HarnMaster or Gurps. HarnMaster has hands down the best way to handle injuries in any RPG and is fairly intuitive. There are however, not too many tactical options involved; that's both good and bad - it makes the whole system more accesible, but it also limits what you can actually do. So HarnMaster is a great game to play with those fellow players who aren't into complex rules and just want to roll the dice and hit people. There are simpler games, but those are usually lacking substance or are so abstract that they are basically arbitrary in their representation of the events in the game.
Gurps is almost the exact opposite - it offers you more options than you could ever use, but due to a very streamlined and - most importantly - intuitive design, their application is not particularly challenging, and the resulting depth is great. Gurps is a great game if you play with more rules-adaptable players who appreciates the complexity of the game and who can use it well. I think Gurps has the better rules for combat, but I usually enjoy HarnMaster a bit more (especially if you add a little more options to the game).

Runequest for me. I like the place combat takes in the game, being a decent mix of fast and detailed and deadly... discouraging casual violence.
I like GURPS as well.

Riddle of Steel. The combat system for RoS got a lot of press back when it came out, and rightly so. I used to run Gladiator death matches using the RoS game system as part of my board game group.  In one game it came down to two disarmed, injured gladiators wrestling over a sword, throwing elbows and biting as they struggled to get a hold of the weapon. Finally exhaustion set in and the weaker gladiator was overpowered and run through. At every round we were on the edge of our seats, struggling to out-think the other player.

As an actual RPG system it's terrible. That level of investment isn't maintainable in long term play with every potential combatant. When the stakes are as high as they are in moral combat, the last thing a player wants to feel is stressful exhaustion.

1. Hackmaster 5e. Gritty detail, danger, count-up initiative system that flows AWESOMELY, actions rated in seconds, people move each turn when they want, conflict occurs when combatants meet, very tactical. It's really superb. The players need to have some eye towards tactics or they die like inexperienced bystanders... Also, it's fun to GM.

2. HARP. I like the one roll look-up on critical table thing. The tables offer great ideas for description. Also, bleeding, stun and actual wounds that give penalties. My first run was done wrong, so I'm looking forward to another run with a better understanding of it.

3. Legend/RuneQuest 6. Tactical without overdoing the system-bits. Combat maneuvers are a great (you have to hound your players the first couple session until the grok it. :-). The game does a great job of feeling gritty without being cumbersome. Also, the game in general remains one of the easiest to learn, so it's a life-saver with a group of newbies.

The Fantasy Trip: We started playing Melee and Wizard when the combat game was all there was to it, and had plenty of fun. Otherwise, I'm not in the habit of considering combat resolution apart from the game as a whole.

Quote from: Panjumanju;805373I don't want to be "that guy" in the RPG discussion, but in my view it isn't so much 'best combat system' as 'best system of combat for the emulation of the material presented in the RPG'.

I'm with you on this.

I mean I loves me some Rolemaster combat, but I wouldn't want every game to have such detailed and gritty systems.

There's definitely no such thing as the "best combat system", only systems that match their games (and our preferences) to differing degrees.

For me, right now? Runequest 6e strikes a fantastic balance between speed and detail.

I'm a sucker for Palladium, I dig the way they do hand-to-hand combat, but they really have to get their shit together on the autofire rules.

Rolemaster. I'm running it right now and it's been really fun, I wasn't sure how well the players would take to it but they've enjoyed it as well. They've said it feels dangerous, so that you want to avoid/outsmart fights when you can, but if one happens the thing about dividing OB and DB makes it feel more tactical and engaging.

I don't always want a game with a combat system but when I do RM seems like just the job. I'm happy enough with AD&D as well.

Quote from: trechriron;8054541. Hackmaster 5e. Gritty detail, danger, count-up initiative system that flows AWESOMELY, actions rated in seconds, people move each turn when they want, conflict occurs when combatants meet, very tactical. It's really superb. The players need to have some eye towards tactics or they die like inexperienced bystanders... Also, it's fun to GM.

I give Hackmaster 5e a major thumbs up due to how they eliminated rounds of combat. If I could combine that with how Harnmaster handles damage that would be an awesome combat system.

Depends what I'm after.

For fast-playing fantasty, my go-to remains TSR D&D.  For more detail, my go-to is some form of BRP (Gold Book, Runequest, et cetera).

Melee/Wizard (or, more generally, The Fantasy Trip) is my sweet-spot for nearly any genre. It is as tactical and nuanced as GURPS but as quick-playing and 'loose' as D&D or Tunnels and Trolls (at least once you know how to play). Whatever it might look like in an academic read-through, at the table this is the funnest combat system I know. Second best: Flashing Blades.

Quote from: Larsdangly;805567Flashing Blades.

Yeah, that's a good one, too.  Pretty much perfect for that genre.

First one that leaps to mind is Palladium, in particular Teenage Mutant Turtle Ninjas and/or Ninjas and Superspies. You have the greater chance of hitting, which makes total sense if you've ever actually been in a fight, plus the defender gets to roll for an active defense which makes the combat feel more interact than just one guy rolling to hit and being dynamic and the other guy feeling like he's just standing ther static and uninvolved in the outcome. It's pretty cool. I would love some other games a lot better if the fights felt as involving as Palladium's, although I gather more dice-rolling it out of vogue these days.

Haven't played GURPS or Superworld of late but I seem to recall they also had block/parry type rolls as well.

So much better than D&D type "I hit Armor Class 5," but I've never really liked much about D&D aside from the fact that it led to RPGs and a plethora of games I love.

Quote from: Panjumanju;805373I don't want to be "that guy" in the RPG discussion, but in my view it isn't so much 'best combat system' as 'best system of combat for the emulation of the material presented in the RPG'. I've never seen a RPG combat system that was intrinsically best for RPGs, but I have seen the best possible system for what the RPG is trying to accomplish, and that's "King Arthur Pendragon". It perfectly emulates heavily armoured knights bashing the stuffing out of each other with broadswords. I doubt it would well emulate any other genre as well.

//Panjumanju

I can dig it. Pendragon has pretty much the right rules for everything in its setting, seems like.

Runequest 6: flows well, cinematic but has consequences

Rolemaster: exciting and believe it or not, fast once everyone is organised

The Fantasy Trip: simple with nice tactical element

Hero: great for occasional big boss fights that take an hour or more, with loads of different character powers, terrain effects etc.