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?

File: 1706996107588574.jpg (39 KB, 720x765)

39 KB JPG

>>97170473
I like this a lot. Situations like this seem to strongly favor aiming and shooting, right? Really reward being in a prepared position. I love that they make ammo rare or expensive. Choices make these things interesting. Resources become boring when they are infinite.

>>97170492
I think that's an elegant way to think about gameplay. I propose revising it a little bit. Game Efficiency = resolution speed / mechanical depth (or complexity).

I might separate mechanical depth from gameplay depth because a lot of folks have a ton of creative depth in very rules bare systems even though they have mechanical simplicity.

(also is that picture form Old Salem?)

>>97170959
Would love to see your system!
I agree that a short number of rounds is ideal. And I think avoiding HP bloat is essential. I much prefer heroic lite or even low-power play for this reason.
The way my "maneuvers" work is that you can spend extra successes to do maneuvers (like trip, disarm, close distance, etc). However, you can only choose one extra maneuver (beyond dealing damage).

>>97171197
Agree with contested rolls. How do you represent positioning? Is that a different set of rolls?

File: Fighting.jpg (108 KB, 800x591)

108 KB JPG

>>97171369
Love the "without Number" stuff. Crawford is a genius. ACKS is also a ton of fun. It sounds like you're touching on something I've been thinking about: keeping the number of rolls to a minimum to keep things moving.

I still get stuck on rolling separate damage and "hit" rolls. I might need to slaughter that sacred cow in my own design and embrace the philosophy of : if you hit you'll do at LEAST some minimum damage, with additional successes upgrading that damage severity.

>>97171531
Cleave is an interesting mechanic and seems to really give fighters that extra OOMPH. I also really like the DCC "heroic deeds" option to set martials apart.

>>97171644
I've never played savage worlds. I heard it gets a little overly gonzo/cinematic?

>>97171685
I'll answer your question first. I think my game will appeal to someone who enjoys fast, brutal, and decisive combat that leans INTO its historical inspirations rather than heroic fantasy. Rolling almost never results in a "neutral" or non-result. Even if damage isn't dealt, there's often some other effect that happens (e.g. the dagger wielder moves into close range, the warrior lunges for a clinch, the enemy is knocked back or disoriented- suffering a penalty to the next attack, the combatant positions themselves in such a way as to maneuver an enemy between their ally so as to avoid being flanked, etc). It grants details that I'd like to be represented in games; such as armor, hit locations, etc, but does so in a way that requires fewer cognitive steps or mechanical knobs. The core resolution (dice pool, count successes) also feel more plausible and mimc skill probability growth in measured skills. The best part is it's simple to do. No reading numbers, just throw dice and look for 5's, 6's explode. That's it. Compare who has the most successes and describe what happens.

>>97173164
>gonzo/cinematic
wouldn't call it that, at least not the pathfinder for savage worlds.
each character has skills & attributes that are represented by die types, and edges.
there are classes but they are just a series of edges and don't define your character.
player characters all got a max 3 wounds and each time they take damage all their rolls are reduced by the number of wounds they got (although some edges change that).
so let's say I'm a human fighter attacking a goblin with, my fighter has a d10 in fighting and a d10 in strength. I choose to attack the goblin twice (incurring a penalty of -2 to my rolls for the extra action)
first attack:
I roll 1d10 for fighting and 1d6 for luck (all player characters have this for all rolls). I got 6 on my fighting and 6 on my luck, the luck die exploded so I roll again - to a total of 11, I use 11 as my final attack roll because it's higher, subtracting 2 to a final result of 9.
the goblin has a parry of 8 so I hit.
I roll damage - 1d10 for strength + 1d8 for the sword I use. to a total of 5, the goblin has 8 on his toughness score so I do no damage.
second attack:
I roll a final result of 14 (thanks to exploding dice), because I got a number that is higher than the parry of the goblin by more than 4 I add another d6 to my damage dice.
my total damage this time is 12, if it were lower than the goblin would only be stunned by my attack (and thus need to roll on his spirit attribute to try and snap out of it next turn) but I got a number higher than his toughness by more than 4 and inflict a wound on him.
the goblin is just a minion and thus has only one wound. he dies.
obviously there are more rolls and option, and the edges add a lot (didn't fit in the example). the combat runs pretty fast and smooth once everyone learns the system.
there's a lot of options to play with considering all the edges and modifiers you can stuck (like the 2 actions I took in the example), so even pure martial builds feel fun.

>>97173164
Literally none of this is an answer to my question, it's just an assertion with nothing supporting it.
>I think my game will appeal to someone who enjoys fast, brutal, and decisive combat that leans INTO its historical inspirations rather than heroic fantasy.
I am that someone. So far you've failed to give me a single reason why it would.

>>97173111
>Game Efficiency = resolution speed / mechanical depth (or complexity).
I draw a distinction between mechanical width and depth. You can add 1000 perks to a skill tree but if each one is "+5%" then theres a very broad but shallow scope to the system. "Force a target to repeat their previous turn" is a single ability, but the applications are nearly limitless.

The way you have the formula set up the most efficient games are ultra fast with no complexity, but i dont think that would produce a fun experience

>>97170262
My problem with opposed rolls is that it makes GM roll and absolutely silly amount compared to players. Which I guess is fine if GM likes to roll constantly, but personally I find it distracting when my mentality is already being drained by thinking how I will fix the issue of players deciding to drop that necessary NPC prisoner into lava with the door key he was holding.

File: 9781472810748-1934405097.jpg (170 KB, 852x1148)

170 KB JPG

>>97170048
>1. What systems have you found that have made combat engaging?
Fairly wide range for a variety of reasons. Some of the most engaging combat in an rpg I've been part of was in Dogs in the Vineyard when everyone was able to describe and bounce back and forth with combat descriptions. The dice bidding mechanics and how they tie in character abilities and player improvisation can be amazing with the right group.
A few different story game or rules light games have worked out well by incorporating more wargaming background so the abstractions have something to build with like Into the Odd or 3;16 Carnage but if you don't add contextual meat to it through narrative it doesn't work well.
Straight mechanical engaging combat has been En Garde! from Osprey, hits the right amount of player skill, mechanics and theming with attack and defence double blind for the players making for enjoyable and tense swashbuckling duels. Really like that game.
>2. What do you think is a satisfying duration for most fights? Over quickly? Or minimal resolution (followed by optional exposition)
Anywhere from 5 minutes to 30 minutes depending on what's going on. If its a wargame each fight shouldn't take long but the whole thing can be 3+ hours and I still enjoy it. Exposition in rpgs is never optional, its specifically what you need to have a game world. Doesn't have to be a novel but we need context to use and engage with otherwise its just a board game.
>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?
Dice rolls with some variation and double blinds are best.
>4. Do you find "maneuvers" etc.
Not really, tends to be halfassed between narrative combat and a wargame doing neither well.

Wanted to run 5.5e but the only spells are ones tagged ritual. Would it work?

>>97175113
You'd probably want to actually ask /5eg/ for that.
Short answer is no though. There's like 3 dozen rituals in the game, and pretty much every spellcaster and magical subclass would need a heavy revamp.
I'd suggest looking into Adventures in Middle-Earth if you really want a low-magic 5e variant.

>>97175152
Thank you for the recommendation.

File: 1620787127858.png (1.1 MB, 1055x737)

1.1 MB PNG

>>97173956
Sure, here are the recent playtest rules. You're welcome to look at the mechanics in detail.

I've made some changes:
- 6= success was too prohibitive in frequency or number of successes. I've run a few thousand monte carlo simulations with 5 OR 6 = success and 6 explodes (once) and it's giving far more satisfying combats that tend to be much more decisive and faster.
- With these changes, in person playtesting between equally skilled fighters usually lasts 7-12 minutes before one suffers a major injury and must concede (or dies, or exhausts). Weaker characters tend to win or lose within 2-3 exchanges (reliably <10 minutes).
- Endurance thresholds are going to replace the current system, with bonus dice being added as your opponent begins to tire out.
- There's a lot of work to be done with the injury system (highly inspired by Tales from Elsewhere, but I like my version more).
-Exploits (my version of maneuvers or special effects) need a lot of work and balancing.

Obviously, I don't know if this scratches your itch but take a peek if you'd like: https://files.catbox.moe/785cmx.pdf

>>97174640
Oh, I absolutely agree with you that efficiency as I define it doesn't necessarily mean more fun. I do think there's a "baby bear" middle ground

>>97174859
As long as the rolling is fluid and produces fast results I'm usually fine with it (as the perma GM). I sacrifice the cognitive burden for the reward of feeling more engaged with the system.

>>97175428
>Can't answer a simple question
You aren't really making a good case for this being worth looking at. Is this AI generated by any chance?

>>97175454
I think even a cursory read would find that my system is much too full of stupid errors or redundancy or errors to be written by an AI. That being said, I'm not trying to sell you anything. Feel free to look at it, or don't.

>>97176254
>much too full of stupid errors or redundancy or errors to be written by an AI
AI is often redundant and makes stupid errors.
Still can't answer the question I see. If you're incapable of basic reading comprehension I doubt you can make anything that isn't derivative slop.

File: 1704672966979471.gif (1.96 MB, 640x560)

1.96 MB GIF

>>97176265
"Why is your game fun?" "Here are all of the things that I think my game does well/differently from among the variety of choices. These are things that I find fun because I enjoy things like simulating knightly duels to the death and modeling how armor would protect well against sword blows but not necessarily a poleaxe. You also get to engage in roleplaying, immersively, and creatively but with an set of mechanical guardrails that preserve realism and verisimilitude. It's not perfect, but it might enjoy rolling with my particular set of rules." "you can't answer my question and your game must be AI slop".

At a certain point this exaggerated intentionally contrarian rage baiting just gets boring. I'm sure there's other threads on /tg/ more worthy of your time.

>>97176310
>"Why is your game fun?" "Here are all of the things that I think my game does well/differently from among the variety of choices.
None of these are actual answers, anon. I can't believe I have to explain this, but giving me a list of things your system can do is not the same as telling me why that's actually any fun or what the draw of it actually is.

>At a certain point this exaggerated intentionally contrarian rage baiting
Anon, if I were ragebaiting you I'd just intentionally misunderstand your system's rules and claim they're shit. I'm being nice by not relentlessly shitting on you for saying redundant, brainless things like
>These are things that I find fun because I enjoy things
Now please, try to answer the question.

>>97176343
>I can't believe I have to explain this, but giving me a list of things your system can do is not the same as telling me why that's actually any fun or what the draw of it actually is.

"What's fun about playing baseball?"
"Oh, I enjoy hitting the ball, running around the bases, the teamwork, the competition."
"All of those are things you do when playing baseball. I can't believe I have to tell you this, but nothing about that tells me why playing baseball is fun".

I think you might be terminally autistic.

>>97176356
>>97176361
>the teamwork, the competition.
Valid answers. What wouldn't be valid is saying
>Well you hit a ball with a stick and run around.
Which describes dozens of different sports.
>I think you might be terminally autistic.
t. Retard who thinks false equivalencies and strawmen are arguments. Sorry anon, but having to equivocate what people say to entirely different subjects is a sign of autism, not actually wanting an answer to a softball question.

File: 1705130453864214.jpg (49 KB, 422x554)

49 KB JPG

>>97176472
Still goin', huh? In all seriousness, I'd rather someone like you not play the system. It's clear your feedback wouldn't be thoughtful or serious.

>>97176566
>I-I don't even want you to play my system that I posted and asked you to look at!
I get that you're feeling a little bruised after losing an argument but come on, grow up a little. You've already gotten pretty important feedback: Figure out why you think anybody should care about this haphazardly slapped together garbage

>>97176356
>What's fun about tabletop
>Oh, I like rolling the dice
Nobody believes this kek

>>97176625
NTA. Nobody can tell you what is fun for you. People unironically like 5e.

>>97176745
>NTA. Nobody can tell you what is fun for you.
Nobody asked to be told what is fun for them. I asked what makes anon's system fun, and all he could really do is (poorly) describe its existence. The closest he managed is autistically saying "I like um, simulating knight duels" And even that was pretty dumb considering he immediately said something about them that was retarded, but I digress.

>>97170048
>1:
Cyberpunk 2020 and PF2e, but I think the latter might be more due to good GMship
>2:
I can't honestly say. It really depends on how engaging and fast the actual combat turns out. My metric would be being able to resolve two to four small to normal sized encounters per three hour session.
>3:
Despite having played Blade of the Iron Throne which I understand to be a cousin of Riddle I don't actually remember this mechanic. Having looked it up I'd be worried about my players chimping out and blowing all their dice on one attack to be funny, which they have done in similar instances
>4:
Maneuvers are based. Degrees of success are based. I don't see how combining the two would be a bad idea

File: 1737470515611275.jpg (101 KB, 600x642)

101 KB JPG

>>97176625
>grow up
You think we're arguing. On 4chan. And you think "you won". Kek.
The system exists and, like every other roleplaying game, you either find the experience delivers on what you are interested in (find fun) or it doesn't. You have the qualities the system offers and the detail in the playtest.

>>97176756
It's a pointless question. Didn't he post the full rules? People like PF2e here. People unironically like unfun goyslop. You sound nogaems.

>>97176783
>You think we're arguing.

ar·gu·ment
/ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
noun: argument; plural noun: arguments

1.
an exchange of diverging or opposite views, typically a heated or angry one.

>And you think "you won"
When you storm off in a huff and can't respond to any points, yeah you lose. Sucks to suck, anon.
>The system exists
>Fun things are fun... Unfun things aren't fun...
Wow... Do you have any other nuggets of wisdom to impart on the unwashed masses of /tg/?
>You have the qualities the system offers
Calling anything I've seen so far a "quality" seems a bit forgiving. And regardless, you still fail to grasp the question.

>>97176789
>It's a pointless question
It's actually very important to know what aspects of your game you want to be fun and why.
>People like PF2e here.
And? Are you under the impression that no pf2e enjoyer could tell me why they think the game is fun?
>People unironically like unfun goyslop
Well no anon, they don't, because if it weren't fun for them they wouldn't like it. Fun is subjective, you know. Are you autistic? Is that why you're having such a hard time answering questions even normies can?
>You sound nogaems.
This sounds like butthurt projection given you're begging internet strangers to read your game and give you feedback because you can't get friends to play with you. Do you want me to post my roll20 hours to prove you wrong again?

>OP effortposts
>thread is fine for a while
>Gets the slightest pushback
>Has a meltdown over a single anons question
>can't decide whether he's being baited or not
>keeps shitting up his own thread but also never engaging in good faith
>thread turns to utter shit
Wew when did /tg/ get so bad?

>>97176858
People are pussies these days and can't discern the difference between arguing and trolling. Not to mention we get tons of thirdies now who think they desperately need to save their precious izzat or cultural equivalent on anonymous imageboards.

>>97176858
Today. I shouldn't have engaged with the troll.
Ignoring him.

>>97176769
Regarding combat pool mechanics, I recall this being a major flaw to the RoS-adjacent systems. The idea was that dumping all of your combat pool into offense was suicidal. However, a single effective strike could easily render your opponent incapacitated or incredibly ineffective when they struck back. Therefore, most folks would simply go all-in during "fechts" and it ended up feeling unsatisfying.
-Maneuvers and degrees of success have really meshed well in the system. Better maneuvers requiring more success just makes sense from a positional/leverage sense.

A few follow-up questions for the anons who took time to reply:
5. One barrier to more mechanically descriptive or tactile combat (such as allowing for things like hit locations, variable armor types, etc) is that the complexity always slows the process. I'm curious if anyone's found games that are able to keep mechanical depth without slowing the pace?

>>97176839
>Do you want me to post my roll20 hours to prove you wrong again?
Yes.

File: seethegamelet.png (124 KB, 768x361)

124 KB PNG

>>97176903
Sadly that's how it is. OP is just a dumb nogames to boot so he doesn't have anything to add even when he's getting asspats.

>>97176912
Lol. Lmao.

>>97176910
>I recall this being a major flaw to the RoS-adjacent systems. The idea was that dumping all of your combat pool into offense was suicidal. However, a single effective strike could easily render your opponent incapacitated or incredibly ineffective when they struck back.
This was never even a slight problem when you read the rules.
t. TRoS oldfag

File: hmfph.jpg (39 KB, 492x388)

39 KB JPG

>>97176938
>He actually posted Roll20 "stats"}
Tell me, anon, are you a "professional DM"?

>>97176910
>>97176956
>I'm not engaging with him
>Keeps engaging after he gets proven wrong again
LOL

File: 1745719110603407.png (130 KB, 500x392)

130 KB PNG

>>97176938
Bro did you really just post Roll20?

File: Anon I'm sorry.png (29 KB, 571x618)

29 KB PNG

>>97176938

>>97176971
>>97176968
>>97176956
Obvious samefag is obvious.

>>97176910
You should have never engaged or have given an earnest argument instead of sperging out.
You've instead chosen to turn yourself into a random person's digital pinata for no discernible reason.

>>97176978
Give him a minute to edit out all the (you)s kek

>>97176956
>Post proof of playing games
>"Are you a professional DM???"
Lmao what is this gameless nigga on ab-
>>97176968
>>97176971
Oh you're just spamming the thread now after getting blown the fuck out. I'm shocked a single question is all it took to break you.

>>97175428
>>97176310
So is the point just that this is meant to be a knight dueling simulator? It doesn't look like it's any good for that

>>97170077
I think this guy should stick to playing Lasers & Feelings and other one-page rules systems instead of ruining actual games for everyone else.