Worlds of Design: Combat Methods

Is there an ideal combat method in an FRPG?

worldsofdesigncombat.jpg

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.

"He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight." Sun Tzu

RPGs in many cases revolve around combat. Yet the player who understands Sun Tzu’s maxim knows that fighting is merely a means to an end, not an end in itself (though, I must admit, that also depends on the experience rules…).

Dependent vs. Independent Combat​

If you’re not familiar with these terms, watch my Independent and Dependent Combat video on YouTube.

Independent Combat​

Independent Combat involves each side resolving their attacks without opposition. This is common in Dungeons & Dragons, where there’s an attack roll against a static number (usually Armor Class). A defense rating and obstacles are built into this challenge, but there is no variable opposed roll to determine if it’s successful.

Speaking of Armor Class, this is another abstraction that affects Independent Combat. In real life, armor is suited for very specific situations, not to be worn at all times—and thus an Independent Combat system has to accommodate for armor, Dexterity, resilience (sometimes referred to as Natural Armor for monsters) and other factors.

There are a lot of reasons why Independent Combat is used in games, but chiefly it’s a streamlined system, if not mechanically sophisticated. It scales well, because the defensive target number is static, and thus when a player attacks multiple opponents, it’s also easier to resolve.

Dependent Combat​

Dependent Combat involves a (sometimes opposed) dice roll to avoid the attack, depending on the skill of the target as well as on the armor. Note that including a target’s armor class or skill level in the resolution of the attack is not in itself Dependent, some action is required of the defender player. As a result, dependent combat is a bit more complex, and takes more time to roll.

In melee skirmishes this is sometimes called a “parry” system, which is how it worked in Palladium’s rules (Rifts being on example). Notably, monsters who have the ability to Parry in Dungeons & Dragons (like the gladiator) only add a boost to Armor Class, thereby keeping the game firmly in the realm of Independent Combat.

In computer video games, Independent/Dependent combat often happens behind the scenes, but it can matter a lot. Does the speed you hit the button or execute a maneuver help you do more damage or hit more often? Or is it a simple roll you can’t see to determine if you hit, based on your character’s skills and abilities?

There are a wide variety of mechanics that can cover the spectrum between one attacker rolling to hit (Independent), and two combatants opposing each other in real time (Dependent). I’ve seen at least one system that resolves where the attack lands on specific body parts in determining whether it actually does damage, and how much. More “realistic” perhaps, but also time-consuming. In the very simple RPG I designed to use with a board game, a successful hit does a set amount of damage, no dice roll for damage required. Less exciting, but quicker and simpler.

Low vs. High Standard Deviation​

Another consideration is whether hitting in combat is fairly predictable or “swingy.” That is, a low standard deviation vs. a high one. Some combat systems are quite realistically lethal (high damage per successful attack), which encourages people to avoid fighting. A high standard deviation in hit probability could amount to the same thing, though lethality has more to do with damage than hit probability.

Low standard deviation in the extreme would be deterministic combat, where there is no uncertainty - but that’s unlikely to be fun in an adventure setting. In my simple game, you don’t know if you’ll hit, but you know how much damage you’ll inflict if you do hit. (And you can build your character to inflict more damage per hit, as well as to have a higher hit probability.)

The higher the standard deviation, the more often characters will be hit in combat, and probably the more often they will die - though that also depends on the amount of damage per successful attack.

To Crit or Not to Crit​

Standard deviations affect combat in subtle and overt ways, including critical hits: can a single attack do (on average) a lot of damage, perhaps killing the target, or only a small amount? This is why the way a game handles (or even allows) critical hits can immensely impact the pace of combat. Critical hit systems may seem more realistic, but we have to ask how much fun they are in actual play. Most of these systems I see inflict extra damage (making the standard deviation of damage higher overall).

The one I devised and used for a while inflicted location damage, for example, “left arm becomes unusable until points inflicted are healed” or even “target cannot walk for a week!” I wanted to set up additional dilemmas for the players to face. I finally set it aside because it was extra work, and the injuries could change the adventure drastically in sometimes undesirable ways.

Role-playing games take many different approaches to combat, and all of them have a feel that creates a level of immersion or abstraction, determined in part by dice rolls, by the players themselves, and the opposition. How often a character can hit, if their attacks are against a static number or by an opposed roll, and the consequences of a hit can all significantly influence how your game works in actual play. If you’ve ever thought about designing your own game, I hope this has helped you find new ways of thinking about it.

Your Turn: Do you prefer Dependent or Independent styles of combat in your role-playing systems?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lewis Pulsipher

Lewis Pulsipher

Dragon, White Dwarf, Fiend Folio
There is at least a 3rd option for combat, and likely more I am forgetting.

Let's start with why each has benefits and weaknesses...

"Independent"
Benefit =
  • quick to resolve since only 1 person is rolling dice to determine a result.
  • Fixed "Target Numbers" make for predictable encounters
  • decent for tactical wargame play

Problem =
- Target Numbers are always going to have a 3-point curve of play. From "too swingy at low level", to "its about 50/50 ok at medium level", and to "I always hit, why am I bothering to roll at all" at high level. D&D and Cypher system is an example of this. Where you either chase an arms race of bigger numbers and thus extend out that 50/50 zone, or you just get too high in bonuses and make rolls pointless.



"Dependent"
Benefit =
  • This has no inherent scale, so it can let two combatant test against each others luck and stat values(skill). So it gives a sense of 'competition'
  • It opens up the door to alternate actions for the defender. Now we no longer have static TN to be hit, but we can use reaction to dodge, parry, riposte, counter, etc etc... Conan/Infinity 2d20 is a good example of this
  • decent for tactical wargame play

Problem =
  • Super hard to balance. You get some systems where they have brought the deviation of bonuses down too low, and so a person who has never picked up a sword before has a overly reasonably chance to defeat a seasoned sword master.
  • If the dice mechanic is swingy, then it can result in silly or boring round after round of both combatants swing and miss over and over, pointless combat.
  • Its slow. Each round, each action, each character gets to pick stats, pick benefits and roll dice. A great way to bring combat to a grinding halt.


"Automatic"
This is one that likely most players have not encountered if they have not played Apocalypse World or the like. In this case, when it comes time for the player to announce they are engaging in combat - both sides automatically hit and do their damage. Then the play rolls to see if that damage is altered and if any other actions occurred during the fight.

Benefit =
  • Its fast, super fast to resolve multiple actions and characters all with a single roll
  • its very narrative, it lets character do any action as part of their single roll
  • does not suffer from swingy dice mechanic

Problem =
  • It's not tactical at all. This method ensures everyone gets beat up and that the side with the most combatants (or possibly largely lopsided damages) always wins.
  • its the same at any 'level', no matter how powerful a character gets, this combat method never really changes.

...............................

IMHO
- I prefer 2d20's mechanics for "Dependent" , they mix the perfect blend of dice pool and resource management to make Roll v. Roll feel engaging and tactical

- I prefer PBTA "Automatic" for everything else. It's fast, narrative, and resolves what I call "honest combat" (which is "the PCs were always going to win the fight, the GM just needed to get them a little bloody to emphasize the dangers" that all rpg's combats usually resolve as anyway... let's be honest folks... )
 

Going off the definitions provided, my system in Labyrinthian is a little bit of both (or all three, if we also include @RenleyRenfield automatic option). Note that this will be a bit long as its rather a lot to cover and its important to cover how all of these things fit together.

====

To start and to give context, one should be aware of how character progression works. Characters have available to them 32 Skills which they can advance to a maximum of +30 by using them throughout their adventures. Advancement is based on Dragonbanes method, where you mark that a Skill has been used, up to 3x, and whenever your character sleeps for at least 6 hours or the session ends, you can make checks for every Mark to see if that Skill advances.

As a Skill advances, characters gain access to a Skill Die, from a d4 to a d12. This Skill die can be utilized during checks as a bonus die, but can, during Exploration, also be used to make a simultaneous second Action to your main one. For example if you're the Party Navigator, you would make 1d20 check utilizing Pathfinding to set the party's Pacing and keep them on course. If you're already happy with your result, you could then take a Skill die you've unlocked, and use it as the base roll for another Action, such as Scouting with Perception.

Characters also have 9 "Talents" (Attributes), which are derived from the average of a pairing of 4 Skills associated with that Talent, like Agility being derived from Sneak, Coordination, Sleight of Hand, and Athletics. Players during chargen will be selecting 3 Talents to set as their "primary" Talents, which will allow them to add to their Composure, which is basically HP.

Talents and Skills meanwhile are unified by the same modifier, the Talent Modifier, which is in effect equal to the Talent. The Talent Mod is used for any check made using its associated Skills or the Talent itself. As such, it should be noted that the Talent Mod at a base level grows up to +30, to be typically added to a 1d20 roll. This is very intentional and goes to making the game simpler at high level play, and also handily emphasizes progression as well as redefining what the 1d20 is even for, as it now represents your extra efforts beyond your Skill. Throughout play, you'll only be obligated to make a roll if the thing in question is genuinely challenging relative to your abilities.

====

Currently, combat can happen in one of two ways. First, during Exploration, low stakes encounters can be resolved entirely within the Exploration round, with no explicit transition to combat. This is due to such encounters being generally weak and players being generally strong enough to end them that decisively.

But with higher stakes encounters, Combat will obligate the transition onto the Combat Grid, a concise Chess like mapping system I have adapted from another game, which in turn signals the full use of the Combat system and its mechanics and procedures.

To begin, all participants roll 2d20. This is the Combat Roll, and can be thought of as the same 1d20 check they'd do during Exploration, just rolled twice.

The CR determines first each participants base Movement for the round, as well as their Actions depending on what they want to attempt with the results. But, the CR also determines who siezes the Initiative first on either side of the fight. Once the CR is made, everyone calls out their total as they add it to know their Movement. Whomever has the highest takes the Initiative and can take their turn.

Who takes the Initiative next depends. If the current holder performs their Actions, and is not Reacted against, then they can pass it on to any other Combatant. If they are Reacted against, however, then that combatant will take the Initiative from them, putting Initiative Holders other action on hold if they havent used it already; they will have to either take or be given the Initiative again to finish their Turn.

As part of their Turn, combatants have two Actions available to them (corresponding to the d20s they rolled), but can only take a specific kind of Action once during the Round. Their options are to Attack, React, Use an Ability, or make a Skill Action.

Attack is straightforward; pick a target and roll your Skill Die for the kind of attack you do to deal damage. When doing so, they should call out the total of their d20+mod (the mod used depends on their attack), which will tell their target if they can React. If they cannot React then they simply take the Damage. Any Momentum you generate can be used to reroll for more damage, or used offensively to Inflict Wounds or break their Stances. (Players can also use Momentum they generate to Hold Fast, letting them roll that die as a bonus to their CR on the next Round)

Reacting is how combatants defend themselves or their allies (or their enemies if they are so inclined). Their base Reaction is their roll, but they can also add their passive Reaction to it, which is derived from the average of 3 specific Talents (Agility, Wisdom, and Intuition). When being attacked, they will compare their total Reaction to their attackers called out Action. If they match or beat it, they can react, and thus begin rolling their Skill Dice, corresponding to whatever kind of Defense they attempt (eg Athletics for Dodging, Guarding for using armor/shields, etc). The total of their Skill dice from doing so is subtracted from their attackers damage.

Like attacking, Defense generates Momentum as well and is used the same way to generate extra Defense, or enable new options like establishing Stances.

The resulting coming of blows is called a Clash, and players and GMs are encouraged to collaborate on what these look like depending on the roll. Eg, a final result being low or even negated entirely would have the Clash depicting the defender skilfully blocking the blow, while a high damage roll still occurring would be a devastating hit, and so on for everything inbetween.

When using an Ability, generally the Ability just works, and does nothing further than its effects, but Abilities do have Threshold mechanics, which means their effectiveness depends on the die result.

A Skill Action meanwhile is a means to allow players to first try any improvised maneuver, stunt, or action during Combat, utilizing one of the 32 skills. As such, this also allows them to attempt another Attack or Reaction, if they were already used, by using a corresponding Skill.

Overall, Combat is designed as a tactical experience, and in high stakes encounters players will be engaging with enemies that will have specific mechanics that need to be defeated in specific ways. Most often players will need to utilize the Tactics skill to learn these mechanics on the fly, but adept explorers can discover these outside of Combat as well. At the highest level, extremely powerful enemies will need a combination of Wounds, Stance Breaking, and Skill action use, in addition to the usual Damage/Defense, to be defeated, and the most powerful will need different combinations of each during different phases of their fights.

To this end, players will have a large variety of options available to diversify not just how they fight but also how they defeat their enemies, including non-violent (or at least, non-deadly) options. This is expressed first and foremost in the Tactical Improv system that governs both Martials and Mages, giving them Techniques and Spells, respectively, that not only act as explicit buttons to press, but also as prompts with which to improvise additional effects. This is based on the Mighty Deed mechanic of DCC, but elaborated on considerably, and rebalanced given the inclusion of magic, as now your improvised deed, stunt, or spell can only deal direct damage up to the limit of the dice you rolled. As most often this will be happening through Momentum, this fundamentally prevents people from being able to cheese the game and abuse the improv mechanics.

But beyond that, players will also have available to them a very indepth and highly customizable equipment system (through the games Crafting and Gathering mechanics) which will further diversify how they fight.

And as its related, Ill also note that Class Design is being set up to deemphasize its prevalance as the source of a players overall power. While Classes will set up specific playstyles for players, especially with Multiclassing and Multisubclassing being available, these will only account for a handful of direct Abilities, and some passive benefits, all of which will evolve with Skill Advancement. Players will need to also diversify their Equipment, and become well versed in the base combat systems in order to reach their full potential in combat.
 

Lets see if I can do this right? My preferred fantasy RPG is PF1. I like the independent nature because it is as advertised streamlined and easy to adjudicate and move on. Dependent systems I have always found cumbersome and a time sink from what I want to focus on. A PC/VTT etc... might make that more feasible as the calcs are done rapidly for the players, but I dont seek them out or desire them.

My game of choice seems to suggests high deviation. I think the unpredictability gives for an engaging and enjoyable experience as you try to control the chaos. I do like using metacurrency like hero points to allow a player to stave off a swingy death in which they had no real control over. Seems that is my patch the problem answer.

I am very much a to crit player. I like the crit ranges of 3E/PF1 and miss them dearly in modern versions. Again, the unpredictability and scoring an unlikely outcome are worth the occasional risk to characters and game continuity. Especially, when you apply a few failsafes like hero points to smooth the rough unexpected edges. Also, that adds to the resource management and attrition style of play that has changed a bit from yesteryear.
 




Just to note there are some cases that don't seem to land tidily in this. To use one I'm very familiar with:

The Hero System normally defaults to what Lew would call "independent" her, as the attack resolution is the target's Offensive Combat Value minus the target's Defensive Combat Value added to 11 to get a result or lower on 3D6 to hit (its not usually expressed that way, but that's basically what it is).

However:

1. The Defender has the option to abort his next action to take specific Defensive maneuvers (which while they cost him that action can extend until his following action so they're not always a bad idea) such as Dodge (which makes you harder to hit) and Block (which actively engages with the attack in a way to stop it, and can also give you the first attack at next opportunity).

2. There are elements in the game called "combat levels" which can be added to your DCV or OCV on your normal action--or on one of the above aborted actions--to increase one or the other (they can also be used to produce more damage if you don't need that). This means there's more options for a skilled opponent to defend himself or make it more likely to attack rather than simply the vagaries of the die roll.
 



Related Articles

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top