Which TTRPG has the best combat system? Be it a roleplaying game or a wargame. This is not a bait thread or a shill engagement thread. I'm genuinely curious.
share your opinions and experiences on which combat system you like. generally helps alleviate the instant dismissal of spam threads
>>97297755I stole runequest 3e's combat and integrated it with my homebrewmy other favorite is battletech, played with mechwarriorbut the latter is much more narrow in scope so I don't get to play it very often
>>97297861you mean the avalon hill/games workshop edition? what makes it better than other runequest editions? I really like Honour and Intrigue as far as combat goes. Exalted 2e with it's combat wheel was also great but we didnt play as exalts but commoners with powers so at a lower power level, so it might skew my opinion
>>97297861I've stolen the Mythras version for mine, how is RQ3 different?
>>97297755Speaking for TTRPGs, GURPS. Primarily due to the level of detail and depth of options in combat, but also because it can be easily modified and zoomed in and out of levels of detail depending on the tone of a campaign.
>>97298234I've always been intrigued by GURPS and finally managed to try the Lite version out, I have to say I liked it, and will move to the full version at the next chance. Any tips on stuff to use and cut away when starting out?
>>97297755Ur mom has the best tabletop mechanics if u no wat i mean
>>97297755Depends what you want combat to do. Lots of good D&D clones have plenty of "give the players a ton of strategic choices in grid-based combat."If you're looking for other things, then what? West End Star Wars jedis ending up rolling dozens and dozens of d6 at a time so if you wanna roll a couple fistfuls of dice at the same time? Perfect.Star Trek Adventures turns combat into a narrative that keeps the focus on the story even as the action is going on, making combat part of the roleplpay instead of seperate from it.There are lots of cool things that lots of different systems do. I guess the question is: what do you want it to do?
>>97298356Just concentrate on policing your players' sheets if you're the GM, a lot easier than making a comprehensive list of what's allowed and what isn't. At first you will be fine with Basic Set
>>97297755No such thing as objective best. Some combat systems are great for being deep and tactical. Some are great for making the combat feel fast paced and dynamic. Some are great for making the players feel epic and heroic, while others are great at making them feel tense and in constant danger.System is a tool. "Best" always depends on what kind of story you want to tell and what sort of atmosphere you're trying to evoke
>>97298682>"Best" always depends on what kind of story you want to tell and what sort of atmosphere you're trying to evokeNot when it comes to games.
>>97297755I've found that every little mechanic I've made for myself has been more satisfying than anything I've ever seen anyone else write.
>>97298873What's your system like then?
>>97298356Read Martial Arts, or tactical shooting/gun fu for gun combat. These have the extensive rules that I personally love for detailed combat.As for a few specific manuevers that play a big role in my games, look at Deceptive Attack, Telegraphic Attack, All-Out-Attack, and Targeted Attack.
>>97298862Nonsense. Want tactical combat? Combat that focuses on storytelling and roleplaying? Combat that focuses on dice rolling? Combat that focuses on tactical choices? Combat that can handle everything from a knife-fight to an icbm on the same sliding scale? Fast paced combat that keeps the action moving? Emphasizing fear and panic and chaos of people out of their depth? Deep and intricate magical spell battles that reflect a metaphysics unique to the game world?What you want out of any rules system depends on what you want the rules to do for you. Which depends on what you want your game to be about.
>>97299081Yes, I want all of those things. What singular system does all of those and does them the best?
>>97299147>What singular system does all of thoseGURPS
>>97299183I will note even as a gurpsfag that gurps doesn't necessarily do all of them well, but it does do them!
>>97299147None. Any system that chooses one to do better than the others will therefore not be as good at the others as the systems specializing in doing each of them.There is no objective "best." There's a question: what do you want it to do for you? But you've gotta answer that, before you can answer which does it best.If you want a combat system that specializing in nothing, but does a balanced, mediocre job of everything possible? Then yeah: GURPS is perfectly acceptable. But if you wanted a game with tense rolls, or a game where the focus of combat is to facilitate RP, or a game where the focus is to represent the metaphysical contest of magical skills? GURPS does none of those as well as other things do, because it's got forty-five other things that it's also trying to do.
>>97299241Don't fall into the fallacy that because a system does multiple things it is necessarily worse than a dedicated system. D&D is a dedicated dungeon crawler with combat which is much worse than GURPS at tactical combat. Having played a lot of it, I would say GURPS excels at giving you meaningful tactical choices in combat and excels at simulationism, is good at allowing players to roleplay their character through those combat choices, and is generally mid to bad at doing grand metaphysical magical duel stuff (a consequence of having magic systems which are wholly disconnected from settings).
>>97299266That's not fallacious.Simulationism is a specialization and I'd agree with you about GURPS doing it well. But if you wanted was hand-wavy combat that facilitates player agency and roleplay? Simulationist systems can't do that well, because they're simulating combat and the thing you wanted was to not worry about its technical details.If you don't know what you're looking for, then the solution is to try lots of things until you find one you like. If you do know what you're looking for, then the solution is to articulate it and then locate it.
>>97299309My point is that its not always correct to assume that because system X does two things its necessarily worse at it than something that only does one thing. I agree that GURPS is infact highly specialized towards simulationism, and that it struggles if you want handwavey combat.
>>97299320It's true, though. To do one thing exceptionally well in, you have to sacrifice something else if for no other reason than because it's the thing you're focused on. If you don't? You won't do that thing really well because you'll be bogged down in all the other things you're doing. If I want to run a game about gunplay but also do magic and swords and armor and ten thousand other things well? My rules won't be focused on bringing players an experience about gunplay, any play. If I write a system full of trick-shots and quick-draws where the only other thing is "you do one damage if you punch," then the rules will funnel the players down the path of the one thing I want them doing. And the experience of players playing with those rules will be a focus on gunplay.
>>97297755Depends on what you want to do. There is no universal "best" option.Most are shit though. If you ever want to test whether a combat system is actually any good, run a fight between two characters in a white room and play it out optimally. If you end up making the exact same choices every round, it's irredeemably bad.
>>97299350>If I want to run a game about gunplay but also do magic and swords and armor and ten thousand other things well? My rules won't be focused on bringing players an experience about gunplay, any play.You're not entirely off base in your thinking but this isn't quite the whole truth. It's a three-way spectrum rather than a binary between "specialized" and "generalist".To cover more rules (Whether you do it poorly or badly; I've seen plenty of specialized games, such as Ops & Tactics, where the gunplay is hot ass despite it focusing heavily on guns), you have to sacrifice either the complexity of those rules or the speed of the game. If you sacrifice complexity you can easily get rules that end up feeling samey. If you sacrifice speed then it'll take longer and longer to resolve a turn and keep the game engaging. In return you can increase the scope of your rules though, which can be worth it.There are a few solutions though. You can1. Segregate the rules. IE, how GURPS works. You don't use ALL the rules at once, just what you specifically need, while the rest are pushed to the side.2. Make them elegant. This is tough to explain, but good rules don't necessarily require complexity, but rather, depth. You can get depth out of very simple rules when the stars align, which makes them fast and engaging even for autists. This is hard to do intentionally though.3. Learn the rules thoroughly. Any game could play fast enough if everyone at the table memorized the rules perfectly. Of course, this gets harder as complexity increases, so it can only realistically work up to a certain point and with certain groups.The specific ideal of scope, speed, and complexity, will vary from group to group, so it's really all about figuring out what works for one's own table and trying to tailor whatever system you use towards that end.
>>97299081>tactical combatYou can have this regardless of what your story or atmosphere are about.>Combat that focuses on storytelling and roleplaying?Any activity involving decision-making for a character that isn't you is roleplaying, and what the story or atmosphere is about doesn't change that.>Combat that focuses on dice rolling?Story and atmosphere don't change how statistics work or how those statistics affect outcomes outlined in a set of rules.>Combat that focuses on tactical choices?You can have tactical choices regardless of story and atmosphere.>Fast paced combat that keeps the action moving?This depends on how well the players process and access their information. Story and atmosphere have absolutely no effect on this.>Emphasizing fear and panic and chaos of people out of their depth?This isn't needed to make a game, regardless of who or how many people prefer it.>Deep and intricate magical spell battles that reflect a metaphysics unique to the game worldStory and atmosphere are secondary to these things.
>>97299240Oh sure. It's just that if somebody wants a system that is equally capable of both fast-paced combat and slow tactical combat, they're going to need a system as broad as that to even have a hope of covering it all.
>>97299563Hot take: you don't need one system to do absolutely everything.
>>97299628You only need a system to cover what you want to do in a campaign. The advantage of GURPS is that it can do a lot of different things, but also that it does certain ideas, specifically simulationy, tactical combat with high lethality, extremely well compared to other games. GURPS just has a very strong mechanical foundation, which can be really useful for answering questions like "how long does it take to dig a hole" or "can my character move this boulder" that other systems struggle to or leave to GM fiat.
>>97299670>>97299628I should also add that while GURPS *can* do anything, it doesn't do everything easily, and it doesn't do everything well. I theoretically could run a game about managing a nuclear war in GURPS, but its going to suck. I can run a game in GURPS about starship combat, but I am going to have to read GURPS starships and use it, and that is going to take 10 years and require severe autism to do.
>>97297755Spellbound Kingdom, Honor + Intrigue, Dungeon Crawl Classic, Pendragon, Delta Green, and Mythras all come to mind.
I like, play, and GM grid-based tactical combat games. Some of these are well-known, like D&D 4e, Path/Starfinder 2e, and Draw Steel. Others are more obscure, like Tailfeathers/Kazzam, Tacticians of Ahm, level2janitor's Tactiquest, and Tom Abbadon's ICON 2.0.I have also been running 13th Age 2e's full release version. It is not quite grid-based, but I find it satisfyingly tactical in its own way. I have been keeping combat logs for my campaign over here:https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HQC2x2FfjnBDZDaicQDCLWO2-R6xMyUAa_rJcMABpfw/edit
>>97299739Nobody cares 2hu.
>>97299628I'd also agree with that. But the anon I replied to specifically requested a system that could cover every possible way to handle combat.Generic preferences deserve generic answers. Simple as that.
>>97299739I don't have much to contribute, but I'm glad you're playing and running games, and I hope you continue to enjoy them.We need more people who actually play games here.
>>97297763Bit late maybe because I went for a cheeky 10 hour nap, but I kind of liked The One Ring's combat. The stance system was interesting, the fights were quick and the HP being abstracted to Endurance and Wounds made more sense than D&D's meat points.
>>972996754e Spaceships is actually relatively simple, but it can only emulate CoaDE-style i.e. realistic eggshells with hammers combat. The subsystem damage mechanics seem cool until you realize you're not going to be cinematically limping along in a swiss cheesed ship, you'll get blasted to smithereens if hit at all
if the mechanics doesnt make your character bleed from their rectum when gutshot they are lame unrealistic shit tier mechanics.
>>97297755Riddle of Steel with the Flower of Battle supplement, but "they" don't want you to know this.
>>97300383The government?
>>97297755World of Five Nations.
>>97300403I've already said too much, they're coming for me.
>>97300415>A Revised Naruto Setting and RPGPLEASE tell me you're taking the piss
>>97300422I'm dead fucking serious.
>>97298612>>97299017Will keep that in mind, thank you
>>97300422A low power level naruto campaign would be cool
>>97300415Have you played it? I don't understand the dice resolution mechanic. You roll many dice but only 1 number out of 10 counts for successes? Why have it change with rank? Is that just a typo?
>>97300760I have played it extensively. I've been keeping an eye on it since it first got playtested on /tg/ back when quests were allowed here.>>97300760>I don't understand the dice resolution mechanic. You roll many dice but only 1 number out of 10 counts for successes?Stats determine your dice pool. Rank determines your success threshold. For example if your Rank value is 3, that means every die that turns up a number below or equal to 5 (rank + 2) gives you +2 successes to your result, with a roll of 1 giving you double that.>Why have it change with rank?Rank is part of character progression and power level.
>>97299081What if I want combat that feels different in a bunch of samey 5x5 rooms in a dungeon
>>97298877It's boring to everyone who isn't me, because it's too bookkeeping, too complex, too much math, and makes people have hallucinations about holding controllers.The point is that YOU can make YOUR GAME how YOU WANT.
>>97297755I wonder what is the best, but for me system should be thematically fulfilling and in that case I would pick Nechronica as my favorite. It is cool, bloody, meaty, tactical and with integrated into mechanic teen-anime drama.
>>97298877Wrong question, you should ask them what they wrote because it might be interesting to see, learn from, etc. Its much more likely they haven't written shit and are just posting to make noise. >>97298873Post an example of something you wrote for yourself, what made it work and what you've used it for.
My favorite combat system for tabletop has to be Interlock/Friday Night Fire Fight. It's the combat system for Cyberpunk 2020. It's even better when used with Interlock Unlimited tweaks. It has the down side of being a bit crunchy and a little slow for many tables but once learned in flows well.A bit less crunchy but still solid is the combat system for Traveller.
>>97301773-> >>97301264
>>97298682>No such thing as objective best.Cowardly take of a redditor who's scared of being downvoted.
>>97303959>I'm a based freethinker because I refuse to accept some questions have answers more nuanced than black&whiteWhatever helps you sleep at night you mongoloid
>>97301264>boring to everyone who isn't meWhy don't you let them decide that? Unless you're the most unique person alive there are bound to be people who share your sensibilities and could at the very least be inspired by what you wrote
>>97298682You're right, but OP never said objective so it reads as very "well ackshually". There's zero need to get into the semantic nitty gritty when OP's question reads as anyone who's not feeling pedantic as>what combat system(s) do you like the most and why
>>97297755I'm personally partial to wfrp4e's combat system, though I hear its similar to GURPS.
>>97302302So nothing.
>>97297755Here's an interesting answer: some stuff I particularly liked about various systems and poached for my homebrew-in-progress>Anima Beyond FantasyThe ability to create custom martial arts techniques; fights between high-level fighters resulting in collateral damage; high-strength attacks causing knockback or shaking the ground; effects on the environment for charging up large amounts of magic/ki at once; range attacks targeting a fixed DC based on distance and factors, while the defender contests a flat DC based on the projectile; rules for parrying magic and energy-based attacks with a weapon versus a shield versus a barrier.>Exalted"Initiative" representing a fighter's degree of advantage that goes up and down as they experience variable degrees of success in defending against opponents, enabling a back-and-forth fight with actual injuries being climatic and decisive. Also the rules for mass combat.>KamigakariSpecial attacks being powered by "spirit dice," which might cost, say, a 4 and a 5. A pool of such are rolled at the start of combat and stored, and various abilities and circumstances can adjust, reroll, or steal/trade dice so players can get what they need to use their abilities. Dice are rerolled shortly after being used also.
>>97304656They did say that.Otherwise, I would have been happy to share what I've made.But again, that isn't the point.
>>97304866It's nothing like GURPS though
>>97307039Ah, then I was misinformed. My apologies.
>>97300347There are rules for dealing with it. But it's a lot of work to fine tune it right. Which is a normal GURPS problem it always works best when adhering to some kind of semi-realistic setting. M&M would be way better for doing some Culture+ bullshit fighting where you blow up whole planets and star clusters with attacks. Even though GURPS technically can do it too.
>>97307104IIRC (just leafed through it once) WFRP 4e combat is dominated by reactive attacks making it punishing to switch targets, while GURPS has no such attacks at all. It plays quite differently
>>97307001>"Initiative" representing a fighter's degree of advantage that goes up and down as they experience variable degrees of success in defending against opponents, enabling a back-and-forth fight with actual injuries being climatic and decisive.Initiative just makes alpha striking too important and you don't really get a back and forth. Whoever goes down first is fucked.
>>97307210That's not how it plays at all though.
>>97307212That's why you don't make alpha striking an option in your games.
>>97300347>>97307195I don't think it's unreasonable to handle specialized things with different subsystems that you can just create yourself. If I was running Tales of the Solar Patrol I'd probably just yoink the ship movement stuff from Triplanetary and roll my own system for attacking/damage/subsystems that I think fits the setting and intended gameplay well. Could still use a lot of regular skill checks for things like navigaton etc and having different players working different parts of the ship of course.
>>97307215Looks like yours truly is also retarded but anyway it's nothing like GURPS, if it resembled GURPS at all I would probably have understood it
>>97307240There's really no way not to tbqh
>>97307294>there's really no way to limit the character and equipment options in your games . . . ?
Alright, fuck the OP question. Here's a new one. Which game has the best MAGIC system?
>>97307361You can alpha strike even if everyone on the field is an unga bunga in a loincloth with a club
>>97307240Alpha striking is always gonna be an option, anon.
>>97307436Fuck off bumpfag.
>>97307485I do what I want, bitch.
>>97298682NTA, but gimme a dynamic, cinematic fencing/fighting system for a swashbuckling movie setting that still offers many viable options to choose from in any given round.
>>97307959Just play H+I
>>97307436That wizard has naked men as the wallpaper.
>>97307959>cinematic
>>97308580Yes.
>>97308994Literally impossible for a non-visual medium.
>>97297755I liked the ideas in Osprey's Ronin. Never got to play it and combat with multiple fighters per side was kinda poorly described, but the use of token pools for attack and defense and picking between multiple attacks, enhancing attacks, priority etc looked really cool. I'm thinking of cribbing some of that for a homebrew.
>>97309023Sorry to hear about your crippling lack of imagination. Have you considered a different hobby?
>>97309365Cinematic media have nothing to do with imagination, and require no imagination on the part of the viewer.
>>97309365Phantasia isn't cinema, you fucking drooling retard.
