PDA

View Full Version : Best Combat System in an RPG



AMFV
2016-01-07, 02:28 PM
Howdy, folks!

I know a lot of people call D&D a "Combat Simulator", which is a good part incorrect, and usually intended as a derogatory remark. But that's got me thinking, what games have the most interesting combat, the most engaging strategies. I realize of course that this is subjective, but I'm interested to hear what people enjoy most and why.

Khedrac
2016-01-07, 03:37 PM
The problem with this is that "best" is totally subjective - and will very for a single person depending on what they are after at the time.

For example, I like the Basic Roleplaying System (from Chaosium - Call of Cthulhu, Elric etc.) with the hit locations variant (Avalon Hill and Chaosium RuneQuest) but it is a very lethal system and characters die very easily.

The Rolemaster system is usually regarded and horrifyingly complex and unwieldy, but I had a GM at school who made it fast and fun - and the crit and fumble results were a right laugh when we managed good ones (especially the 3-way fight where 2 of them in consecutive rounds tripped over an imaginary dead turtle...).

I like D&D 3.5 at low levels, but at high levels I find the number of options means that fights usually take too long. It gives an nice bit of flexibility without going overboard (at least at low levels).

Lost Souls has an interesting little system where the DM doesn't have to roll a dice, it's a nice and quick system if one does not want complex.

I have not played Toon, Teenagers from Outer Space or the other very silly systems. I expect most of them do a fair job of supporting the sort of wacky combat one sees in Tom & Jerry cartoons - not something one wants normally, but absolutely necessary for the genre.

On the other hand I don't particularly like the Old WoD systemas rolling more dice usually just meant I could fail more spectacularly. I am told they have fixed the system for Exalted and New WoD, but I have never played them so "no comment".

Morty
2016-01-07, 03:43 PM
When it comes to simulating all the gory details, as well as the ebb and flow of martial combat, it's hard to beat Riddle of Steel, or its spiritual successor in the making, Song of Swords. But they are very realistic, brutal "whoops, there goes my arm" style games. So like Khedrac said - "best" needs to be amended to "beast for a given job".

I'm itching to try out the system in Exalted 3e, which might be just what I'm looking for in a cinematic, unrealistic, high-action game. But I haven't been able to yet.

GrayDeath
2016-01-07, 04:38 PM
Puh...difficult question.
Depends on what youa re looking for.

if its supposed to be fast, yet with enough options and "passingly ralistic" in its consequences I`d say L5R`s Roll and Keep Variant.

If you`re looking for a lot of detail and almost grimy gore, I second Riddle of Steel.

If Bombast and MASSIVE amounts of Optional Support (read charms) I`d suggest Exalted, although it has a paranoia problem.

But fer me our Homebrews Variant (massively modified, and in use for more than a decade now) of the "some REALLY Good Ideas, badly/terribly executed" DSA Combat System is the "Best" one.
Enough depth, enough realism, quite fun normally.

D&D comes at a distant 11th-13th (depending on Map use or no map use and if "few dice" are an argument) in the not quite 20 Systems I have played so far regarding Combat Depth/Quality/Fun.
Just if anyone wanted to know.

Lord Torath
2016-01-07, 04:39 PM
The problem with this is that "best" is totally subjective - and will very for a single person depending on what they are after at the time.

So like Khedrac said - "best" needs to be amended to "best for a given job".
I think AMFV was fairly clear in what he was asking for:

I realize of course that this is subjective, but I'm interested to hear what people enjoy most and why.I've only played 2E AD&D (pre-Players' Option) and 2E Shadowrun. Oh, and a one-shot using Runequest (although I don't know which edition it was). Oh, and some Rolemaster (way back in 1994). Runequest combat was slow (but I was a newbie), and Rolemaster involved a LOT of table look-ups. It also didn't differentiate between armor types, only armor values (anyone with Armor 20 was assumed to be in metal plate, even if it was natural armor).I'd say, of the two I'm really familiar with, I prefer 2E AD&D. Simple and quick. 2E Shadowrun was also a lot of fun, but it's complicated, and very much Glass Cannon-ish. Whoever goes first is fairly likely to win.

veti
2016-01-07, 05:39 PM
For "simple, yet convincing", I did like Hackmaster. But that was several editions ago, I have no experience with it recently and from looking at the basic rules, it seems to have changed quite markedly since then.

I like Champions/Hero for a few things: a decent range of combat manoeuvres, varieties of damage and defence/armour, knockback. And initiative. Champions had the best initiative system I know. Unfortunately it was intimately tied to a hilariously broken movement system, but you can't have everything.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-07, 06:55 PM
Just to weigh in quick (I'm not sure if I've played enough different systems to pick a top myself) for combat Pathfinder > 3.5.

They have very similar vibes, but Pathfinder has somewhat better balance between classes, fewer CR outliers, and CMB/CMD did a lot to make maneuvers (tripping/grappling etc.) a lot more streamlined into the system as a whole.

I mean - basically Pathfinder is D&D 3.75 - so it's not a surprise that it's more polished. The only big design policy change they made was to make multi-classing/prestige less prevalent and add all of their archetypes onto the base classes.

wumpus
2016-01-07, 08:17 PM
Has anyone played the "Ace of Aces" dungeon variant? The Ace of Aces game (1980s) was similar to a "choose your own adventure" (1970s, possibly lasted into the early 80s) book except that it was two player (you each had a WWI airplane in a dogfight). You would choose your manuever, inform your opponent, work some magic to determine your next page number (I've forgotten, but hopefully haven't lost my books) and look at the next page. This page would show a view from your cockpit, hopefully showing your opponent (not sure if it showed him behind you). Keep at it until one of you has been downed or run away.

There was a similar one with "knight/fighter/whatever" and goblin. Curious if it was any good.

Dienekes
2016-01-07, 08:29 PM
The best for dealing with physical combat I've found is Riddle of Steel. While its design is very much based around gritty realism but the design is in such a way that it would fit for more high powered combat if someone would be willing to put in the effort of adding abilities and whatnot. The combat dice mechanic is just fun and intuitive.

Unfortunately, the rest of the system is either just ok or downright broken. Maybe that's fixed in Song of Swords I'll have to check that out.

Glimbur
2016-01-07, 08:41 PM
Wuthering Heights does a great job of discouraging combat, because it generally takes a while with no options apart from 'keep fighting' or 'don't' and is very swingy. You can get an advantage by getting really angry first, but you're still at the mercy of the dice. This is good for a game where combat should be rare and the climactic ending to something where anyone could win; it fits the mood the rest of the game is trying to set.

It's also a terrible system for 'realism' or 'speed' or 'options'. But, such is life.

Sam113097
2016-01-07, 09:13 PM
Personally, I prefer Dungeon World. The attacks themselves are very simple, and the GM doesn't even have to roll any dice. However, each attack has different levels of success. The partial successes are very interesting, and have a variety of effects (depending on the situation and type of attack) that force players to make tough choices about what they are willing to sacrifice for a hit.

Quertus
2016-01-07, 10:47 PM
Howdy, folks!

I know a lot of people call D&D a "Combat Simulator", which is a good part incorrect, and usually intended as a derogatory remark. But that's got me thinking, what games have the most interesting combat, the most engaging strategies. I realize of course that this is subjective, but I'm interested to hear what people enjoy most and why.

First, let me say that the individual combat mechanic I enjoyed the most was the early shadow run initiative system. Someone who got a 34 on initiative gets to go several times before the person who goes on 6. Someone who is fast feels *fast*, in a way no other system has ever come close to matching.

That having been said, of the systems I can remember of the top of my head, I liked combat in battle tech > D&D 2e > D&D 3e > D&D 1e > shadow run > Warhammer (any) > scion > exalted > WoD (any) > champion mutants & masterminds > hero > Marvel x2 > star wars d20 > d20 modern > rifts > D&D 4e > GURPS > rock scissors paper. I don't remember combat in dead lands, aberrant/trinity, or paranoia, and I didn't include homebrew, or any of the systems whose names I couldn't remember.

I like HP. I like rerolls. I like options. I like magic. I like replay value. I like fast characters being fast. I like different characters to play differently (see replay value), yet I like the potential to play a single character for 5+ years in 20 different groups. I like systems new players can learn quickly.

Sith_Happens
2016-01-07, 11:24 PM
My favorite is probably Mutants & Masterminds just because of how incredibly streamlined, straightforward, and functional it is. It's kind of hard to describe but the whole thing is just such a well-oiled machine I can't help but smile every time I think about it.

Esprit15
2016-01-07, 11:32 PM
My favorite is probably Mutants & Masterminds just because of how incredibly streamlined, straightforward, and functional it is. It's kind of hard to describe but the whole thing is just such a well-oiled machine I can't help but smile every time I think about it.

Strong seconding. As much as I love the escalating numbers of 3.5, it doesn't really warn you that half way through, SoD/L/S effects will run combat as you reach later levels. M&M meanwhile becomes more versatile as you increase level, but most options remain relevant throughout. A guy who hits like a truck is always terrifying, a tank is just becomes a better tank, and there's enough interesting combos of other effects that you can run a lot of different builds that do vastly different things in combat, and all of them work.

Itsjustsoup.com
2016-01-07, 11:47 PM
I never really got into M&M Like I wanted to, but I did give it a glance over.

MY Pick is Silver Age Sentinels. It handled the Multiple BAB and Blocking/Dodging Think pretty well.

Second to that is [Cringes] Palladium's Opposing roll

Lastly is Star Wars d6.

Dienekes
2016-01-08, 12:05 AM
My favorite is probably Mutants & Masterminds just because of how incredibly streamlined, straightforward, and functional it is. It's kind of hard to describe but the whole thing is just such a well-oiled machine I can't help but smile every time I think about it.

What M&M is trying to do it does very well. Which is mostly doing a bunch of cool and unique super powers all in a streamline system. Unfortunately melee combat is usually all broken down into various versions of "I attack" or the ever popular "I All-Out Power Attack." If you try to add more dynamic moves to your attacks like distinguishing between a punch and a kick, or attacking the opponent's leg as opposed to their torso, especially with melee weapons, it gets kind of finicky. Not impossible but it involves using descriptors or fiddling with devices and wasting points on the Innate modifier. When it's done well it works ok, but if you're looking for that kind of quality in a combat system there are better systems designed around such things.

RickAllison
2016-01-08, 12:16 AM
I have only tried low-level D&D, nWoD, and Star Wars under FFG, so here goes:

I didn't play much of D&D, and it was all low-level so I didn't get to experience much, but my combat was not very engaging. I also had abysmal rolls the entire time (I was playing a rogue who managed to mess up every sneak attack no matter how well it was set up; for the boss, he split from the party and dressed in the skin of a kobold to get right next to their chief, and still failed!).

nWoD did a good job of reducing dice amounts; I have designed a build that would roll well over 100 dice for a single action, but that was an exercise in extreme optimization and perfect opportunities (it was a sniping build) and most rolls will stay under 10, conveniently a common set size for d10s. A mortal with few Merits has very boring combat, but being supernatural or having a variety of Merits give flexibility that augments the narrative style of the game.

Star Wars under FFG had the best combat for me. The combat was dynamic and encouraged more strategy than exchanging fire. Some of the best successes we've had in combat didn't involve shooting a blaster or waving a lightsaber, including hacking an assassin droid to stop him, hacking into a capital ship to lock the doors and remove all the oxygen while playing "Staying Alive" over the intercom, reprogramming automatic turrets to fire against the enemy, and talking battle droids into turning on their masters for the sake of the Droid Revolution!!!

Raimun
2016-01-08, 12:17 AM
Hmm... I'd say at least these five games have engaging combat systems:

- Savage Worlds. It's fun, fast, exciting, doesn't get bogged down by dull realism but it can get so lethal you really need to think twice how (or if) you're gonna fight. Superhero rules make the combat especially fun.
- Iron Kingdoms (/Unleashed). What can I say, I like wargaming. You really need think your tactics through or things will get very lethal for our heroes. This lethality makes the game dynamic and to win a combat, you need to be dynamic... at the right time and place. I kind of recommend playing a caster of some sort since this will give interesting tactical options.
- Feng Shui. It's a cool game for cool people. Very fast and you can easily tailor your combat style. The rules mechanics explictly allow and encourage the invention of cool new stunts on the fly, in the middle of a fire fight. You can also freely describe the scenery as long as you don't contradict the GM's description. Let out your inner action hero. :smallcool:
- 40k RPGs. Who doesn't want to fight the enemies of the imperium as a space marine or an imperial guard soldier? They've got pretty basic but solid combat systems with grittiness and you get customization options via xp from the very start. Also featuring: critical hit tables. Have you made a critical hit with a flamethrower? No? I feel bad for you.
- Pathfinder/3.5. Tactical combat as a medievel superhero? Yes please. Other editions of the game just can't capture that feel. At its best, the combat in this game is balls to the walls.

Quertus
2016-01-08, 11:10 AM
I like the mutants and masterminds system (although I forgot it's name :smallblush: ), but I find combat very... I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm dead. At least in D&D (which often hears this same accusation) you have a health bar (HP). It's my experience atypical?

Khedrac
2016-01-08, 11:17 AM
I like the mutants and masterminds system (although I forgot it's name :smallblush: ), but I find combat very... I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm fine, I'm dead. At least in D&D (which often hears this same accusation) you have a health bar (HP). It's my experience atypical?

Oddly, that's a common criticism of D&D (and indeed most systems I have met) - in that there is no penatly in combat for being "near death" - it doesn't interfere with combat in any way.

I am sure I have played systems with such an effect, just not for so long that I no longer recall them. Oh well, there's always the RQ hit location system which means you can lose a hand and either pass out or continue fighting (depending on how well you roll). There's still no penalty other than blood loss and the inability to wield things with the second hand though.

ImNotTrevor
2016-01-08, 11:37 AM
I enjoy Apocalypse World. Simple, brutal, straightforward. Fights end as quickly as you'd expect them to.
(Bar fight between the Gunlugger and a drunk? One roll and it's over. The last thing going through the drunk's mind is buckshot.)

And the GM doesn't roll anything. Also great.

neonchameleon
2016-01-08, 12:30 PM
The problem with this is that "best" is totally subjective - and will very for a single person depending on what they are after at the time.

Exactly.

For free flowing ridiculous combat it's got to be Wushu Open (http://danielbayn.com/wushu/). One dice per scene element and you get intricately detailed settings.

To feel like a comic book superhero, Marvel Heroic is hard to beat (although I think Cam Banks next effort will succeed) - composing and using the entire scene.

For superheroic/tactical play my favourite is is 4e with its mix of forced movement and choices as long as the DM doesn't put the fight into (a) narrow corridors or (b) wide open clear spaces with no terrain - using the terrain and movement and mobility is what makes it sing. And it creates bad situations that are recoverable.

If I want something hard, brutal, and gritty, I'm going for Apocalypse World (Dungeon World is a spinoff game and IMO really doesn't measure up).

For emotional engagement, Fate works well - and Dogs in the Vineyard if how far to go is the most important thing.

But the core thing is that I'd seldom want one of those games when I'm in the mood for another.

Segev
2016-01-08, 01:22 PM
The best combat system in any RPG is that used in SCA games: strap on your armor, pick up your weapon, and battle it out! It is the most realistic simulator of live combat possible, with all the nuances of real battle! And it's the most genuine form of RP, since it removes those obnoxious, RP-killing rules that let you turn a masterful sword-swing into a blocking shield into a simple die roll.

Milodiah
2016-01-08, 01:42 PM
I'm a pretty big fan of Shadowrun 4e. It's got enough options to keep it from having the "I swing you swing I swing you swing I swing you die" feeling, while at the same time not having the high-level D&D problem of the wizard sitting there for minutes weighing his spell choices for this round until you just want to crack him over the head with a folding chair.

It tends to reward good planning over good optimization, as well. I had a GM build a really damn strong OPFOR tailored to kill us, and then it got shredded because we caught them in a good ambush with a ****ing minigun.

Amphetryon
2016-01-08, 01:50 PM
Riddle of Steel is very good at combat, assuming you enjoy lethal and a bit complex.

I quite enjoyed Pendragon's combat system, though it's also somewhat lethal and fairly swingy.

HârnMaster Gold is correctly touted for its verisimilitude and level of detail in combat; 3rd edition trades a bit of that for faster game-play.

Burning Wheel's engine runs combat (and social combat) very well, as does Mouseguard, which is related.

Knaight
2016-01-08, 01:51 PM
There are two standouts that have yet to be mentioned.

One is Burning Wheel, which is a very heavy combat system that is a lot of fun even without the system surrounding it. There's a lot of options, and while better statistics count for a lot, a good strategy can compensate for more than a small numerical disadvantage. It also feels realistic, in the sense that the way fights go down has a familiarity to it.

The other is Warbirds, specifically the dogfighting portion. Abstract fighter plane combat has never really been handled well elsewhere, and their relatively light system actually does a very good job, with implicit tailing mechanics, the defensive options (fleeing, breaking away, trying to fire at someone in your sights while getting shot at) make things interesting, and there's enough plane and weapon variation to make it all work.

Raimun
2016-01-08, 02:22 PM
I'm a pretty big fan of Shadowrun 4e. It's got enough options to keep it from having the "I swing you swing I swing you swing I swing you die" feeling, while at the same time not having the high-level D&D problem of the wizard sitting there for minutes weighing his spell choices for this round until you just want to crack him over the head with a folding chair.

It tends to reward good planning over good optimization, as well. I had a GM build a really damn strong OPFOR tailored to kill us, and then it got shredded because we caught them in a good ambush with a ****ing minigun.

Seconded. I've certainly enjoyed Shadowrun 4e combat encounters (or encounters that turn in to combat encounters, because of reasons). I've mostly done magic, firearms, melee, stealthy fighting or some combination of the above. There's just something about that feeling when you can incorporate magic and machinery to a single coherent plan that utilizes firearms, spells, various types of explosives, supernatural abilities, hacking, close combat skills and stealth tactics.

AMFV
2016-01-08, 02:22 PM
I just wanted to say that I'm really enjoying reading all of these responses, many of them are recommending systems I'm not familiar with, which is certainly interesting. So keep 'em coming.



The best combat system in any RPG is that used in SCA games: strap on your armor, pick up your weapon, and battle it out! It is the most realistic simulator of live combat possible, with all the nuances of real battle! And it's the most genuine form of RP, since it removes those obnoxious, RP-killing rules that let you turn a masterful sword-swing into a blocking shield into a simple die roll.

If you get rid of the foam weapons and get metal ones, you can even get realistic wound rules.


Oddly, that's a common criticism of D&D (and indeed most systems I have met) - in that there is no penatly in combat for being "near death" - it doesn't interfere with combat in any way.

I am sure I have played systems with such an effect, just not for so long that I no longer recall them. Oh well, there's always the RQ hit location system which means you can lose a hand and either pass out or continue fighting (depending on how well you roll). There's still no penalty other than blood loss and the inability to wield things with the second hand though.

On the other hand, wound tables can make it so that the character is wounded early in combat, and basically just stands around unable to contribute. So there's an advantage to both system. One is more "realistic" but can inhibit player fun sometimes.


There are two standouts that have yet to be mentioned.

One is Burning Wheel, which is a very heavy combat system that is a lot of fun even without the system surrounding it. There's a lot of options, and while better statistics count for a lot, a good strategy can compensate for more than a small numerical disadvantage. It also feels realistic, in the sense that the way fights go down has a familiarity to it.

The other is Warbirds, specifically the dogfighting portion. Abstract fighter plane combat has never really been handled well elsewhere, and their relatively light system actually does a very good job, with implicit tailing mechanics, the defensive options (fleeing, breaking away, trying to fire at someone in your sights while getting shot at) make things interesting, and there's enough plane and weapon variation to make it all work.

Warbirds seems really interesting. I will have to look into that. I've not seen a game focused on fighter planes, but that could be really interesting.


Wuthering Heights does a great job of discouraging combat, because it generally takes a while with no options apart from 'keep fighting' or 'don't' and is very swingy. You can get an advantage by getting really angry first, but you're still at the mercy of the dice. This is good for a game where combat should be rare and the climactic ending to something where anyone could win; it fits the mood the rest of the game is trying to set.

It's also a terrible system for 'realism' or 'speed' or 'options'. But, such is life.

Hmmm, that's definitely an interesting thing. I wonder how that stacks up against games where combat is so random and so lethal that it's usually the worst option possible (which isn't often the case in RPGs)

goto124
2016-01-08, 09:00 PM
until you just want to crack him over the head with a folding chair.

I seem to remember a joke about fumble rules and players smacking the DM with folding chairs... could someone tell that joke again please?

Arbane
2016-01-09, 04:11 AM
I seem to remember a joke about fumble rules and players smacking the DM with folding chairs... could someone tell that joke again please?

I seem to recall it was along the line of "To test how 'realistic' fumble houserules are, beat the GM with a folding chair until you accidentally hit yourself."

Vitruviansquid
2016-01-09, 05:18 AM
Theoretically? DnD 4e hands down. But by God, it brings out the worst overplanning in my players.

Practically? Out of all the games I've played, I would say... Savage Worlds > DnD 4e > Pendragon > Call of Cthulhu.

Savage Worlds has its fair share of tactical consideration, character differentiation, dynamism and drama, and everything else an RPG battle needs. What distinguishes it even higher than anything else I've played is how easy it is to modify. The system was original designed for pulp adventure, but it's so malleable in so many ways.

DnD 4e, despite its problem above, is still highly enjoyable to me. I look forward to combat in that game, and being able to execute my powers in a brilliant manner... or hell, even being foiled in a brilliant manner. One of the things I enjoy about the game that gets little mention is the guidelines and balancing meant it was rare to have a combat devoid of either menace or heroism, even if a relatively new DM was running it.

Pendragon has a combat system that is great at giving you results that would fit in an Arthurian tale. But that's the only thing it's good at. Its process is, however, totally uninteresting.

I played Call of Cthulhu awhile ago, so forgive my vagueness, but I remember it as uninteresting system to play, as Pendragon's, but often making results that don't fit, and then also barely having relevance in the setting in the first place. Maybe it was simply the style of CoC games that I ended up playing, but it always struck me as counterproductive to have a combat system at all in *that one game where combat is never the answer*

Morty
2016-01-09, 05:35 AM
Unfortunately, the rest of the system is either just ok or downright broken. Maybe that's fixed in Song of Swords I'll have to check that out.

Song of Swords does drop the hilariously broken sorcery system, at least. Although I think its replacement is still a work in progress. not included in the material so far. The worst part about RoS's sorcery was probably the writers' heavy-handed condescension towards the very notion of magic that doesn't overpower everything else. Non-combat skills in Song of Swords are just sort of there, from what I've seen. But they're a work in progress too, I believe.

Glimbur
2016-01-10, 10:01 AM
The Street Fighter RPG has maybe my favorite initiative system. Each turn, each person chooses one action and holds that card face-down. Each card has a Speed on it, based on a combination of the character's Dex and the move's Speed Modifier. Then you start counting up from zero. When the speed count hits the speed on your card, you act. Each action generally includes both moving and an attack, though there are exceptions (blocking doesn't move, Moving doesn't attack). What makes it interesting is that someone with a higher speed can interrupt your action. Add in a couple of maneuvers that break the rules (Backflip kick attacks and then moves back and is reasonably speedy), a few more modifications (if you block your effective speed next turn is higher, there are Combos which increase your speed after the first one) and it adds up to something reasonably meaty.

mikeejimbo
2016-01-10, 01:37 PM
I am certainly in the minority here, but I really appreciate the depth that is available in GURPS combat. The caveat is of course that it requires a lot of player engagement and can require a lot of book-keeping. And if you really want to get in-depth with it, you need GURPS Martial Arts, which is considered by some players to be pretty much a necessary core book.

A lot of complaints about D&D 3.5 regarding non-caster characters are the lack of tactical options available to them. Some people have that complaint about GURPS as well, because if you're not really diving into the rules that do exist to give you those more options it can seem that way. But it has called shots, slams, grapples, disarms, etc.

These options aren't limited to just fantasy-style stuff either. There are two entire supplements on gunplay, Tactical Shooting and Gun-Fu, aimed toward realism and cinematism, respectively.

CharonsHelper
2016-01-10, 05:39 PM
I played Call of Cthulhu awhile ago, so forgive my vagueness, but I remember it as uninteresting system to play, as Pendragon's, but often making results that don't fit, and then also barely having relevance in the setting in the first place. Maybe it was simply the style of CoC games that I ended up playing, but it always struck me as counterproductive to have a combat system at all in *that one game where combat is never the answer*

No - that is not a game designed for the combat system.

After all - it's a horror game. The more tactical control you have over combat, the less horrifying it is. The best horror comes from a lack of control and the inevitability of defeat. Call of Cthulhu does that pretty darned well - so the combat system is inherently vague & swingy by design. With all that and with how much I enjoy tactical combat rpgs - Call of Cthulhu makes for pretty fun one-shots if you don't take it too seriously. (They have rules for campaigns - but with how deadly it is, at least 1 person would likely be killed or have gone insane each session - leading to a severe lack of continuity.)

Edit: Interesting link about horror games - it's about video games, but the same logic applies - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lawxkSB13J8

Mr Beer
2016-01-10, 07:13 PM
GURPS 4e has the best combat system I've played.

It's highly simulationist, you can dial the amount of technical details you require up or down, it's plausible and because GURPS is a universal system, you can easily mix- and match combatant tech and genres. If you want a quality arena duel, D&D-style dungeon fighting or time-travelling Nazis refugees desperately battling an enraged T-saur, GURPS will run all of those and do it well.

Like a lot of GURPS players, I found that it makes a better D&D game than D&D does. My dwarf fighters want to be able to break an orc's kneecap before decapitating them, dammit.

For reference: I have played D&D (various editions), Call of Cthulhu, Rolemaster, Runequest, 40K RPG, Warhammer Fantasy and probably a few others. Haven't played Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel or M&M games mentioned above.

Rakaydos
2016-01-10, 09:28 PM
Myriad Song and its fellow Cardinal System games get my vote. Damage is abstracted into 6 or 7 tiers, and causes statuses that reflect being injured in combat. A weapon has a base damage, a stronger hit increased the effect, armor and natural durability decrease the effect, each according to their rolls.
Zero tier is staggering, where you arnt hurt but throown off balance for furthur attacks until you spend an action recovrring.
First tier is a minor injury that increades the tier of furthur att acks until you bandage the wound.
Second tier is morale failure-you can do anything you want except attack, until you either escape or a friend spares an action to get you back in the fight.
Third tier is a major disabling injury that takes weeks to heal, but you arnt quite out of the fight. This increases damage by 2 tiers.
Fourth tier, youre out and bleeding to death.
Fifth tier you are Dead
And 6th tier, your death is so spectacular, people near you suffer morale failure just for watching it happen.
PCs and major npcs get a once prr game ability to reduce death to a major injury or overkill to bleeding out. Otherwise, combat is fast and brutal, and surrender can save your life.

Raimun
2016-01-11, 12:00 AM
I played Call of Cthulhu awhile ago, so forgive my vagueness, but I remember it as uninteresting system to play, as Pendragon's, but often making results that don't fit, and then also barely having relevance in the setting in the first place. Maybe it was simply the style of CoC games that I ended up playing, but it always struck me as counterproductive to have a combat system at all in *that one game where combat is never the answer*

You mean, "that one game where combat is not always the answer? I've certainly solved things with creative use of violence in different rules systems for Cthulhu.

That aside, the combat system in Call of Cthulhu (ie. Chaosium) is not very good. Chaosium works better as a combat system in RuneQuest and Stormbringer. There are... differences.

goto124
2016-01-11, 12:10 AM
I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a combat system at all?"

Arbane
2016-01-11, 01:41 AM
I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a conbat system at all?"

So you can shoot at cultists, of course.

neonchameleon
2016-01-11, 09:03 AM
So you can shoot at cultists, of course.

Especially the one holding the knife over the altar. Oops?

Seriously, CoC is basically sold on the setting, and that was largely a contrast with D&D. Good setting, but the rules (other than the no recovery of insanity except under very rare circumstances) are mediocre.

Anonymouswizard
2016-01-11, 08:31 PM
Especially the one holding the knife over the altar. Oops?

Seriously, CoC is basically sold on the setting, and that was largely a contrast with D&D.

So CoC is basically the proto-World of Darkness?

WoD has a horrible combat system for the record. I suggest ripping out the combat for either CoD or Scion/Exalted 2e, depending on if you want fast or tactical combat (I know that CoD fights can be tactical, but that's not what they were designed for).


Good setting, but the rules (other than the no recovery of insanity except under very rare circumstances) are mediocre.

You get SAN back every adventure, and most insanity should be temporary. Indefinite insanity can heal, and SAN 0 does not mean raving lunatic. I prefer Unknown Armies' insanity system anyway, where you always gain madness from sanity checks, you just hope it's the good madness and that you don't end up with 4 failed notches in Helplessness (and if you get 5 failed notches in one track you can snap and hopefully become insane but stable with your new magic).

CharonsHelper
2016-01-11, 09:06 PM
Seriously, CoC is basically sold on the setting, and that was largely a contrast with D&D. Good setting, but the rules (other than the no recovery of insanity except under very rare circumstances) are mediocre.

I'd argue that the hard to control & unpredictable nature of CoC's combat system is mostly a feature. Could it be better with a similar vibe? Sure. But unlike some other equally awkward combat systems, it's quick, making it much better than slow & awkward. (The speed of it is a feature - focusing too much on tactical combat with take you out of the creepiness.)

As I said above - I wouldn't want to play a campaign of CoC - but it's fun for a one-shot on Halloween.

Raimun
2016-01-12, 12:07 AM
I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a conbat system at all?"

So you can try your luck against some of the smaller monsters? They understand the universal language just fine.

goto124
2016-01-12, 01:46 AM
I thought math is the universal language, but this is funnier :smallbiggrin:

May I sig that?

NoldorForce
2016-01-12, 02:33 AM
Math is the universal language; violence is the universal art.

On topic, out of what I've played recently I'll have to put my vote towards Iron Kingdoms. Not surprising, really, considering that it's a backport of an RPG from a minis wargame.

Raimun
2016-01-12, 04:16 PM
I thought math is the universal language, but this is funnier :smallbiggrin:

May I sig that?

Heh, sure.

hifidelity2
2016-01-13, 07:15 AM
I figured the argument being made was "why does CoC have a conbat system at all?"

so when running away you can shoot the other players in their leg(s). This slows them down making them "lunch" for whatever is chasing you - so hopefully letting you escape

Raimun
2016-01-14, 04:39 AM
so when running away you can shoot the other players in their leg(s). This slows them down making them "lunch" for whatever is chasing you - so hopefully letting you escape

I have this image of Blackadder and some poor, unfortunate souls investigating a mansion crawling with mythos monsters.

Dienekes
2016-01-14, 10:20 AM
I have this image of Blackadder and some poor, unfortunate souls investigating a mansion crawling with mythos monsters.

This just made me realize, Baldrick may be the perfect character to try and survive CoC. Evil books? He can't read. Dark temptations? what will they tempt him with, a turnip? Non-Euclidean math causing confusion leading to madness? He already doesn't understand basic math and remains just as sane.

That's decided, if I ever play another CoC game, I'm making Baldrick.

gtwucla
2016-01-14, 10:52 AM
As much as I love D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, or 5e), I don't think it was designed to be a dedicated combat system, so I wouldn't put them anywhere near the top there (and that's no knock against them, really). As someone previously stated, 'best' is subjective and best for me would be quick, easy, a good measure of your power level, your adversaries' power level, and last but not least, it includes some amount of chance. For that I choose Eldritch Horror (halfway rpg).

Arbane
2016-01-15, 04:22 AM
As much as I love D&D (3.5, Pathfinder, or 5e), I don't think it was designed to be a dedicated combat system, so I wouldn't put them anywhere near the top there (and that's no knock against them, really).

D&D has ALWAYS been a combat system first and foremost. Just look how many pages the game devotes to weapons & armor, combat rules, and spells compared to how much it devotes to everything else. (How _good_ it is as a combat system is another debate altogether.)

gtwucla
2016-01-15, 09:06 AM
It has a combat system sure. To say it is a combat system, I disagree. Just because they dedicated many pages to the trappings of war, doesn't mean it is a combat system. The actual combat section in original AD&D is only 2 pages long for gods' sake.

Amphetryon
2016-01-15, 09:24 AM
It has a combat system sure. To say it is a combat system, I disagree. Just because they dedicated many pages to the trappings of war, doesn't mean it is a combat system. The actual combat section in original AD&D is only 2 pages long for gods' sake.

Since your original comment was about 3.5/PF and 5e, I'm not following how the combat section in AD&D is relevant.

neonchameleon
2016-01-15, 10:39 AM
D&D has ALWAYS been a combat system first and foremost. Just look how many pages the game devotes to weapons & armor, combat rules, and spells compared to how much it devotes to everything else. (How _good_ it is as a combat system is another debate altogether.)

Go back to the very early days - oD&D was a game about hireling management as much as anything. But from 1e onwards 40% of the PHB was devoted to spells.

AMFV
2016-01-15, 10:45 AM
Since your original comment was about 3.5/PF and 5e, I'm not following how the combat section in AD&D is relevant.

It was a direct response to Arbane's assertion that D&D always had been a combat system.

wumpus
2016-01-15, 01:48 PM
Go back to the very early days - oD&D was a game about hireling management as much as anything. But from 1e onwards 40% of the PHB was devoted to spells.

Interesting. Eventually while playing AD&D I realized that a character could be vastly more powerful by bringing an army along. I remember that proficiency bonuses would make 1st level henchman OP (I hope this is from the Dragon, Unearthed Arcana would be awfully late). The other trick would be to drag a balista around. Balistae consider every target AC10 (lowest old school armor class), so level 1 henchman can still hit higher level monsters (and you only needed one character to aim, so get the high[er] level guy to do that). They also do decent damage against large targets, so the overkill vs. orcs doesn't mean ziltch against giants.

There is a lot about henchman and hirelings in the DMG, but in practice it was largely forgotten.

Arbane
2016-01-15, 04:28 PM
It has a combat system sure. To say it is a combat system, I disagree. Just because they dedicated many pages to the trappings of war, doesn't mean it is a combat system. The actual combat section in original AD&D is only 2 pages long for gods' sake.

In the Player's Handbook, sure. (Not counting armor, weapons, blastomancy spells and 27 types of polearms.)
Add in 13 pages specifically about combat in the DMG, and everything in the Monster Manual...

Milodiah
2016-01-16, 10:54 PM
Not counting armor, weapons, blastomancy spells and 27 types of polearms.



THANKS FOR REMINDING ME!

I must now nominate 2nd Edition AD&D, as I finally got to wield a voulge-guisarme that wasn't a houserule :smalltongue: