Combat in RPGs (Or Why I Don't Like Called Shots)

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I am a massive fan of abstract combat. I like turns that represent a few seconds or longer. To me, an attack should not represent a single quick blow, but a combined effort - whether that be a bluff and then a devastating strike or a series of quick blows.

Instead of deciding exactly what one's character does, and then rolling, I prefer for one to make a very rough, loosely defined decision for their character's actions, roll, and then describe exactly what happened to produce the results that were generated. The nature of their character affects what went well and what went wrong to produce said results.

This encourages acting and improvisational storytelling, rather than simply doing what is most strategically viable at all times. It means players will focus less on playing to win and more on telling a story.

I enjoy hit points more when they represent morale, fatigue, and luck on top of physical punishment. A warrior who is almost out of hit points might only have a few scrapes and bruises, but their chest is heaving with fatigue and the vigor has left their spirit. No one should be getting the kind of serious injury represented by a called shot until they run out of hit points. Until then, all of the injuries they receive are minor and easy to ignore. What is really being chipped away at is their ability to defend themselves.

[ThiagoMartell]

Congratulations on liking strawberry instead of chocolate!

[warty goblin]

It has struck me for some time that if we give spell casters one billion and one distinct ways to cast spells, we should give people with swords an equivalent number of options for going medieval on things.

If simple combat is the thing, great, but let's apply it evenly. Most rules I read end up with severely anemic options for melee and ranged fighters, and entire chapters of options for magical folks. Sure you get maybe some called shots and things like charges and trip attacks, but those are so broad as to lack flavor. I wanna be able to force an enemy to commit to defense of one quarter, then chop him up from the other, or stab somebody around a shield bind, or grab a finger and use pain compliance to force somebody down.

Sure a person can describe all these things with very general combat rules. You could also reduce spellcasting to a targeted damage spell, an area of effect spell, and a generic minor debuff, and describe them as being fireballs etc.

I haven't seen very many systems do this, because it's boring. I find generic attack roles just as boring, for about the same reason. Options are (to a point) fun. But we have this strange notion that swinging a weapon is something simple that can be effectively abstracted into a single, one-size-fits-all mechanic, while casting a spell isn't.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Originally Posted by warty goblin

It has struck me for some time that if we give spell casters one billion and one distinct ways to cast spells, we should give people with swords an equivalent number of options for going medieval on things.

If simple combat is the thing, great, but let's apply it evenly. Most rules I read end up with severely anemic options for melee and ranged fighters, and entire chapters of options for magical folks. Sure you get maybe some called shots and things like charges and trip attacks, but those are so broad as to lack flavor. I wanna be able to force an enemy to commit to defense of one quarter, then chop him up from the other, or stab somebody around a shield bind, or grab a finger and use pain compliance to force somebody down.

Sure a person can describe all these things with very general combat rules. You could also reduce spellcasting to a targeted damage spell, an area of effect spell, and a generic minor debuff, and describe them as being fireballs etc.

I haven't seen very many systems do this, because it's boring. I find generic attack roles just as boring, for about the same reason. Options are (to a point) fun. But we have this strange notion that swinging a weapon is something simple that can be effectively abstracted into a single, one-size-fits-all mechanic, while casting a spell isn't.

This is interesting, but I heartily disagree. Abstract combat is only as boring as you make it. I can have plenty of fun describing the details of my attack roll of 17 that dealt 6 points of damage. I actually also enjoy abstract spell-casting, like how you described.

I don't find any of this boring. Quite the opposite. I find it freeing.

[navar100]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

I am a massive fan of abstract combat. I like turns that represent a few seconds or longer. To me, an attack should not represent a single quick blow, but a combined effort - whether that be a bluff and then a devastating strike or a series of quick blows.

Instead of deciding exactly what one's character does, and then rolling, I prefer for one to make a very rough, loosely defined decision for their character's actions, roll, and then describe exactly what happened to produce the results that were generated. The nature of their character affects what went well and what went wrong to produce said results.

This encourages acting and improvisational storytelling, rather than simply doing what is most strategically viable at all times. It means players will focus less on playing to win and more on telling a story.

I enjoy hit points more when they represent morale, fatigue, and luck on top of physical punishment. A warrior who is almost out of hit points might only have a few scrapes and bruises, but their chest is heaving with fatigue and the vigor has left their spirit. No one should be getting the kind of serious injury represented by a called shot until they run out of hit points. Until then, all of the injuries they receive are minor and easy to ignore. What is really being chipped away at is their ability to defend themselves.

In other words, Stormwind Fallacy.

[warty goblin]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

This is interesting, but I heartily disagree. Abstract combat is only as boring as you make it. I can have plenty of fun describing the details of my attack roll of 17 that dealt 6 points of damage. I actually also enjoy abstract spell-casting, like how you described.

I don't find any of this boring. Quite the opposite. I find it freeing.

Well that's consistent and fair. I don't actually object to rules-light all that much (or wouldn't if I actually played anymore), I'm just tired of half-ass options for Mr. Swordpants while Mr. Wizardbreeches gets three chapters of options. Mostly because I usually want to play Mr. Swordpants.

I'm also generally weary of the strange thought process behind that. I'm a mathematician by training, but sword combat is quite probably the most subtle and complex thing I've ever studied. Boiling it down to 'I spend six seconds attacking this dude' while meticulously cataloging the differences between using funny words to set people on fire and using funny words to electrocute them strikes me as weird.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Originally Posted by warty goblin

Well that's consistent and fair. I don't actually object to rules-light all that much (or wouldn't if I actually played anymore), I'm just tired of half-ass options for Mr. Swordpants while Mr. Wizardbreeches gets three chapters of options. Mostly because I usually want to play Mr. Swordpants.

I'm also generally weary of the strange thought process behind that. I'm a mathematician by training, but sword combat is quite probably the most subtle and complex thing I've ever studied. Boiling it down to 'I spend six seconds attacking this dude' while meticulously cataloging the differences between using funny words to set people on fire and using funny words to electrocute them strikes me as weird.

I agree. But rather than change things to giving Mister Swordpants three chapters of options, I would instead de-complexify Mister Wizardbreeches. I guess its a matter of taste.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

I agree. But rather than change things to giving Mister Swordpants three chapters of options, I would instead de-complexify Mister Wizardbreeches. I guess its a matter of taste.

You might like Legend, Mr. Hobbit. If you like I can hunt you up a link to their IRC, and to the game itself.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

You might like Legend, Mr. Hobbit. If you like I can hunt you up a link to their IRC, and to the game itself.

I found it and have started reading it. Thanks.

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by navar100

In other words, Stormwind Fallacy.

Not... exactly. Rather than saying "optimization and paying attention to numbers in a given game system is mutually exclusive with roleplaying", he's saying "a game system that encourages microscopic attention to detail during play detracts from roleplaying". (I'm not sure I agree with his thesis, but it isn't really Stormwind, and it's considerably more defensible.)

To the OP, I both like and dislike your approach to hit points. On the one hand, I like the idea that what's being worn down is stamina, ability to defend, that kind of thing; on the other, I think calling it "hit points" may be a bit of a misnomer, and it tends to create odd interactions where e.g. cure light wounds (to use a D&D-ism) primarily gives you a rest break. In my own WIP game system, then, I separated hit points and stamina. Stamina grows rapidly, but hit points (which represent physical durability) hardly increase at all with levels.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

I found it and have started reading it. Thanks.

I'd highly suggest going to their IRC so that you can access the current errata; as Legend gets closer to the 1.0 release, rules are changing less often, but it's still very much a system in development. Just pop on and ask someone for a link to Someone Set Up Us the Legend.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Originally Posted by tuggyne

Not... exactly. Rather than saying "optimization and paying attention to numbers in a given game system is mutually exclusive with roleplaying", he's saying "a game system that encourages microscopic attention to detail during play detracts from roleplaying". (I'm not sure I agree with his thesis, but it isn't really Stormwind, and it's considerably more defensible.)

To the OP, I both like and dislike your approach to hit points. On the one hand, I like the idea that what's being worn down is stamina, ability to defend, that kind of thing; on the other, I think calling it "hit points" may be a bit of a misnomer, and it tends to create odd interactions where e.g. cure light wounds (to use a D&D-ism) primarily gives you a rest break. In my own WIP game system, then, I separated hit points and stamina. Stamina grows rapidly, but hit points (which represent physical durability) hardly increase at all with levels.

This is one of the many reasons I don't play D&D itself very much. The whole thing is full of inconsistencies, poor design decisions, and ideas that are maintained only because they are considered essential to the D&D experience despite being ill-conceived.

Some games I prefer: New World of Darkness, Savage Worlds, Dragon Age, Song of Ice and Fire, Basic RolePlaying, Dungeon Crawl Classics, The One Ring, and some of my own homebrew systems.

All of the games I listed have flaws, but they are a bit more sensible in their design.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Congratulations on liking strawberry instead of chocolate!

Eww. Peanut Butter ice cream, now that's the stuff.

Seriously though, I can sortof understand the OP's concerns, but I don't think it goes all the way. From the roleplaying lens, the purpose of rules is to provide structure. A game might provide too much structure in some areas and not enough structure in others, or provide an area with the wrong kind of structure, but I don't think the existence of structure at all is a bad thing, necessarily.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

If magic were to be made more abstract, the fact that a wizard's hit points increase with every level-up could be credited to protection spells cast off-screen.

... I quite like that.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

If magic were to be made more abstract, the fact that a wizard's hit points increase with every level-up could be credited to protection spells cast off-screen.

... I quite like that.

And psychics slowly stop needing to use their gross, material body for things like 'living', so you put the sword in them and they don't even bleed because they're sustaining themselves by SHEER WILLPOWER.

Why did they lose hit points? Because your hostile intentions hurt them in their soul.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

And psychics slowly stop needing to use their gross, material body for things like 'living', so you put the sword in them and they don't even bleed because they're sustaining themselves by SHEER WILLPOWER.

Why did they lose hit points? Because your hostile intentions hurt them in their soul.

I think you might be being sarcastic, but I like the idea nonetheless.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

I think you might be being sarcastic, but I like the idea nonetheless.

No sarcasm at all - I use Blue Text for that.

Mind you, I'm from the "1 HP = 1 Gallon of Blood" school of hit points, but that doesn't mean that I don't find your idea intriguing.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

I found it and have started reading it. Thanks.

Legend still spends more time talking about magic than talking about, well, anything else. Magic is also more versatile and detailed than, well, anything else.
CH, have you ever heard of Ars Magica? It's magic system allows for on-the-fly casting, which was ripped off by an inspiration to White Wolf's Mage. It is a game about magic, though.
Truth be said, I don't understand the point of the rant. So you don't like that. You already mentioned games that do it the way you want it to be done. So why does it bother you that other games don't? It's like my strawberry x chocolate comment from before. If might not work for you, but clearly it works for other people. Your OP is just a lot of (polite) bashing. You don't even mention "oh, and games X and Y don't do that, in case you want to try something different". It's hard not to get the vibe that you're saying "you're wrong about liking this".
Basically, you paint your house green. Some people paint their houses blue. Why are you complaining about how other people paint their houses?

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

Basically, you paint your house green. Some people paint their houses blue. Why are you complaining about how other people paint their houses?

Because when people care about something, either positively or negatively, they want to talk about it. And because these sorts of conversations and debates have helped to define the evolution of RPGs over the years as well.

[Knaight]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

Mind you, I'm from the "1 HP = 1 Gallon of Blood" school of hit points, but that doesn't mean that I don't find your idea intriguing.

As we've previously established, Dungeons and Dragonballs remains a remarkably consistent system.

[tuggyne]

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

This is one of the many reasons I don't play D&D itself very much. The whole thing is full of inconsistencies, poor design decisions, and ideas that are maintained only because they are considered essential to the D&D experience despite being ill-conceived.

Well, CLW et al are not perfect, but yes, they are a fairly deep and intuitive aspect of many ideas of magic: why shouldn't you be able to heal wounds and damage from combat, after all?

Originally Posted by Chainsaw Hobbit

If magic were to be made more abstract, the fact that a wizard's hit points increase with every level-up could be credited to protection spells cast off-screen.

Yes, you can do this, but it only works if a) you have few or no protection spells available to choose from in play and b) you don't mind the lack of choice.

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

I'm from the "1 HP = 1 Gallon of Blood" school of hit points

I love this description.

[Lord_Gareth]

Originally Posted by tuggyne

I love this description.

Try running it sometime, it's a hoot. I handwave HP in more serious games, but when I actually do the "Gallon of Blood" thing the results have been hilarious. I think my favorite was this chasm my players were having trouble crossing (being too low-level for flight spells yet). They're thinking for thirty minutes out of game when suddenly the rogue goes, "Wait, I've got it!", pulls out his wand of Cure Light Wounds and starts cutting himself.

They swam across.

[ThiagoMartell]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

Because when people care about something, either positively or negatively, they want to talk about it. And because these sorts of conversations and debates have helped to define the evolution of RPGs over the years as well.

Gareth, I'm wondering if you actually read what I wrote. My point is not against discussing it, it's against the way the OP was written.
It starts no discussion, it provides no counterpoints, it just says "this is bad".

Oh, just remembered two systems CH might like (both are available for free):
Anima Prime is completely narrative-driven.
Active Exploits is a diceless system. How much you want your character to succeed (effort, as the system calls it) determines if you succeed or not. Because of that, it ends up being narratively driven.
You probably already know about FATE, but it would be a crime not to mention it. Also, the old Weiss SAGA System, used for Age of Mortals and one of the Marvel games. You use playing cards instead of dice, so it's kind of like Active Exploits. Mutants & Masterminds has an alternate rule for that as well.

[Sith_Happens]

Originally Posted by Lord_Gareth

And psychics slowly stop needing to use their gross, material body for things like 'living', so you put the sword in them and they don't even bleed because they're sustaining themselves by SHEER WILLPOWER.

Why did they lose hit points? Because your hostile intentions hurt them in their soul.

"Spiral power is rapidly depleting!"

[Answerer]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

It starts no discussion, it provides no counterpoints, it just says "this is bad".

It does no such thing. It literally only says "I like this."

[ThiagoMartell]

"Add to Ignore List" is my new favorite feature in these forums.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

Originally Posted by ThiagoMartell

"Add to Ignore List" is my new favorite feature in these forums.

I'm honored.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread locked for review.