One of the things I loved about D&D and AD&D was the straightforward simplicity of combat.

1. Roll for initiative.
2. Attack.
3. Determine Damage.
4. Repeat.

Maybe it's just me but I am growing tired of rules (particularly combat rules) that are needlessly complex.

So, what are your thoughts on combat rules?

Simple to learn.  Complex to master.

But yes, generally, simpler combat rules are much better.

I much prefer D&D and AD&D* to D&D 3.x

* The way most people played it...

I find these days, that I am increasingly tired of games that value "simplicity" over actually being interesting as a game.  

If I wanna play glorified improv theatre, I'll just drop the mechanics altogether, or go back to rock-paper-scissors like how my LARP played MET.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeOne of the things I loved about D&D and AD&D was the straightforward simplicity of combat.

1. Roll for initiative.
2. Attack.
3. Determine Damage.
4. Repeat.

Maybe it's just me but I am growing tired of rules (particularly combat rules) that are needlessly complex.

So, what are your thoughts on combat rules?

I want to move over and attack a different opponent.  I want to knock a weapon out of their hands.  I want to trip them.  I want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  I want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.  I want push them off of a cliff.  I want my character to grab them and hold them.  I want my character to wrestle them to the ground.  I want my character to run away.  I want my character to focus on defending themselves instead of attacking their opponent.  I want to rush past the line of warriors to attack the wizard behind them.

How do I handle any or all of those things with your simple system?

By losing intiative and getting killed before you can act.

Quote from: AosBy losing intiative and getting killed before you can act.

That sounds satisfying.  :rolleyes:

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeOne of the things I loved about D&D and AD&D was the straightforward simplicity of combat.

1. Roll for initiative.
2. Attack.
3. Determine Damage.
4. Repeat.

Maybe it's just me but I am growing tired of rules (particularly combat rules) that are needlessly complex.

So, what are your thoughts on combat rules?

That's always the way we've played our D&D, and I was fine with it up until our last campaign running Basic D&D. I found the combat boring, and it went on forever, with nothing else happening besides rolling, missing, rolling, missing, rolling, hit for 3 Hp damage, rolling missing.

In my effort to spice up our D&D game, if we ever start again (everyone has multiple kids under 4 years old), I'm considering beefing up the combat options a bit. Not so far as using 5-foot movement squares, attacks of opportunity, or flanking, but maybe jazzing up the damage system to have effects other than: GOOD. GOOD. GOOD. GOOD. GOOD. DEAD. And I also plan to introduce feats from True20.

While I'll never be a fan of highly detailed tactical combat with miniatures and a mat (I play wargames to get my fix of that stuff), I am leaning towards a bit more colour and options that Basic D&D features.

Quote from: John MorrowThat sounds satisfying.  :rolleyes:

You've convinced me; I should be a game designer!

Quote from: AosYou've convinced me; I should be a game designer!

It's definitely a step up from, "Tell me if your character defeats his opponent or not and how it happens."

AD&D combat, simple?

I beg to differ.

http://knights-n-knaves.com/dmprata/ADDICT.pdf

Quote from: J ArcaneIf I wanna play glorified improv theatre, I'll just drop the mechanics altogether, or go back to rock-paper-scissors like how my LARP played MET.

Who's talking about glorified improv theatre? Basic D&D is so far removed from that, it's ridiculous.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to move over and attack a different opponent.  I want to knock a weapon out of their hands.  I want to trip them.  I want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  I want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.  I want push them off of a cliff.  I want my character to grab them and hold them.  I want my character to wrestle them to the ground.  I want my character to run away.  I want my character to focus on defending themselves instead of attacking their opponent.  I want to rush past the line of warriors to attack the wizard behind them.

How do I handle any or all of those things with your simple system?

It's not my simple system, John; it was TSR's. As for all the stuff you are talking about, what system does that? Look at the rules. Are they needlessly complex? Do they have a different rule for each and everyone of those actions you are talking about? Or is the mechanic designed so one resolution method can do most of it? That's what I am talking about when I talk about simplicity of design. I don't want to learn sixty-five different rules to resolve combat or any character action for that matter.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityAD&D combat, simple?

I beg to differ.

The way most people played it? Yes, simple.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeIt's not my simple system, John; it was TSR's.

To a degree, yes, but you seemed to be advocating that level of simplicity.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeAs for all the stuff you are talking about, what system does that? Look at the rules. Are they needlessly complex? Do they have a different rule for each and everyone of those actions you are talking about? Or is the mechanic designed so one resolution method can do most of it? That's what I am talking about when I talk about simplicity of design. I don't want to learn sixty-five different rules to resolve combat or any character action for that matter.

What drives complexity in rules is that players want to do something that's complicated and they don't like the way simple rules handle it.  And even if you have one resolution method to determine all of those details, the rule text will either need to explain how to apply that resolution method to each of those problems or leave the GM to figure it out or make it up as they go.  A great deal can be replaced with subjective judgment calls by the GM but that has it's own problems.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeIt's not my simple system, John; it was TSR's. As for all the stuff you are talking about, what system does that? Look at the rules. Are they needlessly complex? Do they have a different rule for each and everyone of those actions you are talking about? Or is the mechanic designed so one resolution method can do most of it? That's what I am talking about when I talk about simplicity of design. I don't want to learn sixty-five different rules to resolve combat or any character action for that matter.

Well, I have the same feeling about it as you do.  I have a modularized approach to resolution that uses a simplified system that I've used since 1978 to good effect.   It's very simple.   I've never had a player complain about it once - they all think its clear, fast and fun.   It's a simple no-nonsense system.   And yes, with it you could do any of the actions mentioned in the prior post to this one and it would work just as well.   I have only about three decades of play testing but it seems pretty useable and solid to me and my players.   But of course, people who don't like it can play something else, now can't they?