Quote from: RunningLaser;826638If you're talking about the Palladium Role-Playing Game 1stRe, then that would be a very strong contender.   I recall reading once a poster saying that  TPRPG's combats were akin to Hackmaster 5th's combats, but looser and easier.  That's something I could agree with- won't say it's better than HM- that's subjective.

Rounds are based on the old 1 minute per round.  Initiative is d20, highest goes first.  Roll over a 4 on a d20, and you hit.  Roll above 4 but under the Armor Rating, and you just hit the armor, and the armor gets damaged (SDC).  Roll over the AR and what you hit takes damage (Hit Points- no SDC here).  Men Of Arms OCC get automatic parries (only OCC's to do so) on as many attacks as they are aware of.  Roll equal to or higher than the attackers roll, and you parry.  Level charts make it easy for the GM to create baddies- I'm surprised other game makers haven't "borrowed" that idea and it's a wonder why Palladium dropped it.  Very simple stuff.

That sounds very complicated, like you'd have to be constantly rolling for everything all the time, and keeping track of multiple variables for each character.

Quote from: RPGPundit;826781D&D has the best combat system, because the most people know it.

The same reason McDonalds has the best burgers

Quote from: RPGPundit;826781D&D has the best combat system, because the most people know it.

So the top contenders for best combat system would actually not be D&D but:

Flip a coin
Tic-Tac-Toe
Checkers
Rock-Paper-Scissors
Roll the dice to move your mice. (The Milton Bradley Key-To-Fun system)

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;826784That sounds very complicated, like you'd have to be constantly rolling for everything all the time, and keeping track of multiple variables for each character.

It's a little more involved than standard D&D combat, but easier than HM5.

Quote from: RPGPundit;826781D&D has the best combat system, because the most people know it.

Then the question is, which D&D combat system!?!? There's a big variation in feel between phased, per side initiative with the dungeon turns, vs. individual initiative vs. individual initiative plus building out your fighting style with Feats ala D&D 3/3.5 vs. the whole D&D 4 thing.

I think I prefer the version with separate Missile, Melee and Magic phases, etc. and per side initiative. Never gave D&D 4 a chance because it didn't have the D&D vibe. D&D 3/3.5 has too much number summing and fiddling for too little pay-off in combat fun for me.

Quote from: RPGPundit;826781D&D has the best combat system, because the most people know it.

Moldvay Basic D&D combat is fantastic: fast, furious and fun. Right up until you've had enough of it. Then you go for some other system that is so much more realistic. Roll d%, add on your OB, take off their DB, look up your weapon table, cross-reference the roll against the armour, then roll on the critical table... Then you try another system, and another... I'd advise everyone goes back to good old fashioned D&D combat (no segments or weapon speeds) and has quick bash to remind themselves why it helped make the game so fantastically popular in the first place.

P.S.
This is my second attempt at posting in this thread, so apologies if the first attempt ever appears and I've double posted. The first vanished into the ether awaiting moderation, because in answering the call to be unhumble and shamelessly copying Soylent Green, I added a postscript extolling the virtues of my own hit-point less, wound-driven, armour-as-wound-reduction system I posted this week on my blog. This second attempt is devoid of such links so it should hopefully escape such a fate ;-)

I think some form of Runequest is likely the best mix of versimilitude and fun if you are focused on combat (I prefer the original, i.e., 2nd edition Chaosium). And The Fantasy Trip might be the best 'game within a game' treatment of combat (i.e., it is arguably less 'realistic' than runequest, but at least as fun and more multi-dimensioned as a mini-game). My preference for Runequest is also influenced by my experience in HEMA.

The attack/parry dynamic, hit locations, initiative, damage, etc. in Runequest are not exactly a perfect simulation of medieval martial arts, but they capture quite a bit of what feels important. And I like the way skill at combat starts and progresses in Runequest - it is actually surprisingly close to the experience of learning longsword fencing, where most people of moderate experience are fucking up as often as succeeding, the best fencers are most notable for their unbreakable consistency (they have gotten to 90-100 % skill), and the really amazing people just blow your doors off by preventing you from executing your own basic techniques (they are ~120 %).

Quote from: Larsdangly;826919The Fantasy Trip might be the best 'game within a game' treatment of combat (i.e., it is arguably less 'realistic' than runequest, but at least as fun and more multi-dimensioned as a mini-game).

How did I forget about The Fantasy Trip? The Fantasy Trip is a very poorly organized game! The 'game within a game' aspect is really solid though. Magic is handled brilliantly, as far as the trade-offs and bluffing go. While it is super cool as a game, it is a little wonky in some aspects when it comes to the 'simulating a reality' side of things. It is nice that each of the stats is important, and you can't easily decide one should be a "dump stat". It makes the game feel nicely balanced. On the other hand, the value of Strength for a Wizard is nice and high. That means a good Wizard, especially one who would like to cast a lot, is a pretty tough dude, as this illustration from 'Advanced Wizard' shows!


(Your average wizard in The Fantasy Trip)

looking forward to the magic version of this thread.

Quote from: LordVreeg;827124looking forward to the magic version of this thread.

I'd vote for Runequest/BRP in that one as well... none of that 'fire and forget' nonsense.

The Fantasy Trip is awesome. Dark City Games uses pretty much the same system in its products. Saying that it has realism issues only applies to players sophisticated enough to realize what they are. It's a couple of leagues more realistic than any version of D&D, since it has things like a meaningful combat map, meaningful tactics, deadly weapons, differences between the ways weapon types work that make sense, etc.

We played TFT for years before mastering the combat system and developing house rules to make it more realistic, detailed and interesting. Then Man To Man (the GURPS combat module, version 1) came out, and it did a more elegant version of doing what we had been designing to improve TFT. GURPS advanced combat is basically detailed TFT working out the glitches via more complex mechanics, which can be handled gracefully if you have years of experience with TFT/GURPS, but I think is basically why GURPS seems like overkill when coming in from a simple/abstract/different system.

I'm going to have to go with Fight!, with the caveat that it's a lot of work to design a campaign.

If I could get a game that was Fight! mixed with D&D, I would love the hell out of that game.

Quote from: Larsdangly;826919... The Fantasy Trip might be the best 'game within a game' treatment of combat...

That's an interesting, telling comment. I started with the arena games from The Fantasy Trip which had the combat system and nothing else, and then added the roleplaying elements. So from my perspective looking at most other games, it's like "where is the game?" or "there is no actual combat system here."

TFT is kind of an amazing game system, and it might be easiest to appreciate if you strip it back to the wall studs (Melee and Wizard) and just ad lib all the rest of your roleplaying experience. What it gives you is a treatment of combat where all other issues that can be distractions or force compromises are removed - you just want to have fun resolving a fantasy fight. And then, decide to capitalize FUN, and don't get your tail in a knot over finely nuanced simulation of reality. The end result is very chess like, very easy to understand, fast-playing yet nuanced. If this is your experience of the combat part of a dungeony roleplaying game, it almost doesn't matter what mechanics you use to resolve other things. If TFT has a problem, its that the expansion to a roleplaying system was too wordy and poorly organized, so that diamond in the center got somewhat obscured.