Quote from: Venka on August 25, 2022, 11:55:38 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 24, 2022, 05:51:30 PM
I like SOME realism; I do not want most swords to weight 10 pounds.

While not every system has this as a defense, many systems have unified bulk and weight into one stat for encumbrance purposes, and they use weight as that metric.  So a small brick of steel wrapped in a small amount of cloth and similar might weigh 3 pounds and be listed as 3 pounds, but that same exact material in the shape of a katana might be listed as 10 pounds to represent how much harder it is to carry something that is extremely long instead of compact, even though it is literally just 3 pounds.

I get that this is a cope, but that way you can make sense of the table and not have everyone walking around with world of warcraft swords or whatever.  It also does legitimately seem to be the intention in some cases.

I'd be totally okay with saying a sword is "1 bulk", "1 slot" or whatever, and I have used this in the past, but if weight is measured in pounds or something equivalent, I dislike 10 pound swords.

With that said, most encumbrance rules are extremely forgiving outside of the OSR. In 5e an average person can walk around carrying 150 pounds with no detriment. So things might balance out...

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2022, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: Venka on August 25, 2022, 11:55:38 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 24, 2022, 05:51:30 PM
I like SOME realism; I do not want most swords to weight 10 pounds.

While not every system has this as a defense, many systems have unified bulk and weight into one stat for encumbrance purposes, and they use weight as that metric.  So a small brick of steel wrapped in a small amount of cloth and similar might weigh 3 pounds and be listed as 3 pounds, but that same exact material in the shape of a katana might be listed as 10 pounds to represent how much harder it is to carry something that is extremely long instead of compact, even though it is literally just 3 pounds.

I get that this is a cope, but that way you can make sense of the table and not have everyone walking around with world of warcraft swords or whatever.  It also does legitimately seem to be the intention in some cases.

I'd be totally okay with saying a sword is "1 bulk", "1 slot" or whatever, and I have used this in the past, but if weight is measured in pounds or something equivalent, I dislike 10 pound swords.

With that said, most encumbrance rules are extremely forgiving outside of the OSR. In 5e an average person can walk around carrying 150 pounds with no detriment. So things might balance out...

This is verbatim what I tend to do when I'm homebrewing, and what I generally look for in systems going forward. Forget the raw weight; measure things directly in their encumbrance penalties. Systems which can't do that because they have a hard over-encumbered line probably do not have a vital mechanic connected to the encumbrance subsystem, and you're better off removing encumbrance entirely. It's also not just a matter of raw weight, but how much the bulk and ergonomics affects carry. A rifle with a sling is notably easier to carry than one without one, despite technically weighing more.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2022, 02:29:35 PM

Quote from: Venka on August 25, 2022, 11:55:38 AM

Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 24, 2022, 05:51:30 PM
I like SOME realism; I do not want most swords to weight 10 pounds.

While not every system has this as a defense, many systems have unified bulk and weight into one stat for encumbrance purposes, and they use weight as that metric.  So a small brick of steel wrapped in a small amount of cloth and similar might weigh 3 pounds and be listed as 3 pounds, but that same exact material in the shape of a katana might be listed as 10 pounds to represent how much harder it is to carry something that is extremely long instead of compact, even though it is literally just 3 pounds.

I get that this is a cope, but that way you can make sense of the table and not have everyone walking around with world of warcraft swords or whatever.  It also does legitimately seem to be the intention in some cases.

I'd be totally okay with saying a sword is "1 bulk", "1 slot" or whatever, and I have used this in the past, but if weight is measured in pounds or something equivalent, I dislike 10 pound swords.

With that said, most encumbrance rules are extremely forgiving outside of the OSR. In 5e an average person can walk around carrying 150 pounds with no detriment. So things might balance out...

I always liked that Castles & Crusades gave you at least a base way to calculate the encumbrance value for any item that wasn't on an equipment list. 

I like something kinda between crunchy and abstract.  Too much crunch makes combats take too long or feel rushed.  Too much abstraction removes all the tactical elements though, and that's no fun either.

I really hate using battle maps (too much junk for me to keep track of, and too much setup time, etc).  Instead I use "range bands" kinda borrowed from LBB Traveller high-guard combat (book three I think?; I can't remember), where an encounter starts at some distance and combatants can individually advance or retreat, but don't really move in 2-3 dimensions like you would with a battle mat.  You just keep track of where everyone is along an imaginary line, and where the terrain features are on that line.  If someone wants to take cover, I randomly determine how far ahead or behind and what the cover is based on the situation ("Uh yeah, there's a tree 15' ahead of you").  All "theatre of the mind", no minis, just some scratch paper behind the DM screen.  You get the good parts of abstract combat, but ranged weapons are still useful.

Being the nostalgic twerp that I am, descending armor class and thac0 make me happy inside too.  :3  *ducks*

I do not consider this to be a preference per se. More like a necessity that some just don't acknowledge.

There's a problem that comes up a lot in "realistic" combat systems. There's almost always an unspoken assumption that all the "realism" is assuming combat will be man vs man. As soon as a gelatinous cube enters the picture, a lot of that shit goes out the window. Even if you're doing a realistic "modern" setting, there's still attack dogs and mounted police and all kinds of reasons for animals to come into play.

Combat has to be at least abstract enough to handle all that without having 14 different systems or stat blocks that take up half the page. I'd be more than happy to see just how realistic you can make the system while adhering to this constraint.

I thought Dangerous Journeys had a pretty cool thing going with its hit location system: Non-Vital, Vital, Super-Vital, and Ultra-Vital. It had hit locations. And most people could more or less figure out what those locations likely meant when it comes to humans. But it's still applicable when fighting some ridiculous fantasy creature, like a three-assed elephant or whatever.

Quote from: zircher on August 25, 2022, 10:57:29 AM
One of my favorite combat systems is Wushu (Blackbelt Edition).  You kind of need to think like an action movie director since you get dice by describing details.  It makes for very fun uber narrative combat rounds.  One cool thing about it is that details are details, so describing set-backs, blocked attacks, or seeing that ninja in the reflection of your sword are all valid ways to build your dice pool.

It more than just Wushu marital arts action too.  I've used the system for Crimson Skies style dog fights and wizards trying to fend off an alien invasion.

Wushu always seemed like something I would like but has always left me cold after actual play.  I've never been able to put my finger on it, but I suspect it's either the disconnect between the narration and the dice rolls or that it's missing another level of manipulation that would tie it together for me.  In any case it's never quite worked for others that I've played with either so I never pursued it any further.

It depends. I like some verisimilitude, but not too deadly. I've had players who prefer D&D combat because they saw war and don't want it that real in a game.

To be honest, I think the most fun we ever had with combat was actually my simplified hack of Rolemaster. We used the tables more or less as is (except that AT 1 is only for half-naked barbarian type games), but simplified everything that has to do with encumbrance etc. It really brought out the fun part of Rolemaster.

Pocket Fantasy, a very rules lite RPG, uses one of the simplest combat systems I've ever seen.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/189191

It's an opposed roll of the two combatants Combat Skill, aka CS.  Attacker's CS roll minus defender's CS roll = damage to the defender.   Interestingly, these are no to-hit rolls.  This system just goes straight to damage.  Because most of the dice rolls include a negative number you subtract it's not uncommon to do zero damage.  It is those cases you can say that the attack was parried, hit the armor, or the defender jumped out of the way.   

The various skill levels are from a fully trained warrior with a CS of 1D6, down to a terrible mook like a Kobold with a mere CS of 1D6-3.   So if a warrior attacks a Kobold with a roll of a 5, and the Kobold defends itself with a roll of a 6, subtracting 3, result of a 3 damage is blocked/dodged.  That Kobold takes 2 damage.  The Kobold fights back and rolls a 5, minus 3, result of 2.   The warrior defends himself with a roll of 2.  No damage is taken.

It's quick, easy, and I think it's a great system. 

Into the Odd has combat distilled down to about as minimal as you can get.

Roll damage, subtract armor, apply damage

There's no to-hit roll at all.  Base damage is 1d6.  If something does IMPAIRED damage the roll is 1d4, and if it is ENHANCED the damage is 1d12.

Typical damage reduction for armor is 1, with a shield contributing another 1.

Damage is first removed from HP.  If HP is reduced to zero then it damage is applied to STRENGTH and the target then makes a Strength save and if they fail they are out of the fight (and can die if not attended to).  Reducing strength to zero causes DEATH.

The fun in the system comes from trying to make use of stunts and arcanum to enhance damage, cause ability score damage, or avoid attacks.  Since ability score damage needs a week of downtime to heal, finding ways to minimize damage is key.  I've found that this really promotes creative use of the environment and the Arcana (magic items) in order to overcome the opponents/obstacles in front of them.  It's a bit like T&T in this regard, though much easier to adjudicate.  There are a few details that are glossed over more than I'd like (range for example) but overall I find it pretty entertaining.

I have found I dislike HP pool based systems. They don't lend themselves to the gameplay style I like unless Im in the mood for that sort of thing.

"Well its level 1 mooks pointing guns at my head so I can tanke 10-12 if they even hit me". I actually prefer something like D&D 4e if your working off that sort of logic. Since its so abstracted and resource management focused, id prefer it be easy to manage as a GM. Of course 4e improved derivatives are better but I mean the general jist.

Otherwise I have found that Savage Worlds does the sort of gameplay I like better. A wound system with psuedo HP, called shots, and still powerful player characters.

Combat systems I've had most fun with: Rolemaster, TFT, T&T. Rolemaster is epic in that the complex character creation means you're really invested in your guy. Then you go in to combat nervous as hell that he might step on an imaginary turtle and poleaxe himself in the left ear. It's great. The essential rule about transferring as much as your offensive bonus to your defensive bonus as you wish makes it a lot less deadly than it would be otherwise. It's manageable, the same way Runequest and many other "gritty" games have combat that can be deadly but isn't game-breaking. The stakes are high. That's what makes combat fun to me.

Quote from: TheShadow on September 02, 2022, 03:49:18 AM
Combat systems I've had most fun with: Rolemaster, TFT, T&T. Rolemaster is epic in that the complex character creation means you're really invested in your guy. Then you go in to combat nervous as hell that he might step on an imaginary turtle and poleaxe himself in the left ear. It's great. The essential rule about transferring as much as your offensive bonus to your defensive bonus as you wish makes it a lot less deadly than it would be otherwise. It's manageable, the same way Runequest and many other "gritty" games have combat that can be deadly but isn't game-breaking. The stakes are high. That's what makes combat fun to me.

Rolemaster's Critical Hits table was fun, to be certain!

Generally, I prefer lighter combat systems.

Like D100 or WFRP 1/2e. Also light OSR systems. I like to see the combat in the mind's eye as opposed to it being procedurally generated by tables, etc.

Personally I really like Risk vs Reward. I always find myself playing the option that has a risk attached to it if available. Even if there's no significantly better reward to playing it.