.



DMMike said:


> What's the drawback to using a warhammer?  So far, it sounds like the best weapon, ever.




A strictly swinging weapon, and its damage isn't as high as some other weapons. But if you're facing metallic artificial armor, it is the best. Kinetic energy is not dispersed by a barrier. Moreover, it can shatter and drive ringmail rings into a wound. Where it runs weak is against natural hides, where sub-dermal fat can radiate the impact. 



DMMike said:


> Light armor providing mobility is Better.  Wounds with consequences are Better.  Shield damage is Better...as long as weapons get damaged too.




Other than weapons with wooden shafts, I don't use weapon damage. Shields were essentially built of materials equal to one-inch plywood, and you're going to go through that pretty fast. Plate armor is about the only armor that could have a chance of seriously damaging a well-forged blade, and plate is extremely rare.


----------



## SavageCole (Aug 31, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> That's a really fascinating system. I'm intrigued by how it handles locations, HP, and armor. I'm still not entirely certain how I personally feel about having to make a location roll as a default, but I can see how it could work.




A couple things about Mythras hit locations.

1) Having hit locations is a detail that people enjoy in play.  Not just for the fun description that comes with it and inherent mechanical effects that come from blows to different body parts, but also because piecemeal armor can be a lot of fun. 

2) I don't do a separate/additional d20 hit location roll in Mythras.  Instead I took a page out of WFRP4's book and simply transpose the hit d%.  So if I hit with a 30 it lands at 03, or a 19 lands at 91.  Easy peasy.

3) A big part of Mythras combat is the Effects that are created by outrolling your opponent.  It adds a lot to the game, and the crunch and choice paralysis can be removed or gradually amped up.  The reason I raise this is that one of the choices you have when you out-roll a foe is to choose hit location.  In other words, while the defender is doing his best to guard your attack is so well timed and well placed that you are able to hit him where you want rather than having to settle for what he left available to you.

The more I play Mythras, the more I love it.


----------



## Bilharzia (Aug 31, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> 2) I don't do a separate/additional d20 hit location roll in Mythras.  Instead I took a page out of WFRP4's book and simply transpose the hit d%.  So if I hit with a 30 it lands at 03, or a 19 lands at 91.  Easy peasy.




A few questions about this - first, why?  why not use the d20... I'm not sure what's gained here, and doesn't do this then fix to certain locations depending on whether you roll low or high? How does this translate to non-human locations? or are you dividing by 5? 

I recognise the other parts of what you're saying.


----------



## SavageCole (Sep 1, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> A few questions about this - first, why?



Four-part answer:  (1) Used to it from playing lots of WFRP4; (2) Players liked it in WFRP; (3) One less roll, so why not; (4) d20 is for that other game. 



Bilharzia said:


> I'm not sure what's gained here, and doesn't do this then fix to certain locations depending on whether you roll low or high?



. What’s gained - see above.  Hitting a right leg is 01 - 15, so the following hits would  land blows there:  01,10, 11, 20, 21, 30. 31, 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 70, 80, 90 — assuming you’re worried about fewer leg shots because 70, 80, 90 hitting less frequently?  In play the hit location distribution doesn’t feel any different at all.   And I’m not sure the d20 Mythras hit location sheet is all that sacred.  



Bilharzia said:


> How does this translate to non-human locations? or are you dividing by 5?



. Yes, simply multiplying the d20 Mythras defaults by 5 to get to %.



Bilharzia said:


>



 Hopefully that dispelled any confusion.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 1, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> Four-part answer:  (1) Used to it from playing lots of WFRP4; (2) Players liked it in WFRP; (3) One less roll, so why not; (4) d20 is for that other game.
> 
> . What’s gained - see above.  Hitting a right leg is 01 - 15, so the following hits would  land blows there:  01,10, 11, 20, 21, 30. 31, 40, 41, 50, 51, 60, 70, 80, 90 — assuming you’re worried about fewer leg shots because 70, 80, 90 hitting less frequently?  In play the hit location distribution doesn’t feel any different at all.   And I’m not sure the d20 Mythras hit location sheet is all that sacred.
> 
> ...




Ah ok, I can see what you're doing with humans, but it doesn't work so well outside of humanoid locations, and it starts to meta-game the mechanics. From what I've seen WFRP fudges hit locations a bit beyond the humanoid body type and multiplying the d20 locations is not going to work because you will still get a small number of values to compare to a 01-00 roll. There are about 18 body types at last count! There's nothing sacred about the d20 it's just that the creature locations are already there. I suppose you could re-calculate the d20 tables and create new d100 tables for all those body types.

There are also easy wins with the d20 in that mounted warriors use 10+1d10 for rolling hit locations vs bipedal creatures since the higher values represent higher parts of the body, equally you can use just a d10 for giants, this works for elevated and depressed locations, although this trick itself is prone to humanoid-ish limitations.

The biggest issue for me is that there's a problem that came up with the old style of rolling from RQ2&3 which is the "roll all your dice at once" this means grabbing the percentile dice, the d20 hit location and the damage dice and making a single roll. This works great when you don't have special effects, which you didn't have in older RuneQuest but which you do have in RQ6/Mythras, it effectively breaks the way Special Effects work because it starts to meta-game choosing special effects (since you know hit location and damage immediately).

If you're using your hit location method, you now know the location struck as soon as you have made the skill roll. This means that you know if you need to use Choose Location or not. So if a defender is warding, using RAW the attacker has to use choose location to get through the ward, but if they know they have not hit the warded location they can now choose a more potent Special Effect if they know they are not going to hit the shield. When we tried the all-dice-at-once it felt like this came up too much, and it broke the combat resolution, it's worse when you include the damage dice.

If you don't care about the meta-gaming, having to convert all the non-human locations to d100 doesn't seem like a good bet to me because of the work involved for not much gain and some extra problems! These days most of my games are also online through roll20, which has the hit location charts built into the Mythras character sheet.


----------



## SavageCole (Sep 2, 2020)

We don’t play using Roll20 VTT,  but if I were dependent on the VTT for hit locations I’d just use the default too.   

Multiplying a  d20 hit location table by 5  has been so effortless that reading your post is the first I’ve even considered it.  I haven’t had a situation where a mounted attacker has hit a bipedal target, but could simply add 50 (instead of 10) to the transposed number and get a location.  Seriously, it’s not really that complicated and I’d consider it virtually effortless. 

Seriously, I’ve spent more time reading your concerned posts and responding than I’ve taken in doing conversions over our 20+ sessions combined.      All planets are still in their orbit and everyone is having fun at essentially the same mathematical probabilities.  Game on.


----------



## practicalm (Sep 2, 2020)

DMMike said:


> Since "better" is subjective:
> 
> Limited active defense is Better.  It drives me nuts when someone's full defensive capability applies to all, and unlimited, attacks.
> 
> ...




You can parry or block once, but dodge is always allowed.  Dodge skill usually isn't as high as your parry or block. All  out attack means no active defense.

Since you are rolling 3d6 the rolls are bell curves.  Critical hits allow for no active defense.  There is luck just not a bunch.

The one second turn generally means you move or attack, you aim your crossbow or you fire.  They can go quick.
Once you have the modifiers down, it's roll to attack, roll 1 defense, roll hit location and damage, compare to armor, find out what penetrates DR and then apply modifiers for hit location. 
Want to throw daggers at people's eyes, get a high skill.  Slit someone's throat, the damage that penetrates reflects what would happen.
It's fact checked in advance so the results seem consistent with reality.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

SavageCole said:


> Seriously, I’ve spent more time reading your concerned posts and responding than I’ve taken in doing conversions over our 20+ sessions combined.      All planets are still in their orbit and everyone is having fun at essentially the same mathematical probabilities.  Game on.




Great, I'm not 'concerned', I was curious how you were making it work because it doesn't make sense (eg multiplying the hit location by 5 doesn't work if you then roll a d100 you won't know where you hit since there's 100 results... This is a pretty obvious problem!). You're under no obligation to respond! I can't make sense of what you're describing but if whatever you're doing works then great, I was just interested.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Sep 2, 2020)

I've never allowed dodge. Parry and block, yes, but I have not seen many examples of someone dodging a determined & trained attack in RL to consider it viable.


----------



## prabe (Sep 2, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I've never allowed dodge. Parry and block, yes, but I have not seen many examples of someone dodging a determined & trained attack in RL to consider it viable.




I suspect people are thinking of something like this:


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 2, 2020)

practicalm said:


> Slit someone's throat, the damage that penetrates reflects what would happen.



This is the hard part - with hit points and called shots.  I don't know how GURPS treats it, but I know how D&D and Savage Worlds treat it.  Real people don't take Damage, they take Wounds*.  And not all wounds were created equal.  It seems to me that any damage to the throat (greater than the minimum damage) is a life-ending event**.  Vein-dead.  Artery-dead.  Spine-mostly dead.  Trachea-dead, unless a surgeon does it.  Anyway, Savage Worlds addresses the above-mentioned 4e bag of hit points problem by reducing everyone's health to three Wounds.  But does that mean the neck can take three wounds before death?  In D&D, neck damage gets lumped in with damage from everywhere else.  Mythras - lumps neck damage in with head damage?

Creating a "better" combat system might involve addressing the issue of called shots/wound location, so that a player doesn't say something like, "I'll be okay, my neck only took 8 damage."

I hold a double-standard when it comes to called shots in combat.  PCs can make them, and can choose to use extra actions on them to simulate the focusing on one attack.  And like in GURPS, "get a high skill."  NPCs generally don't make them, but if they do, PCs still get to narrate the damage they take.  So the slit-throat problem is solved by 1) PCs not being at risk unless they want to be, and 2) a higher cost, and higher reward, for such an attack on an NPC.

* They also lose stamina, but that's for a different post.
** Given the three-or-so minutes that a person can survive without oxygen.


----------



## ART! (Sep 2, 2020)

FWIW, I like the degree of success of your to-hit roll to affect how much damage you do, even to the point of their being no damage roll. I don't know why more systems don't do this.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

DMMike said:


> Mythras - lumps neck damage in with head damage?




Correct, however such a strike could be combined with a "Bleed" special effect, which if not resisted will cause increasing round-per-round fatigue, then  unconsciousness and ultimately death if not treated immediately. Such a strike might also be represented by a critical hit, which could bypass armour, or maximise the damage of the weapon, and so on.

Mythras special effects, such as choosing location, become available when an opponent fails to defend in some way - either they have tried to parry and failed, or they did not defend at all, then their attacker may use a special. So an effect like 'choose location' does not impose a penalty to hit like you get with a called shot, it's an opportunity that opens up if you get past someone's defence. As you can see from the Stay-Puft man example earlier, Mythras characters are vulnerable if unarmoured.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> I suspect people are thinking of something like this:
> "Muhammad Ali Dodges 21 Punches In 10 Seconds"




Aha, as great as Ali is, Dokes is _only_ going for his head, he's not trying to, for example, kick him!
From what I've read, the dodging trope has come out of RPGs, and not out of any practical martial art, perhaps the idea is influenced by Errol Flynn (who actually parried quite a bit) and swashbuckling movies. You can include a certain amount of footwork and leaning into a parry action, but the idea that you can completely use "dodging" in a close combat melee is complete fantasy, which might be ok for your game, just depends on what your sense of verisimilitude is.


----------



## prabe (Sep 2, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> Aha, as great as Ali is, Dokes is _only_ going for his head, he's not trying to, for example, kick him!
> From what I've read, the dodging trope has come out of RPGs, and not out of any practical martial art, perhaps the idea is influenced by Errol Flynn (who actually parried quite a bit) and swashbuckling movies. You can include a certain amount of footwork and leaning into a parry action, but the idea that you can completely use "dodging" in a close combat melee is complete fantasy, which might be ok for your game, just depends on what your sense of verisimilitude is.




I wasn't arguing, really, just pointing out what people were probably imagining. I don't really have much of an opinion on the topic--not enough to rewrite mechanics over it, anyway. If a game divides making contact from doing injury, though, you could plausibly consider rolling with a blow to be mechanically similar to dodging.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> I wasn't arguing, really, just pointing out what people were probably imagining. I don't really have much of an opinion on the topic--not enough to rewrite mechanics over it, anyway. If a game divides making contact from doing injury, though, you could plausibly consider rolling with a blow to be mechanically similar to dodging.




The RQ6/Mythras rules that you go prone if you dodge (called Evade) generated enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth (going prone has bad consequences), although you can achieve some measure of swashbuckler-style dodging with professional skills or a combat trait, parrying is still superior though. Straight dodging is allowed in BRP as an alternative to a parry but it now seems unrealistic to me.


----------



## practicalm (Sep 2, 2020)

DMMike said:


> This is the hard part - with hit points and called shots.  I don't know how GURPS treats it, but I know how D&D and Savage Worlds treat it.  Real people don't take Damage, they take Wounds*.  And not all wounds were created equal.  It seems to me that any damage to the throat (greater than the minimum damage) is a life-ending event**.  Vein-dead.  Artery-dead.  Spine-mostly dead.  Trachea-dead, unless a surgeon does it.  Anyway, Savage Worlds addresses the above-mentioned 4e bag of hit points problem by reducing everyone's health to three Wounds.  But does that mean the neck can take three wounds before death?  In D&D, neck damage gets lumped in with damage from everywhere else.  Mythras - lumps neck damage in with head damage?




GURPS handles each hit location with modifiers around damage that penetrates.  It can take some time to die but once you are down to 1/3 HT you have to make rolls to keep going.  
There are locations for Face, skull, vitals, groin, torso, arms and legs, and hands and feet.
Example.
Neck (-5): The neck and throat. Increase the wounding multiplier of crushing and corrosion attacks to
x1.5, and that of cutting damage to x2. The GM may rule that anyone killed by a cutting blow to the neck is decapitated!


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Sep 2, 2020)

prabe said:


> I suspect people are thinking of something like this:




Sure, if you're fighting in shorts, limited to punching with padded gloves, with a referee in  attendance, then I can see that. It's also influenced by movie fights, which are choreographed by dance experts, and designed to only score a hit when the script calls for it. 

But wearing several layers of clothes, the outermost being metal or leather, carrying about sixty pounds of gear, and facing a foe without restrictions or rules who is trying to hit you with something three feet long, then not so much.


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 2, 2020)

More likely, people are thinking of a dodge being something like this:


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 2, 2020)

As far as mobility in full armor...


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> More likely, people are thinking of a dodge being something like this:
> 
> View attachment 125449




That's an attack Vs a failed parry. 
(B has a higher initiative, rolls first with a successful attack, A fails their parry)


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 2, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> That's an attack Vs a failed parry.
> (B has a higher initiative, rolls first with a successful attack, A fails their parry)



No, it's not. 

If you read the text that accompanies the image, it's an evasion combined with a counter-thrust. Both cuts and thrusts _can_ be evaded, and doing so is a fundamental part of medieval and renaissance swordplay. You have to time it right, but you can do it. General evasions are something you tend to do as _part_ of fighting, but you can also choose to sacrifice your attacks and jump back out of range (Volta or Evade).

For the record, I'm not just speaking theoretically, as I have been actively studying this stuff for almost 20 years.


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 2, 2020)

Someone posted the tail end of a fight I did with my buddy 10 years ago on YouTube. That's me in the burgundy jerkin. Please note that this is not choreographed, we're just sparring, ergo not going "flat out." We've had better bouts, but nobody uploaded them to YouTube.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> No, it's not.
> 
> If you read the text that accompanies the image, it's an evasion combined with a counter-thrust. Both cuts and thrusts _can_ be evaded, and doing so is a fundamental part of medieval and renaissance swordplay. You have to time it right, but you can do it. General evasions are something you tend to do as _part_ of fighting, but you can also choose to sacrifice your attacks and jump back out of range (Volta or Evade).
> 
> For the record, I'm not just speaking theoretically, as I have been actively studying this stuff for almost 20 years.




In which case it's a parry(B), attack(B), failed parry(A).  
I know what you're saying but the maneuver is impossible without the weapon, so it's subsumed within the parry action.

Martial experience is not that unusual in Mythras land tbh. Pete Nash, one of the system authors has been a practitioner for getting on 30 years now, and there are a fair few others. Dan True, who has written a couple of the combat modules, is a teacher and demonstrator. Come...to the dark and crunchier side...


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 2, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> In which case it's a parry(B), attack(B), failed parry(A).
> I know what you're saying but the maneuver is impossible without the weapon, so it's subsumed within the parry action.



If I correctly read what you're saying, you're counting "evasion" as part of parrying. Which I grant it often (typically?) is, but the official definition of "Parry" is "deflecting an incoming attack." And avoiding isn't deflecting. You can certainly evade a cut or thrust without having a weapon in hand. We do this at my school as a drill, just to teach people the importance of not just standing still. We take their weapons away and make them concentrate 100% on evasions.

I grant that once you have a weapon in hand, it's very hard to separate the two, and thus they should probably be subsumed in a single "defend" action, but parrying and evading are technically different things. 

Moreover, we need to discuss the difference between "single time" actions and "double time" actions. In single time, you parry and counter attack in the same tempo, to whit...

SINGLE TIME: 
First tempo: A closes and Attacks. B then _simultaneously_ Evades and Counterattacks.

(Or alternatively, if B has two weapons (or a single one capable of doing both simultaneously), Parries and Counterattacks. Since A is already using his tempo to attack, he's screwed on a defense.)

Alternatively:
First Tempo: A Attacks. B Parries (or Evades, or Parries and Evades).
Second Tempo: B counterattacks. A Parries or Evades (or doesn't).
Repeat.

Many combat systems advocate for learning how to parry/evade and strike in single time, but it's something of an advanced move - probably best  modeled as the ability to "counter-attack" on a failed attack (bringing this back to RPGs, _Savage Worlds_ actually has an Edge called "Counterattack" that allows a character to do this).


----------



## Li Shenron (Sep 2, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> 6) Damage matters, as weapons are DANGEROUS. In the real world, a single blow from a dagger can kill you. Attrition based health mechanics (_cough*Hit Points*cough_) are useful from a gaming sense, but they're problematic for believability. And they can tend to lead to sloggy combats.




I agree on mostly every other point but not on this one. 

It's true that with not enough realism, there is no believability. But with too much realism, there is no game. Because someone who fights more that a few battles with swords and axes dies, or ends up maimed for life.

The required level of believability is already reached in many ways in a typical RPG game, thanks to many rules, for example ability scores (whatever the set) to represent different attitudes/abilities at the base of solving tasks. Something as apparently innocuous or subtle as a martial maneuver being usable exactly per-encounter instead of being tied to resting between encounters has a much stronger effect in destroying believability than HP.

People do not play RPG games because they want to replicate the experience of a RL character in a real-world war, they play to replicate the story of characters from movies, comics, books or computer games, characters who potentially and very unrealistically face hundreds of battles before dying, and sometimes also after. 

Attrition based combat gives the players _more time_.


time to change your tactic if it doesn't work
time to try more weapons/tricks/abilities, just for fun
time to make a mistake (a fundamental right when playing a non-competitive game!)
time to run out of your best weapons and having to resort to secondary means
time to realise you shouldn't have started this battle in the first place, and you can still run for your life

With a "realistic" weapon hit system, one hit means you're very likely out (unless it's boxing with gloves). How are you even going to figure out you are winning or losing? 

If anything, 5e might have even a bit too fast attrition for having really enough time for all those things, but 4e has proven that if attrition is made too slow AND the battle is actually going well then players tend to just drag on until winning on points.


----------



## LightStriker (Sep 2, 2020)

Combat can be thematic and exaggerated as well.
In my games, from homebrew to my own custom system, it captures the style and feel of the world, the characters, and the story.

In my current game, "Light Strikers" combat is tactical, but is based around super powers. So it feels like a turn based JRPG, as well as a MOBA, and provides plenty of room for "narrative" combat as well as creative actions on the fly.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> If I correctly read what you're saying, you're counting "evasion" as part of parrying. Which I grant it often (typically?) is, but the official definition of "Parry" is "deflecting an incoming attack." And avoiding isn't deflecting. You can certainly evade a cut or thrust without having a weapon in hand. We do this at my school as a drill, just to teach people the importance of not just standing still. We take their weapons away and make them concentrate 100% on evasions.
> 
> I grant that once you have a weapon in hand, it's very hard to separate the two, and thus they should probably be subsumed in a single "defend" action, but parrying and evading are technically different things.




I'm very doubtful of unarmed people's ability to "dodge" sword blows in close combat since the armed fighter does not have to defend themselves against the unarmed opponent at that reach ... ok if you say they are doing it ... 

I'm not talking about a tempo-level of emulation, I'm pretty sure there are RPG systems that do that, but from what I've seen they are pure combat engines and not much else. There's a fairly large amount of abstraction in RQ6/Mythras (for example it doesn't model armour properties like GURPS does).

My basic point is there's a certain amount of movement, leaning and footwork subsumed in a Parry action, and this is the RQ6/Mythras definition. Of course all sorts of martial arts are going to use different terms, "Attacks" and "Parries" are made with all kinds of weapons, from a range of time periods across about 10,00 years of history, so talking about particular traditions periods is too finely grained when it comes to the principles. These attack and parry notions also include natural weapons of creatures without weapons as such.

Making an "Evade" during a combat is a more radical manoeuvre which _can_ be used to defend as a parry does, but it will leave you prone (unless you have a special ability or an additional skill), and it's harder to use since it's an opposed roll Vs the attack, whereas a parry action just needs to succeed, it doesn't need to beat the attack roll, but an Evade does also need to beat the attack as well as succeed. This makes Evading an inferior defence most of the time.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 2, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> It's true that with not enough realism, there is no believability. But with too much realism, there is no game. Because someone who fights more that a few battles with swords and axes dies, or ends up maimed for life.
> 
> People do not play RPG games because they want to replicate the experience of a RL character in a real-world war, they play to replicate the story of characters from movies, comics, books or computer games, characters who potentially and very unrealistically face hundreds of battles before dying, and sometimes also after.



It's true that most people are playing to emulate fictional heroes than historical ones, and sometimes fictional-historical characters and heroes, most RPGs are going to ignore or gloss over wound infections and that kind of thing, but different people have different interests and different ideas about what is realistic and interesting. Your observation about facing "hundreds of battles" might be true for some games but not necessarily all. You can have quite a realistic system where actually getting into a real fight is rare because the risks are large, which might well encourage the players to find other ways of avoiding or resolving a conflict than a straight fight. This means that events are progressing, things are happening, but not necessarily through piles of bodies and swimming pools of blood.



Li Shenron said:


> time to change your tactic if it doesn't work
> time to try more weapons/tricks/abilities, just for fun
> time to make a mistake (a fundamental right when playing a non-competitive game!)
> time to run out of your best weapons and having to resort to secondary means
> ...




That's a nice list but I don't think incompatible with a more realistic (whatever we mean by that) combat system. All of these things can be learned and experimented with in skirmish encounters which may not be decisive, a combat is not always resolved with one side being completely destroyed, breaking off and retreating to fight again is a more common outcome.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Sep 3, 2020)

Li Shenron said:


> I agree on mostly every other point but not on this one.
> 
> It's true that with not enough realism, there is no believability. But with too much realism, there is no game. Because someone who fights more that a few battles with swords and axes dies, or ends up maimed for life.




This is wrong. From 1981 until my return to 5e in 2019, i gamed using nothing but systems where one solid hit either ended a bout, or brought it close to an end.  

There is a lot of gaming while using such systems. However, it is different (and better) from hit point attrition.


----------



## Wightbred (Sep 5, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> This is wrong. From 1981 until my return to 5e in 2019, i gamed using nothing but systems where one solid hit either ended a bout, or brought it close to an end.
> 
> There is a lot of gaming while using such systems. However, it is different (and better) from hit point attrition.




I’m interested in the realism end of the spectrum for some of my games, so keen to hear more about these systems. Care to share?


----------



## GSHamster (Sep 6, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> It's true that most people are playing to emulate fictional heroes than historical ones, and sometimes fictional-historical characters and heroes, most RPGs are going to ignore or gloss over wound infections and that kind of thing, but different people have different interests and different ideas about what is realistic and interesting. Your observation about facing "hundreds of battles" might be true for some games but not necessarily all. You can have quite a realistic system where actually getting into a real fight is rare because the risks are large, which might well encourage the players to find other ways of avoiding or resolving a conflict than a straight fight. This means that events are progressing, things are happening, but not necessarily through piles of bodies and swimming pools of blood.




But would it be worthwhile for such a game to invest a great deal of time/effort/resources into combat rules? Like if combat in your game is so deadly that players never engage in it, then spending 50+ pages on elegant and comprehensive combat rules seems like a waste to me.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 6, 2020)

GSHamster said:


> But would it be worthwhile for such a game to invest a great deal of time/effort/resources into combat rules? Like if combat in your game is so deadly that players never engage in it, then spending 50+ pages on elegant and comprehensive combat rules seems like a waste to me.




Sure, there's a balance here, I did say "rare" rather than "never", and really the emphasis is as much on "interesting" as "realistic", in fact whatever combat system it is, it should give the players interesting choices to make while having the feel of some degree of realism, and most importantly, risk. The distinction I am making is between a typical d&d style dungeon bash with a series of combat encounters, and a different system where there might be a single combat encounter in a typical game session, if that. 

Even though the system I'm most familiar with, Mythras, is fairly realistic and _can_ be deadly, combat encounters are rarely resolved with the massacre of one side, since combatants will most likely be knocked out, too badly wounded to continue, or they have fled and made an escape, or they may have surrendered. PCs have the special benefit of a small number of luck points which allow characters to downgrade a lethal wound to a dangerous but non-lethal one, this makes PCs much more likely to survive than an opposing NPC or creature, until they run out of luck points.

What is important is that the combat system be interesting and engaging for the players and I would put that above realism or 'deadliness' (I don't think the two are the same). Not everyone is interested in realism which is a very nebulous concept in any case, and not everyone is even interested in combat encounters at all! A detailed and dynamic system (where player choice counts) _may_ be of interest to those players that like that aspect of RPGs, and those people may well be very cautious about starting a fight or getting involved in one, they still may want something quite realistic because they want the full consequences of getting into a melee to hang in the balance, because it should always be risky.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Sep 6, 2020)

Wightbred said:


> I’m interested in the realism end of the spectrum for some of my games, so keen to hear more about these systems. Care to share?




Check into Zweihander, the linear descendant of Riddle of Steel and Band of Bastards.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 6, 2020)

Wightbred said:


> I’m interested in the realism end of the spectrum for some of my games, so keen to hear more about these systems. Care to share?



As I've detailed quite a bit earlier in the thread, I think Mythras is pretty good. There's a free quickstart "Mythras Imperative" which gives the essentials of the system, including most of how combat works from the publisher's site -  Downloads


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 8, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> As I've detailed quite a bit earlier in the thread, I think Mythras is pretty good. There's a free quickstart "Mythras Imperative" which gives the essentials of the system, including most of how combat works from the publisher's site -  Downloads



I downloaded the rules and really like some of what I've seen of _Mythras_, but I find its character creation and skill systems to be more than a bit fiddly. It also seems highly dependent on the GM doing a lot of setting legwork - establishing his world equivalents of "Hoplites," or "Mongolian Horse Archers," et cetera, etc.

I might use it for a game set in, say, Ancient Rome, but I'm disinclined to do that level of cultural development for a fantasy world. I don't want my players to have to work that hard to go from concept to the character they want to play. Because realism nods are rather nice...except when they're not. Like...size/frame and culture are things you roll? WTF?


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Sep 8, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> I downloaded the rules and really like some of what I've seen of _Mythras_, but I find its character creation and skill systems to be more than a bit fiddly. It also seems highly dependent on the GM doing a lot of setting legwork - establishing his world equivalents of "Hoplites," or "Mongolian Horse Archers," et cetera, etc.
> 
> I might use it for a game set in, say, Ancient Rome, but I'm disinclined to do that level of cultural development for a fantasy world. I don't want my players to have to work that hard to go from concept to the character they want to play. Because realism nods are rather nice...except when they're not. Like...size/frame and culture are things you roll? WTF?




Hoplites were not part of ancient Rome. Mongol horse archers likewise didn't appear until long after the Roman Empire fell. 

Did you choose how tall you were going to be? My parents didn't. I turned out to be an utterly amazing physical specimen simply by luck of the DNA.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 8, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> I downloaded the rules and really like some of what I've seen of _Mythras_, but I find its character creation and skill systems to be more than a bit fiddly. It also seems highly dependent on the GM doing a lot of setting legwork - establishing his world equivalents of "Hoplites," or "Mongolian Horse Archers," et cetera, etc.
> 
> I might use it for a game set in, say, Ancient Rome, but I'm disinclined to do that level of cultural development for a fantasy world. I don't want my players to have to work that hard to go from concept to the character they want to play. Because realism nods are rather nice...except when they're not. Like...size/frame and culture are things you roll? WTF?




It is not a beginner's system, and it does demand quite a lot of the GM no doubt. The system is more of a toolkit than most and it's for more serious players that want a game that's more realistic, which is more tailored to a specific setting that sits in a particular time and culture, although it does support more fictional and fanciful settings. I don't disagree with the impression it _is_ more demanding of the GM, I'd say less so of the PCs as I have had quite a bit of success running RQ6/Mythras games for players with no experience of the system.

Mythras Imperative is very condensed and is not the friendliest when it comes to character creation, the full rules are much better. The system could do with a more approachable quickstart, although at the same time Imperative is the reference document for the "Gateway" licence so there's a lot in there.

Combat Styles are a lot easier to establish than they look, it is just a set of weapons and one or two traits. It is left open in the rules because it covers 10,000 years of combat styles and weapons, any examples are going to be inadequate and always need to be tailored to the campaign setting and to the GM's style. Notesfrompavis has collected 100 of them here Combat Style Cards for Mythras and a big list of traits here Encyclopedia of Mythras Combat Style Traits



> An example from Mythic Rome: (4th Century)
> Hastati and Principes - Cautious fighter trait
> Iron Rimed Oval Shield (Scutum), L, S, 5 AP/15 HP Passive Blocks 5 Locations
> Sword (Falcata), M, S, 1d4+2+db, Bleeding
> ...




There are quite a range of campaign settings that _do_ get very specific on these details:

Mythic Earth so far covers: Mythic Britain, Mythic Logres, Mythic Rome and Mythic Constantinople.
 Mythic Babylon, a true bronze-age setting will be coming out in 2021.



			The Design Mechanism
		


There is a substantial ancient-world fantasy setting, Thennla, which is a mix of Persian, Greek and Roman influences


			The Design Mechanism
		


Monster Island is a substantial sword & sorcery supplement which has separate culture entries for lowland tribal animists, corrupt decadent 'civilised' sorcerers, and island colonists. I would _almost_ recommend it for any system but the rules details are quite extensive.








						Monster Island - Design Mechanism | Mythras | Scenarios | Campaign Settings | DriveThruRPG.com
					

Monster Island - Imagine a land of dark, sweltering jungles filled with nameless monstrosities and savage reptilian head-hunters... hacki




					www.drivethrurpg.com
				




Classic Fantasy translates 2nd edition D&D tropes into the system, mostly the humanoid PC types, classes, magic and monsters


			The Design Mechanism
		


Luther Arkwright, based on the comic, is a more gonzo-dimension hopping steampunk low-powered superhero-ish setting


			The Design Mechanism
		


Lyonesse is the licenced setting for the Jack Vance series, this is a self-contained book


			The Design Mechanism
		


There's urban fantasy with "After the Vampire Wars", a 'hard' SF setting is available as "M-Space" which is an independent publication under the Gateway licence.

So, there are a lot of examples published, any of which can be used for a homebrew campaign. For example, Mythic Constantinople is set in the mid 15th century, so it can be used as some basis for any European, Mediterranean campaign of a similar time period. The Thennla and Monster Island supplements can be combined for a Hyborian Age Conan campaign, the system and these supplements make it a great one for a S&S game.

Size - yes you do have a SIZ stat! It's quite important in Mythras, as will be familiar to RQ and BRP players, being an elephant makes you stronger and tougher than a mouse! This is still true for smaller and bigger PCs. Giants can be really giant and their size makes a big difference, both to how much damage they can do but how tough they are as well.

As for rolling culture - you might do this depending on the campaign. In a more restrictive campaign like Mythic Britain you have one choice - British Celt and that's it! (unless you're playing a Saxon in which case you're in Mythic Logres) and you get a specific and specialised character creation process to fit that culture more exactly. In other campaign where the PC group might be a mix of cultures you might come from one of any number of cultures - for example in Mythic Constantinople you could be Greek, Turkic, Frankish, Arabic, or a non-human Arimapsoi, Astomatoi, Blemmyai, Kynokephaloi, Minotauroi, Skiapodes or Tripithamoi. If you imagine a Conan Hyborian campaign, a typical PC group is likely to be a mix of cultures from all over that world.

More combat styles from the Hyborian Age (Ranger Dan 90 Hyborian/Generic Combat Styles) - Ranger Dan Combat Styles - Google Drive


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 9, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> I'm very doubtful of unarmed people's ability to "dodge" sword blows in close combat since the armed fighter does not have to defend themselves against the unarmed opponent at that reach ... ok if you say they are doing it ...
> 
> I'm not talking about a tempo-level of emulation, I'm pretty sure there are RPG systems that do that, but from what I've seen they are pure combat engines and not much else. There's a fairly large amount of abstraction in RQ6/Mythras (for example it doesn't model armour properties like GURPS does).




There are people adept enough to still present  a threat unarmed vs a swordsman. Most of them are swordsmen. about 1/2 to 2/3 of what makes a parry happen successfully is reading the opponent's actions; that's not blade dependent. And half the rest is actions other than the weapon-on-weapon... Takeaways are a real thing. As are sucker punches, instep stomps, knee-kicks... things we don't do in fencing, but which the period masters would have seen done.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 9, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> There are people adept enough to still present  a threat unarmed vs a swordsman.




I would love to see some examples of unarmed fighters dodging Vs armed opponents, unfortunately it does not seem to be practised much, presumably because they keep getting hit. There's a significant factor in being unarmed which is that you are not presenting as much of a threat to an armed opponent, you are not holding a dangerous weapon and your reach is much reduced, so your opponent does not need to defend in the same way as if you were armed, they also do not need to move their weapon much compared to how much you need to move your body, so it is much easier to hit you than it is for you to move out of the way of the weapon. Is it possible to dodge? maybe with some radical moves but you are going to be throwing yourself around like crazy, which from my point of view is supported by an Evade, which will work like a parry but will put you prone and is harder to pull off than a parry with a weapon.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 9, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> I would love to see some examples of unarmed fighters dodging Vs armed opponents, unfortunately it does not seem to be practised much, presumably because they keep getting hit.



it's been taught by Bear Steele Fencing for two decades as part of learning heavy-blade and olympic fencing. It's beed taught by the chap I learned from. Offhand Rose is his typical secondary in rapier... because hand parries are effective against thrusting blades.

Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't out there. And when two different heavy-blade fencers mention having studied doing it, it's kind of rude to imply we're liars. 

My instructor, Doug (I can't remember his last name; SCA: Nytshaed of Golden Rivers, MoD) taught us to practice with a non-weapon offhand item to get used to the hand parry.
Hand parries are also part of most of the 17th C Fencing masters, as a backup in case of being disarmed. 
We are not allowed, under SCA rules, to engage in unarmed attacks, but that doesn't mean in practice we haven't occasionally noted the openings for unarmed attacks.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 9, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it isn't out there. And when two different heavy-blade fencers mention having studied doing it, it's kind of rude to imply we're liars.




Woah slow down tiger, nowhere did I call anyone a liar. If you want to include dodging as equally good as a parry, go for it in your game, it just doesn't make sense to me as standing, on its own, as equal to a parry - _which is what I am talking about_. Don't think I'm denying you _can't_ make an unarmed parry, you've slipped into hyperbole, I was talking about _dodging_ specifically.


----------



## aramis erak (Sep 9, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> Woah slow down tiger, nowhere did I call anyone a liar. If you want to include dodging as equally good as a parry, go for it in your game, it just doesn't make sense to me as standing, on its own, as equal to a parry - _which is what I am talking about_. Don't think I'm denying you _can't_ make an unarmed parry, you've slipped into hyperbole, I was talking about _dodging_ specifically.



No, I said you implied it. Not outright called us liars.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 9, 2020)

aramis erak said:


> No, I said you implied it. Not outright called us liars.




Your response was talking about parries, which was precisely what I was talking about - I agree there! It is _dodging_ specifically that I posted about. Not sure what your beef is you might want to take a bit more time reading next time before you throw out those accusations.


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 11, 2020)

Bilharzia said:


> Woah slow down tiger, nowhere did I call anyone a liar. If you want to include dodging as equally good as a parry, go for it in your game, it just doesn't make sense to me as standing, on its own, as equal to a parry - _which is what I am talking about_. Don't think I'm denying you _can't_ make an unarmed parry, you've slipped into hyperbole, I was talking about _dodging_ specifically.



Many years ago, I had a fencing guy challenge me to a bout because he didn't think that what we did was "real" swordplay. I agreed with one proviso: "their equipment," but "my rules" (i.e. not fighting on a strip, all targets legal).

So we geared up with masks and sabres (the closest analog they had to a rapier/sidesword). He took a standard fencing stance. I squared off, rapier/side-sword style, but with just the blade and my offhand. He lunged at me, and I hand-parried it and stuck the tip in his chest. He complained about me using a hand parry and so the next time he lunged, I sidestepped (dodge) and smacked him in the face with the blade.

He was both more athletic and faster than me, but I timed it right. And he forgot we weren't on a strip. But that is absolutely, 100 percent, dodging an attack. So it is _possible_. Now, you might argue that was a failed attack roll, and, well, I can't totally disagree, but people don't just "stand still." However, I also agree with you that it is absolutely _harder_ to just dodge a blow (while staying in range) than it is to parry one, and it can also be difficult in fudge-y, non-simulative RPG combat to separate which is which.

So, my personal bias would be to call it "defense" and give the player the option to boost it with both parry bonuses (which are easier to acquire) and dodge bonuses (which are less available). And rule that the defense bonus from fighting skill is a somewhat nebulous mix of both those things _and_ reading your opponent. The total defense action would probably involve a combination of parrying and dodging (stepping back, sideways, out of range, etc.).

This gets me thinking about wanting to give a character the ability to advance, i.e. "push his opponent back," _without_ trying to score a wound with his weapon. Must ponder...


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 11, 2020)

Secondary thought: It's not so much about being "unarmed" as the fact that there is a lot of nuance to range when you engage in hand-to-hand combat. Assuming they're unarmored, a dagger fighter is pretty thoroughly screwed against a swordsman, almost as much someone who's unarmed. Same holds true for the guy with a one-handed sword going up against a two handed one, or a two-handed sword vs. someone with a staff/spear/polearm.

But trying to "accurately" model that stuff is a really tricky thing to account for, and people in fantasy tend to like dagger fighters. So most games gloss over it. IIRC, from what I read of the rules, _Mythras_ does actually separate out combat range into "close," "melee," "reach," and "ranged," which is definitely much more thorough than most.


----------



## JohnSnow (Sep 11, 2020)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Hoplites were not part of ancient Rome. Mongol horse archers likewise didn't appear until long after the Roman Empire fell.
> 
> Did you choose how tall you were going to be? My parents didn't. I turned out to be an utterly amazing physical specimen simply by luck of the DNA.



I'm fully aware that neither of those examples is Roman, but my point is:

1) The various units deployed and faced by the Roman Army are a matter of historic record - i.e. I don't have to make them up because I can look up the equipment and combat styles for Legionaries, Cretan Archers, Sarmatian Cavalry, Celtic Skirmishers, and so forth.

2) If I were making a game where the PCs are all gladiators (or ex-gladiators), they also all have distinctive combat styles.

Hence gaming in Ancient Rome, because of how well-documented things are, is a great example of a setting where the work of defining cultural combat styles isn't something I have to do myself. And I don't tend to play in historical settings much, so the fact that this work has been pre-done for, say, Celtic Britain really doesn't help.

To your second point, I have found that a great part of the attraction of "roleplaying" over "real life" for some people is that the randomness of what things you suck at/what gifts you have is actually up to you to determine. YMMV.


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 11, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> ...[one time I dodged a guy]...(snipped)



(I usually don't attempt to reverse engineer what happened in a fight to translate it into mechanics, but sometimes I do - Can your game of choice tell this story?)

As I have said quite a few times now  it's not impossible to dodge, it's just much harder than parrying. If you want a viable dodger, there are ways to do it, either through the "Daredevil" combat trait which allows the practitioner to stay or land on their feet while evading, or by substituting the professional Acrobatics skill, which you can use instead of Evade and keep on your feet. An evade in this manner is still harder to pull off because as a defence the defender has to beat the attack in an opposed roll instead of a "straight" successful roll. To succeed when facing an opposed test is to roll higher than your opponent rolls their attack, but still succeed yourself. In contrast a parry just needs to succeed, even if the attacker also succeeds, the parry will block the blow as long as the weapon is large enough.

If the GM or players absolutely can not stand dodge to be inferior to parry they could remove the requirement for the dodge to succeed as an opposed roll, but this then makes dodging superior since it's not affected by weapon size, and as a consequence removing one of the nuances between dodging and parrying - dodging is harder, makes most people prone, but will protect completely against any size of attack, a parry or passive block is easier but is limited by whether the defending weapon is of an adequate size.



JohnSnow said:


> Secondary thought: It's not so much about being "unarmed" as the fact that there is a lot of nuance to range when you engage in hand-to-hand combat. Assuming they're unarmored, a dagger fighter is pretty thoroughly screwed against a swordsman, almost as much someone who's unarmed. Same holds true for the guy with a one-handed sword going up against a two handed one, or a two-handed sword vs. someone with a staff/spear/polearm.



True but you are mixing here dodging with parrying, weapon reach and size, all important but different than the issue of dodging. An unarmed fighter can parry with their limbs, which are classed as small weapons as far as size goes.



JohnSnow said:


> But trying to "accurately" model that stuff is a really tricky thing to account for, and people in fantasy tend to like dagger fighters. So most games gloss over it. IIRC, from what I read of the rules, _Mythras_ does actually separate out combat range into "close," "melee," "reach," and "ranged," which is definitely much more thorough than most.



Yes and no with that. Mythras does model weapon Reach and weapon Size, with different weapons having different sizes and reaches, but it does not represent different ranges as such. In terms of melee you are either engaged or unengaged, this does have consequences, largely whether you can move freely or not. Ranged weapons can be used at any range at any target but there may be penalties depending on circumstances. The important question as far as weapon reach is concerned is - "at what weapon reach are you engaged at?"

If you are engaged in melee, then weapon Reach comes into play. If the difference between the weapons is *two steps of reach *different. For example, a dagger (short) Vs a longsword (long) is two steps, which means the dagger fighter is held at long reach and may only attack the weapon itself, not the longsword fighter. The longsword fighter may attack the dagger fighter directly. The dagger fighter may defend themselves by parrying but, and here is where weapon size comes in, if your parrying weapon is one size smaller then you will only block half the damage done, and the dagger is one size smaller (small dagger compared to medium longsword).

The situation is not hopeless for the dagger fighter, because if they win a special effect, they may Close Range to wherever they like, and if they want to strike that will be Short range. In this circumstance the longsword fighter is at an immediate disadvantage, they can not parry with the longsword at all, their effective weapon size is reduced, and their damage is reduced to represent the pommel or haft of the weapon (1d3+1). The longsword fighter may of course drop their weapon to draw another more suitable, or try to re-establish their range by winning a special effect themselves and getting the engagment back to their preferred Reach.

This is another advantage of a weapon and shield combination especially something like a spear + shield, the spear has a Long reach, which will keep Short reach weapons away (daggers, clubs, maces etc) and the shield will still work fine as a parrying weapon even if an opponent gets to Short range, because all shields have a Short reach.

When I've run games online I have rarely used the Reach rules for a couple of reasons - generally, combats don't have weapon differences of two steps of reach or greater, so it tends be rare, I also find it a bit too much to track. I'm in the minority since other GMs I've heard from do use it and don't have a problem tracking it. Weapon size on the other hand is not tricky to track and it comes into play all the time. Not using reach does reduce tactical subtlety, dagger fighters, for example, _can_ be effective, if they can get within their preferred reach, the same with grapplers and unarmed fighters generally.

Weapon size only needs a difference of one size to make a difference. A weapon one size bigger than the parrying weapon will still do 50% of their damage to a target, two sizes bigger will get through the parry to do 100% weapon damage. Many two handed weapons are lethal against almost any one handed weapon because they have a size of H (Huge), almost all 1h weapons are size M (Medium) at most, except for shields, which are mostly either H (Huge) themselves, or L (Large), with only the buckler having a size of M (Medium).

Just a parenthetical note on gladiators - there is a Fenix magazine Mythras article on suitable combat styles, with appropriate armour and combat style traits for a range of gladiator types http://thedesignmechanism.com/resources/Fenix 1402 RuneQuest.pdf


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Sep 11, 2020)

JohnSnow said:


> To your second point, I have found that a great part of the attraction of "roleplaying" over "real life" for some people is that the randomness of what things you suck at/what gifts you have is actually up to you to determine. YMMV.




That's really sad.


----------



## GMMichael (Sep 12, 2020)

@Bilharzia that typo is hurting my eyes 



JohnSnow said:


> So, my personal bias would be to call it "defense" and give the player the option to boost it with both parry bonuses (which are easier to acquire) and dodge bonuses (which are less available). And rule that the defense bonus from fighting skill is a somewhat nebulous mix of both those things _and_ reading your opponent. The total defense action would probably involve a combination of parrying and dodging (stepping back, sideways, out of range, etc.).



Defense rules can get out of control if you don't keep them on a tight leash.  Just a heads up.  Here's how mine went haywire:
1) Characters can take a set amount of "damage" before they're out of combat.  Increasing this amount is effectively more defense.
2) To avoid all damage, a character can react to an attack with a defense action.  A defense action uses a defensive skill, of which Parry is one.
3) To avoid some damage, a character can wear armor which reduces all incoming physical damage.
4) To avoid some damage from certain weapons, a character can change posture with a movement action.  This is like taking a defensive position.
5) The above-mentioned movement action uses a Movement skill, which can include dodging.

So here I have 5 different ways to avoid dying in a fight.  And a design goal was _simplicity_. You might not need to add Total Defense, because you might already have more defenses than you think


----------



## Bilharzia (Sep 12, 2020)

DMMike said:


> @Bilharzia that typo is hurting my eyes



?


----------



## dragoner (Feb 28, 2021)

Armor Class is realistic enough, this is a materials strength graph showing the typical energy curve, a curve often repeating through physics as it really shows the conservation of energy (or momentum in this case). Basically if a projectile or thrust has enough energy to penetrate the material, it would do full damage. There are other carry on effects, such as a projectile rebounding off the back armor to do more damage, except the one roll to see if one does damage is slightly faster than a roll to hit and them rolling to do damage. An armor penetration that then does little damage is fairly unrealistic, as the graph shows.


----------



## Bilharzia (Mar 1, 2021)

...


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 7, 2021)

dragoner said:


> An armor penetration that then does little damage is fairly unrealistic, as the graph shows.



Which would be true if damage to, say (assuming all fired from the same position), the lung had the same net effect as damage to the pocket of the shoulder, or the side of the ribs, or the thigh. There's good reason the trauma plate isn't huge on class two-plus armor; it's there to protect direct shots from front aspect to the heart, aorta, and vena cava.

The difference between a lethal thigh hit and merely temporary disability thigh hit  is measured in single digit millimetre differences in location. Likewise the pocket of the shoulder - if the stretch cavitation doesn't rip open the major arteries and veins, those locations are impairing, but not lethal, and full function (≠ full healing, mind) can be, depending upon exact path, a few days to a couple months. Open the major veins or arteries, either by stretch cavitation exceeding elastic rebound of the vessel, or by penetrator actually directly slicing, and life expectancy is minutes, with potentially little to no disability prior to vascular collapse from lack of blood volume. Which can be seconds to double digit minutes, depending upon which vessel and where along it. At the same time, said vascular hit can result in major loss of long-term disability by tissue damage from oxygen deprivation and/or inability to restore supply before necrosis and/or infection.

It's also not unlike how a few inches difference in a fireplace log to the underbody of  a truck... if it pops the air brake line (pulling it from the  connector, cracking the connector, or snapping the hose, the rig's going to stop, and possibly damage the transmission. If it cracks the transmission case, it may do very little damage. If it hits the frame, it's unlikely to matter as a single impact. If it hits the fuel tank, it's a slow loss of function, but one that can be easily patched on the fly _once the tank is dry_ with epoxy or self-bonding metal alloys. The loss of fuel is potentially expensive, especially given a $10 patch... or a $100-$200 welding job by a shade-tree mechanic, and more for a proper heavy equipment repair shop. Hit the engine block? may in fact kill the engine, and not even that month...

The average effect of a .223 Remington/5.56mm NATO to the clothed unarmored chest is a potentially  lethal bleed and a roughly 30% one shot stop chance; the end results without body armor have varied from lodged in a bone with little to no significant bleeding (a dozen cc or less) to an aortic dissection and near instant kill, with sufficient shock effect to render the individual incapable of response with force. Given that few games get more detailed than the Chaosium and GW set (Head, Chest, Abdomen, 2×arm, 2×leg),  and most only track location for armor, not wounds, random damage after penetration does make perfect sense.


----------



## Campbell (Mar 7, 2021)

One of the biggest issues with properly reflecting human athleticism (which is particularly important if realistic combat is in any way desirable) is that most games ignore the way energy systems work. Completely evading rather than defending from attacks is generally more energy intensive. It absolutely can be done and may be worthwhile (especially if you can get to someone's side), but it is taxing if not always difficult.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 7, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Which would be true if damage to, say (assuming all fired from the same position), the lung had the same net effect as damage to the pocket of the shoulder, or the side of the ribs, or the thigh. There's good reason the trauma plate isn't huge on class two-plus armor; it's there to protect direct shots from front aspect to the heart, aorta, and vena cava.
> 
> The difference between a lethal thigh hit and merely temporary disability thigh hit  is measured in single digit millimetre differences in location. Likewise the pocket of the shoulder - if the stretch cavitation doesn't rip open the major arteries and veins, those locations are impairing, but not lethal, and full function (≠ full healing, mind) can be, depending upon exact path, a few days to a couple months. Open the major veins or arteries, either by stretch cavitation exceeding elastic rebound of the vessel, or by penetrator actually directly slicing, and life expectancy is minutes, with potentially little to no disability prior to vascular collapse from lack of blood volume. Which can be seconds to double digit minutes, depending upon which vessel and where along it. At the same time, said vascular hit can result in major loss of long-term disability by tissue damage from oxygen deprivation and/or inability to restore supply before necrosis and/or infection.
> 
> ...



Random damage is fine. It is just that if your end state is no or minimal damage, then the extra work rolling damage, and/or hit locations is wasted, increasing the amount of time spent rolling for combat. All those rolls add up, and increasing a grind type combat can easily take the time from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. 

The other point is that conservation of momentum would state that if armor is penetrated, then the armor would not be considered in the damage, that is what the graph shows.

That is why I said it is realistic "enough", not perfect, except if given two mechanics, and both produce similar results, the faster one is better.

Strangely enough, looking at all the games I have run lately, most are BRP, with some Traveller. I wouldn't really consider myself a BRP GM, yet here we are.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 7, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Random damage is fine. It is just that if your end state is no or minimal damage, then the extra work rolling damage, and/or hit locations is wasted, increasing the amount of time spent rolling for combat. All those rolls add up, and increasing a grind type combat can easily take the time from 45 minutes to an hour and a half.
> 
> The other point is that conservation of momentum would state that if armor is penetrated, then the armor would not be considered in the damage, that is what the graph shows.
> 
> ...



Given our discussions over the years, you using BRP doesn't surprise me.

I will say that, in armor, I've taken hits that have damaged the armor, but not me inside it. ANd hits that did damage me but not as much as they should. Case in point (intentional pun), I did a hand parry that took a chop and converted it into a slash while fencing (rapier) - the nicks from the days fencing resulted in a serration, which opened a slice through the 8oz leather glove, but not into the webbing of the thumb, tho' it did leave a small surface scratch.  Likewise, fighting SCA Heavy, I took a hit to the arm which bent the brass rings of the ring-on-leather¹ I was wearing, but didn't break my arm; instead, it left a 4" × 2" bruise in the pattern of the rings.

1: ring on leather is rings sewn to leather, not mail over leather.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Mar 7, 2021)

I believe that to model the tactical effect of combat well, you would need to track will, blood loss, and structural damage.

Many people simply quit when they get hurt; I've seen this both in the military and in law enforcement. In game terms, I would restrict this to NPCs, as reducing character motivation to a die roll for a PC would not be a good idea. 

Adrenaline, raw emotion, and drugs can and has kept people fighting after a mortal wound is inflicted, but a broken bone or cut tendon cannot be completely overcome (in most cases). And when your blood pressure drops to a certain point, you're going down. 

I've yet to find an effective way to model this, but the dream lives on.


----------



## dragoner (Mar 7, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Given our discussions over the years, you using BRP doesn't surprise me.
> 
> I will say that, in armor, I've taken hits that have damaged the armor, but not me inside it. ANd hits that did damage me but not as much as they should. Case in point (intentional pun), I did a hand parry that took a chop and converted it into a slash while fencing (rapier) - the nicks from the days fencing resulted in a serration, which opened a slice through the 8oz leather glove, but not into the webbing of the thumb, tho' it did leave a small surface scratch.  Likewise, fighting SCA Heavy, I took a hit to the arm which bent the brass rings of the ring-on-leather¹ I was wearing, but didn't break my arm; instead, it left a 4" × 2" bruise in the pattern of the rings.
> 
> 1: ring on leather is rings sewn to leather, not mail over leather.



Blunt force trauma is a thing. I mean there is some ablation going on, it is just if the armor subtracts 20 and my max damage is 24, say with a Gauss Rifle, the fact that it will only ever do a maximum of 4 points of damage is not very plausible. Maybe if damage reduction was modified to "if armor penetrated by x amount then full damage as rolled is done"; however, that way seems to be going to too much crunch or extra rules on top of rules. Armor itself in frame of reference should probably be considered individual from the wearer, simultaneously warding and taking damage itself, until degraded and useless; which would be realistic.


----------



## GMMichael (Mar 8, 2021)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I believe that to model the tactical effect of combat well, you would need to track will, blood loss, and structural damage.
> 
> Many people simply quit when they get hurt; I've seen this both in the military and in law enforcement. In game terms, I would restrict this to NPCs, as reducing character motivation to a die roll for a PC would not be a good idea.
> 
> ...



In Numenera, you have three stages of health: Might, Speed, and Intellect.  You can lose all of your Might pool, and continue fighting with Speed and Intellect.  That's like fighting after getting hurt, right?  If you burn through your Speed pool though, Intellect doesn't do much more than keep your heart beating.

In D&D, a couple of house rules would suffice.  Your hit points would represent blood loss.  Run out of those and your will won't matter much.  Each time you take a hit, regardless of damage, you'd tick off a willpower point.  Exceed your class-appropriate ability score for will, and you become Frightened.  Finally, a hit-location chart would add a structural effect every time, say, a critical hit occurs.

In Modos RPG, you can take Mental damage which is separate from Physical damage.  Deciding to quit could be related to that Mental damage.  Like D&D (5th ed, anyway) your character has Flaws that could represent structural damage.  A few house rules here could set up a sturdy framework for your dream system.

If you don't want to house-rule anything, there's always GURPS.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Mar 9, 2021)

GMMichael said:


> If you don't want to house-rule anything, there's always GURPS.




I've been gaming since 1979, and things have never gotten that desperate.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 13, 2021)

dragoner said:


> Maybe if damage reduction was modified to "if armor penetrated by x amount then full damage as rolled is done"; however, th



Welcome to MegaTraveller...
If Pen > 2×AV, damage = listed
If Pen > AV, damage = 1/2 × listed
If pen > ⅒ x AV, damage = ⅒ × listed 
If To Hit made by 0: post-AV damage ×½
If To Hit made by 1: post-AV damage ×1
If To Hit made by 2-3: post-AV damage ×2
If To Hit made by 4-7: post-AV damage ×4
If To Hit made by ≥8: post-AV damage ×8
Now round to nearest whole. That's how many of your hits go away (joe average is 7, in the form "3/4", while the buffest K'kree can exceed 20...). 
When the adrenaline wears off, or unconsciousness threatens, convert hits damage dice damage to atts. Note that fully enclosed rigid armor (Battle Dress (aka Battlesuits) and Vehicles) treat P/AV <1 as D×0

In play, it's not too bad. I'd rather it simply added the to-ht margin to the pen... and used P/V  >⅒ = D×⅒, ≥½ = D×½, ≥ 1 = D×1, ≥2 D×2 ≥3 D×3... to a max of D×4


----------



## dragoner (Mar 13, 2021)

aramis erak said:


> Welcome to MegaTraveller...
> If Pen > 2×AV, damage = listed
> If Pen > AV, damage = 1/2 × listed
> If pen > ⅒ x AV, damage = ⅒ × listed
> ...



There is also attenuation in there. I never thought the MT personal combat rules were bad in and of themselves, except that we were already playing 2300, and T2K. MT's Hard Times is a great supplement, one of the best for Traveller, which had a lot of good supplements. Don used to talk some of MT in pm and emails we had about T5, he was really an MT guy. I think he yelled at Dave Nielsen at GenCon that TNE was commiting genocide on the setting.

I think probably around 2009 I was more interested in a quicker system. Partially because as the older wargame crowd faded away, complex system often were loaded onto the GM to do the calcs, as the players wanted to just roll. I don't mind using tables, because I use them at work at a lot, they are easy to read for me.

My Father was a soldier, fought, and was wounded. Judging by his experience when he was bayoneted (he had scars like Frankenstein's Monster), that combat was like he saw three guys come out of the mist, he knew at that point he was probably finished, so Morale Check; he shot one with his SMG, clubbed down the second, then was bayoneted in the back by the third. So maybe just some DC's, he failed the wound check, but passed the second DC, a death save. One could apply +/- by armor, skill, experience, battlefield conditions, etc.; we talked about it, and he thought CT's sort of chaotic randomness was a more accurate representation than AD&D's more formal style.


----------



## aramis erak (Mar 17, 2021)

dragoner said:


> There is also attenuation in there.



Yep, But, if one's Traveller games mirror reality, Attenuation's not going to matter for anything but the body pistol. 


dragoner said:


> we talked about it, and he thought CT's sort of chaotic randomness was a more accurate representation than AD&D's more formal style.



My fencing and living in bad neighborhoods puts me close to agreement. I prefer the MT convert damage points to atts as a simplifiction, and it also matches the published data on one-shot stops and one-shot kills a bit better. It also lets me run mass combat without having to convert everything to similar sized units.

Then again, I tweak MT for swinging-from-the-chandeliers level swashbucklers-in-space feel... (the multiplier breakpoints change for Pen/Atten to  ≥0.1 = × 0.1 vs soft armor and ×0 for hard, ≥ 0.5 = ×0.5, ≥1 = ×1, ≥2 = × 2; I use Att/3 instead of Att/5, and increase the TN by 1.

As for Mr. Nilson... he basically shat upon the setting. Marc approved the Virus, and it implies it wasn't Mr. Nilson's brainchild, but he did ride that puppy into ground, and then accuse fans of CT of being delusional in print. Many fans would rather see the Aliens of the Rim vol 1 decanonized, thanks to the sh**show that was the ithklur and the introduction.  And Don wasn't wrong... the sales numbers for TNE were a small fraction of MT. And TNE was in print longer. 

Thing is... Mr. Nilson and his (as my buddy Cryton calls it) "Dark Traveller" brought mostly new players, rather than selling to the fans of prior. Some of us tried it - I ran four campaigns of it... one converted to MT midway through at player request. The other three? A TPK, a TPK, and a successful return from a trip into the wilds... which ended with a near TPK as they blew up  a power plant that was virused.

It was mishandled. It found an audience at the cost of alienating a large part of the existing one.


----------

