Which systems have fun combat mechanics that actually favour tactical choice over stats?
Are there any that go against the norm and try to do something unique and interesting?
Which combat system would you consider the best you've experienced so far?
What would you like to see a combat system do that hasn't not or has rarely been done?
What do you dislike in combat systems?
>>47248155
Honestly I've found most systems that go for "tactical" combat tend end up becoming overly-complicated and bogged down in rules. At this point I've given up on "tactical" systems and almost consider it a relief when a game has a "narrative" combat or something who's complexity could be compared to... say Paper Mario.
And this is coming from someone who HATES "narrative" games.
>>47248155
Riddle of Steel.
>>47248155
>best, fun (combat) system
GURPS
It can do anything, and wonderfully/elegantly so. Standard combat rules harshly favour tactical choices, but this can be modified using cinematic approaches.
>>47248155
any game from leading edge games
>>47248315
This. I like rules light or narrative games because they run fast and fluid, and often end up being more realistic and believable than simulationist systems.
I say this as someone who loved GURPS for 15 years... and still do, but my preferences lie elsewhere now.
>>47248315
This. The more "tactical" you delve into the game, the more likely you'll come up against logical fallacies or other problems. You can, of course, go all out and get something like Phoenix Command, and to be sure, some people really like that stuff (Also, see any hardcore sailing-ships RPG that take into account rigging and wood quality and all that. It's interesting, but can be a bit much for mere mortals).
Of course, I still like a good amount of options. Dark Heresy doesn't have the crunchiest system but I find it has a good balance.
I've always liked Twilight 2000 for modern gunfights.
Why does everyone automatically assume that "tactical" means "super complex"?
>>47249710
Because that's literally what it means unless you live in super magicalhomebrefantasy land where things that don't exist are real.
>>47249489
I'd mind it less if the combat was less brutal or the character gen much quicker.Mind you my GM was a houseruling fuckboi - no bullet scatter, you either hit with all of them or miss all of them.
>>47248155
GURPS, tbqfhwy senpai. Everyone dies if they get shot, so combat is more about running from cover to cover while taking potshots to let your marksman get the kill.
Tactical Shooting and Action make combat even more fun, with stances and John Woo stunts.
In general, systems that make combat always a life or death situation regardless of character skill and experience are what you want.
>>47249710
I guess it depends on what you mean by tactical. I consider Fate very tactical while still being light, just not take tactical in the same way counting squares in D&D is.
Had a modern black ops game where players were forced to use cover, slice the pie when entering blind rooms, corner checks, covering fire, etc. One of the best tactical games I've ever run.
Similarly I had a Fate fantasy game where I played a Spearman. Virtually nobody could close with me, although shit got real one time when a guy caught my spear under his Spaulder, head butted me in the face and closed. I got a long Knife in the gut and nearly bled out on the way to the medicine man.
What I've been looking for in systems recently has been how well they've been able to adapt to dynamic events and strategies.
I've kinda resigned myself to the fact that standard pitched battles where players just swing at eachother or use their abilities will always be pretty dull, so I started getting experimental with the ways that the battle can go.
How well can the system handle someone leaping from a balcony onto a chandelier and swiping down at foes as they swing? Locked in a chamber slowly filling up with water that restricts their movements and makes them suffocate more and more while they fight oozes floating on the surface? Scrambling all over the giant foe that they're struggling against (like shadow of the colossus)? Fighting back flying giant insects as they run along a bridge that's falling apart around them? How does it handle players deciding that they want to spend twenty minutes of a gladiatorial duel circling their opponent, sizing them out and using deft footwork to grasp whatever advantage they can?
So far I've been using a mix of a bunch of different BRP games, mainly runequest. I like the way that the lethality of the system encourages players to grasp any advantage they can, so once they realize that I'm happy to lend out significant boosts for using the environment to their advantage or being imaginative with how they approach combat they quickly start looking around for ways to make things interesting by themselves. It's far from perfect though, and I feel like I'm just DM fiating my way through everything.
I quite like burning wheel for this, I've seen combats in that where the person with worse stats or equipment has won by playing smart (and a bit of luck). And if you feel like a fight isn't worth getting bogged down in you just use the games usual roll mechanics instead of the fight! system.
>>47248155
Depends on what kind of tactical you want.
I really like Strike! for it, but I'm also in the middle of brewing a system that's entirely unlike it.
>>47249710
Not many people played games that promote tactical choices. They have to learn new rules. New rules are always too complex because learning and accomodating to new stuff is hard.
