i will effortpost too, this is a good thread.

>1. What systems have you found that have made combat engaging?
none. either trading blows, or speed it up with a check-vs-another check. maybe with bonuses or penalties (think reaction roles or morale scores).

>2. What do you think is a satisfying duration for most fights? Over quickly? Or minimal resolution (followed by optional exposition)
couple of minutes, so you can get back to exploring the dungeon/wilderness. no need for flowery prose for the fight itself, any more than there is for "you rest up in the inn for the night".

>3. Do you find a sort of "bidding" of dice (such as in Riddle of Steel and her derivatives) fun? Or do you prefer the dice that you roll to be fairly consistent/static in their outcomes?
the latter.

>4. Do you find "maneuvers"- like in Mythras- fun? Do you find that tracking a number of maneuvers grinds combat resolution down too slowly? What about a sort of freeform ability to spend "bonus success" on maneuvers (sort of "fiction first")?
no. absolutely not. tracking them wouldn't bother me, but you are adding complexity for complexity's sake. you already have hit points and (presumably) weapons that do different points of damage on funny-shaped dice.

>>97170048
Hmm. Thats a lot of work to answer, but if i dont let this distract me ill have to do my actual job so
>1. What systems have you found that have made combat engaging?
I liked dark heresy's gunfights. WOD is funny but not good. D&D is boring. The difference to me is that i actually had choices to make on my turn
>2. What do you think is a satisfying duration for most fights? Over quickly? Or minimal resolution (followed by optional exposition)
At least six turns, there needs to be enough time for those decision points to emerge then resolve. Otherwise its just numbers colliding
>3. Do you find a sort of "bidding" of dice (such as in Riddle of Steel and her derivatives) fun? Or do you prefer the dice that you roll to be fairly consistent/static in their outcomes?
Its fine, ive never played a system like that though
>4. Do you find "maneuvers"- like in Mythras- fun? Do you find that tracking a number of maneuvers grinds combat resolution down too slowly? What about a sort of freeform ability to spend "bonus success" on maneuvers (sort of "fiction first")?
Never played mythras so i dont understand the question

>I'm thinking about my system. It's very inspired by Mythras, Forbidden Lands, and Riddle of Steel but I'm unsatisfied with it. I'd like to really look at the fundamentals- the statistics, the base mechanics, the speed of resolving each round- before tacking on additional details. Right now, I have attacker declaring an attack and defender declaring a reaction (dodge, parry, or block with shield), rolling a dice pool (attribute+professional rank+gear bonus) and comparing successes. Extra successes are spent on dealing more damage or performing maneuvers. I'm curious if anyone here has experiences in systems that they've found particularly fun, fast, engaging, and place a lot of decision pressure on the player (to replicate- in a way- the stress of combat)
I dont think i have anything of value to contribute there that isnt entirely conceptual

>>97170048
Nothing beats shinobigami IMO.
>secret initiative choice each round
>going first can cripple your opponent, so it's super important
>but higher initiative = higher fumble chance
>initiative is also your "position", relative to the other combatants. Go too fast or too slow and you literally can't target your opponent
Some great decision pressure just from a single choice, as everyone is trying to draw first blood without messing up or overshooting

>>97170048
It's nice to see an effortpost here, for once.

Unfortunately, the only engaging combat I've encountered has come from playtests and experiments of my own design. I tried D&D 5e, and in the short times every couple of sessions we actually had combat, there were so few options available to me that even that bored me.
A given duration on its own will never be inherently satisfying to me; it always depends on the context. Some of the combat encounters from my time "playing" 5e lasted 20-30 minutes, which had the party missing every fucking attack, and only ended when either the DM's wife casted nuke on the enemies, or when the DM's super special scripted DMPC came in and did a !Berserker Barrage on them. On the flipside, I've sat at my desk for my own projects - rolling dice, tracking locations and statuses, logging results - and before I knew it, three hours had passed without me realizing.
I greatly prefer static outcomes, because I like to know my options and the odds of success at a glance. I've had too many instances where there would be something like a chandelier I want to swing from, and I'd pass on a 7+1, but then later down the line, I'd fail a chandelier swing under the same conditions on a 10+5. Consistency is key to gameplay.
I don't know how Mythras handles "maneuvers", but in my projects, I like to have a lot of active skills with their own effects as a means to combat the varieties of foes I want to include. I like combat to be a big part of my games, so I want it to be deeper than "well just ask DM if you can do something cool", which often invites a result similar to the chandelier problem.

File: 1704391592916930.jpg (393 KB, 1280x1971)

393 KB JPG

>>97170077
Thanks for your reply. I really enjoy opposed dice rolls, personally. Agree that there's probably a sweet spot here with speed of resolution.

Here's the only problem I find with high lethality systems: it's a bit of a culture shock for a lot of players when they are at the receiving end of the lethality. Do any systems strike a good balance, in your opinion?

>>97170136
-I'll have to take a look at DH. I'm aware it's a D100 roll under system. What choices did you find made it compelling?
-It's interesting to see "at least six turns" compared to the prior reply.
-Mythras consists of opposed rolls. If one player happens to roll particularly better than their opponent they can also perform "special effects" like knocking someone down, tripping them, etc. What makes them *very* compelling is that they are available to everyone
-I'm interested in your conceptional contributions, genuinely

>>97170142
Okay, so I've never heard of this before, I'm very intrigued

File: 1704331414884858.jpg (378 KB, 827x1169)

378 KB JPG

>>97170163
Thanks for replying.
One thing I've found kind of paradoxical when looking at different systems and designs is that when you create rules or options for players to use it sort of funnels player choices into those options. Ironically, systems like OSR-adjacent systems allow for the freest range of creative choices (you start by describing how you want and the DM sort of provides a ruling to how that changes your roll or odds of success... requires a lot of proficiency to do well).
-Your description of 5e combat is exactly why I really look for design goals that are very different from 5e. I think 5e combat is clunky, boring, and unsatisfying.
-Agree with consistency. I think I read somewhere that 70% for a proficient person is sort of a "sweet spot"
-Mytras maneuvers are explained here: >>97170262. I call them maneuvers but mythras calls them "special effects" I think.
- Agree that "mother may I" DM-player interactions are probably less satisfying than something consistent and known to the player.

>>97170262
>What choices did you find made it compelling?
well for gunfights specifically
- you have only two actions including movement, so you constantly have to weigh your options between moving aiming and shooting
-you can shoot different ways depending on your firearm, so you might have very different expectations between two single precision shots or one aimed burst, or even mag-dumping with supressive fire to inflict a more consistent debuff for later
-position affects cover and elevation and melee is dangerous, so where and how you move is constantly part of that calculus, especially if you have a heavy weapon that needs bracing and cant easily be repositioned
-you also need to reload but ammo is expensive, so do you go into a fight with only three rounds in the chamber or do you reload now to make sure you dont spend two turns trying to bring your heavy weapon back online? or do you risk it knowing that when you do run completely dry it will be three rounds sooner? and if you empty a clip, what then? reload as stated, or draw a sidearm, or a grenade?
-all this while demons are hitting you with fear or blindness or some underhiver is trying to rub worms into your eyes
point is
the choice you make now is dependent on what happened last turn and last session, and will have significant impacts on what will happen next turn and next session, and that butterfly effect swings wildly between turns so it's never the same canned solution (just kidding the solution is always more bullets, suppressive fire for life)
>-It's interesting to see "at least six turns" compared to the prior reply.
well the game should move as fast as possible without compromising it's integrity, but we need to define what integrity is first. for me its having turns that are dynamic. if the trajectory of the fight doesnt change during your turn then you didnt really need to take a turn at all, just apply a static tick to the "victory condition" and move on

File: dioramaTable.png (1.81 MB, 1200x799)

1.81 MB PNG

>>97170473
as for the broad concepts for design, i think ive said it all indirectly already. a system should play fast so you can have more game per hour, but obviously "game" is a measure of mechanical depth. so we want to have the simplest possible resolution mechanics that offer the maximum possible ammount of emergent complexity
(game depth * resolution speed) = game played per hour

the art then is engineering a system that produces the emergent properties you actually want, then whittling it down to its simplest possible form to make it easily playable for a human

Also if you have enough budget left over you should try to make it fun

>>97170077
>no need for flowery prose for the fight itself
[ANGRY EXALTED NOISES]

>>97170048
>What systems have you found that have made combat engaging?
My own. First was my Halo TTRPG, but I suspect that's more the GM being good about enemy positioning and forcing us in turn to do the same. I haven't had a chance to test it but I have a Sonic the Hedgehog TTRPG where, to keep the pace up, a lot of Actions are also Reactions, consuming Actions from your next Turn to allow combat to move quicker.

>What do you think is a satisfying duration for most fights? Over quickly? Or minimal resolution (followed by optional exposition)
Ideally, 3-5 rounds at most. It's a good mix of fun combat without it taking all day.

>Do you find a sort of "bidding" of dice (such as in Riddle of Steel and her derivatives) fun? Or do you prefer the dice that you roll to be fairly consistent/static in their outcomes?
Not my cup of tea. I generally prefer dicepools for combat, fixed rolls for skills and other stuff. I like player investments to matter heavily either way though.

>Do you find "maneuvers"- like in Mythras- fun? Do you find that tracking a number of maneuvers grinds combat resolution down too slowly? What about a sort of freeform ability to spend "bonus success" on maneuvers (sort of "fiction first")?
I'm unfamiliar, but I think that having more options is never bad, but using all of your options at once being optimal is a slog. Basically, have the depth there for players who want to engage with it, but if you just want to play a beatstick, you should be able to do that and succeed too.

>>97170048
Idk, but my totally original donut steel way of doing things is gaining dice on good positioning or where there'd be an advantage to roll against a target number on shooting and a contested roll for melee. Having something that lines up the actual action that enables the player to manipulate the outcome means the action is more engaging due to player input. That also means the entire process of decision, action, result, has a bigger player fingerprint.

>>97170048
>1. What systems have you found that have made combat engaging?
I don't mind systems like D&D, PF, DC20, ACKS, C&C, "X" without Number, Veiled Riders
2. What do you think is a satisfying duration for most fights? Over quickly? Or minimal resolution (followed by optional exposition)
I prefer less over the top where it's roll to see if you hit/succeed (GM rolling to counter) and how much you do/what you do should be the baseline over 10 rolls for combat. I can see 3-5 rolls for crafting or long stuff. Especially for something that takes more than one session to do. However you should be able to have your +/-X added to your roll as then roll again to see how much you do. Not a back and forth for 3 mins rolling to see if you even do something.
>3. Do you find a sort of "bidding" of dice (such as in Riddle of Steel and her derivatives) fun? Or do you prefer the dice that you roll to be fairly consistent/static in their outcomes?
I can see cases for both. It all depends on the group, GM, and type of "adventure" the group is going for.
>4. Do you find "maneuvers"- like in Mythras- fun? Do you find that tracking a number of maneuvers grinds combat resolution down too slowly? What about a sort of freeform ability to spend "bonus success" on maneuvers (sort of "fiction first")?
I like the idea of them and think they can be very fun, especially when it help counter minmaxers and let's martials classes have more to do than "I attack 1-4 times."

>>97170048
It's heavely depends on system. In osr focus on general exploration and strategic resources managment, so single fight need to be fast, becouse they litle more significant than single trap

Reaction rules - fight can don't start at all.
Morale rules - you don't need kill all of them to win.
Magic - powerfull tend to be "autowin" option.
In my belowed ACKS fighters gets cleave and bonus damage as they level, so they become good against many low HD enemies.
Maneuvers can be fun, in my expirence often used only on low level when MU not powerful enought.

>>97170048
>1. What systems have you found that have made combat engaging?
I like savage worlds, my group plays pathfinder for savage worlds and has been for years.

>>97170048
1. Several, but I'm not sharing them on a board that hates fun as a hobby. It's more productive to talk about experiences broadly to weed out gameless shitposters.
2. Duration doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the time you've spent on combat.
3. They're cool but not really the main draw or what makes the system fun. "Consistent"/static dice systems are dogshit though and you've basically finished playing by the time you're out of character creation.
4. Depends on how they're implemented. Mythras just kinda sucks in general.

>I'd like to really look at the fundamentals
I'll ask you a question that most game devs are too scared/lazy to ask themselves then: Why is your game fun? What is supposed to make any of what you listed engaging to me, a player?