Hey /tg/
What do you think is your favorite mechanics for attacking? Do you prefer the d&d style where its Stats+Levels or something where weapon skill ranks are involved? Would you rather throw one die and then add static or throw 8 and then add them together? Exploding Dice/Criticals? Opinions!
>>48064392
I prefer RuneQuest 6.
I prefer to keep it as stupidly simple as possible. A single throw, a successful hit does 1 damage, expanding crit range (On d20 say 16-19) that does 2 and maximum hit that does 3-4.
Describing attacks confers other benefits, such as changes in game status (unhorsing opponents, grappling the enemy to ground etc).
Stupid simple.
>>48064494
*high five*
I thought i was alone
>>48064494
yeah I really like the RQ6 book but I am having some major problems getting the go for running a Glorantha campaign. I really want a codified setting book I can drop down to get people going on it and not a bunch of mixed notes.
>>48064392
Fate's combat can be... interesting. The double-rolling for attack and defense helps the event feel a little less like you're smacking a target dummy and a little more like a creature prone to error. It also invites "shift" damage without needing a separate roll for the weapon (though adding weapon rules/stunts can be fun).
What this all means is you can play with (4) 3-sided dice but still have a very profound normal curve with (4d3-8) - (4d3-8).
>>48064711
I hate Glorantha but I love RQ, never saw the appeal of the setting at all. Way too many ducks and weird things for me.
>>48064494
Everybody prefers RuneQuest until they actually play RuneQuest.
>>48064642
>Describing attacks confers other benefits, such as changes in game status (unhorsing opponents, grappling the enemy to ground etc).
I like that. Status effects being dependant on roleplay and tactics.
>>48064392
I like my attacking to be resolved in mechanically the same way as any other contest in the system. And that said, I like my core mechanics to do something that produces a bell curve rather than linear probability. 2d10 is better than 1d20, and you can do more interesting things with a group of dice over a single die. Also combat should be a skill like any other and level-based character advancement systems are for chumps.
>>48064839
Something like that, yeah. Of the three RPG hobbyist types, I'm definitely a gamist. I don't want technicalities (such as overt rules for how grappling works) get in the way of actually playing the game. Of course, with sufficient mastery, there is no problem, but some obscure rules are often forgotten and must be re-checked anyway, becoming a hurdle, and might become a hurdle again.
Yet somehow my longest-running game is a game of Exalted I still keep GMing. Go figure.
>>48064642
I'm the exact opposite, I can't stand how we're removing the game element from RPG's, It resembles fucking LARPing now.
>>48064961
I know the frustration which is over-simplification, but I also know the frustration called overdesign. I've probably written over a hundred pages of pure rules text and scrapped it due to overcomplexity.
I'm even facing a crisis now that what was supposed to be a relatively simple system I was working on, suddenly requires pages of text to just explain how HEALTH works. I am very prone to overdesign, so my views come basically from trying to reject the part in me that is really nitpicky.
Come on, I have never seen an inventory system that is more unnecessarily complex than the one I used in my past system. Why was it so complex then? Because I wanted to mitigate hammerspace to zero. I couldn't handle the fact that some jackass warrior can carry five swords, two war axes and a bow without any problems mechanically. I wanted them to demonstrate how they carried them.
>>48065249
Continuing on that, and on the subject of this thread:
In said system (which was 47 pages long pure rules-text) even attacking was ridiculous. If we went by the most complex set of rules (I called them Advanced Rules in the game)
It was an action-point system instead of initiative system, so to attack, you used three points. If you had a longer weapon than your opponent, and you attack, you usually step in and attack (important to decide who gets priority), then you attack. You choose a hit location, yes, you choose it every time, and hit against it. If you successfully attack, you roll damage. Pretty simple. But then you divide the damage, depending on the hit location, the weapon type AND the type of armor, to four different health pools (Internal, structural, bleeding and pain).
And somehow that all made sense in my head. So yeah, that's why these days I do stupid simple systems.
>>48064826
Even if you dislike the system RQ6 has the best combat system I have used.
I've created a DnD Heartbreaker/hack which rolls the attack and damage rolls into one roll using multiple dice- I tend to Like systems that use one roll for attacks.
>>48064392
Still think Ironclaw is one of the top systems.
Pool, d4-d12 each representing stats, skills, species bonus, career experience, character feats, modifiers ....
# of Dice rolled above your opponent's highest (or target number).
If they choose a counter-attack as their defense and win the roll, the attack is resolved against you. Damage is successes+weapon, where weapons have flat +damage. Armor is a soak DC4 counting successes again, each layer gives one die d4-d12, so armor isn't 100% reliable and you don't have Lv 1 20+ AC monstrosities. Damage isn't tracked, just apply status effects for X damage from the track if you don't already have them.
The way dice are handled you can always see what was the "winning" factor.
Systems that lump factors into a single number, or resolve/track hit-points, are boring and not very descriptive.
1D6 + attacker's attack stat - defender's defense stat.
1: Miss.
2, 3, 4, 5: 1 Damage.
6+: 2 Damage OR 1 Damage + status effect if the attackers described some kind of fancy attack.
I don't know, I just pulled that from my ass.
>>48065796
That is a system, but is it your favorite system?
Standard 1d20+modifiers versus target number. Simple, fast, and effective.
The Riddle of Steel descendents. One person declares an attack, another a defense, they roll their pools, the effects resolve. You can make it super simple or super complex depending on taste, and it resolves quickly in a simultaneous roll. RuneQuest is a similar love, since it ultimately comes out with a similar effect of simple resolution followed by the application of a game changing effect.
>>48065934
I believe you have the combat sequence for TRoS and TRoS descendants wrong.
The combat sequence I'm familiar with is both declaring all-out attacks to the groin, both rolling their pools, and winner bleeding to death three minutes slower than the loser.
