Are there any RPGs with crunchy, round-by-round, tactical combat that have minimal randomization or no dice rolls at all?
I want to capture that feeling from some well designed competitive video games where you win or lose MOSTLY because of your own tactical decisions and assessments, and minimally because of random chance.
Good video games can do it, so why not tabletop?
Because of record keeping
Because most people don't want this when they are playing RPGs.
You should look at miniature/skirmish games.
I'm actually looking into Silhouette as a system for a focus on tactical combat for something I'm planning on running. The dice system is fairly minimal and numbers stay small, but there is still a bit of bookkeeping.
It's probably worth looking into, at least. I do agree with this guy that you really want a sort of skirmish wargame more than something like D&D.
But I want to play a single character alongside other players who also each play a single character.
Why does diceless have to mean non-RPG?
Strike!'s tactical module is basically entirely about round-by-round tactical combat.
There is randomization, as you have a 1/3 (1 or 2 on a d6) chance to miss with an attack, but when you do, you get a miss token that you can use to knock out your next miss to mitigate that. You also have the advantage mechanic (basically the same as 5e) which minimizes your chances of missing.
I can hunt down a PDF if interested.
>still uses a roll for each attack
>non-random
Write your own system, base it off skirmish games for tactical content.
For resolution mechanics, look into diceless systems. I'm told Amber Diceless is supposed to be non-random, but I don't know how it actually works. Might be a place to start looking.
I don't see why you'd want to do this, doesn't personally appeal to me, but that's how I'd do it.
Stop shilling Strike!
Why does Veeky Forums keep shilling Strike!?
From what I can tell ,you can do that in Silhouette. It's got a set of rules for functioning as a "typical" RPG, although the rules for it are kind of funny. It just also has a side that's more tactical wargame which can easily be adapted to small unit tactics with each player playing a single unit, which is exactly what I'm going to be doing with it. And the actual dice and mechanics are really light. It's roll a number of d6 equal to your skill, take the highest result, and add any bonuses/penalties. then compare to a target number or opposed roll.
Diceless doesn't mean non-RPG at all. Hell, no dice means roleplaying is the entire point, no? But, what you desire (large focus on tactical thought, rather than luck from dice) is something which demands a look at systems which lean in that direction. Such systems may be packaged as tactical wargames, rather than RPGs. The label doesn't mean you're not allowed to roleplay while using those rules.
What I'm getting at is, go look at things that may not be billing themselves directly as RPGs and see what you think of their rules. If they look like they'll support the kind of game you want to run, use them.
I actually have a non-random homebrew idea for it that's untested.
>each character starts with 2 points of Effort
>you gain 1 point of effort at the beginning of your turn
>when somebody makes an attack it is counted as a 3 (grazing hit) without a roll. But there's a blind bid before the attack is made where both parties can spend effort. The attacker spends it to increase the hit, the defender to decrease it.
There, now it's entirely skill based. The GM better be really fucken good at this sort of thing though.
>And the actual dice and mechanics are really light. It's roll a number of d6 equal to your skill, take the highest result, and add any bonuses/penalties. then compare to a target number or opposed roll.
But that's still a lot of randomization.
You have to note that randomization is still quite common in vidya, as managing randomness and adapting to the results is still an interesting skill to test (when done well). It also gives you wiggle room to make the game less "solved" without having to design them to be really complicated. A turn based game without randomization simply runs the risk of being solved too easily.
An alternative to that could be working with incomplete information, such as Blind bids or games of weighed RPS can be a substitute for randomization, although it is still a really frikken useful tool, when not overused.
Still a decent amount of video games without THAT much randomization.
Not much turn based ones, however.
And the ones that do do that rely heavily on incomplete info.
If you skip armor glancing rules, on phoenix command you just roll to see where you hit and if you hit.
PS: Granades requires more rolls
True enough. I think the point I really wanted to make was less one of "this system is really light on randomization" and more "you can roleplay in anything, so find something that works even if it's not billed as an RPG".
So, there we go. I don't really know how to do an extremely minimal or dice-free system, myself. And I definitely have no clue for one that focuses heavily on tactics, although it would probably involve keeping track of things like available cover to hide in, what direction things are facing because it should actually matter, and so-on.
You don't get much lower randomization than that. I certainly can't think of any games with tactical combat that do, anyway.
>recommends a system they like
>STOP BEING A SHILL!
>Why does diceless have to mean non-RPG?
Role
Playing
Game
It's not much of a game if there's no chance. Just go play videogames with yourself.
OBJECTION!
RPS has no chance and is very much a game. The same is true for chess, go, and a lot of other games.
Absolutely 0 randomness limits your design space considerably, but in no way does it make your game a no-game.
Nobody actually likes Strike though. It's shit.
Chance is not the same as random chance.
Chance just requires lack of information.
Consider chess. Your opponent can only do a limited amount of different moves, and the moves are not happening at random, but since you don't know what your opponent is thinking, there's some chance involved. You might expect certain moves, and indeed take a risk by planning against what you think your opponent will play, but there's no certainly that he'll move in the way you predict.
>Games must have chance
Germans would like to have a word with you.
Well, I do like it.
So you can go eat a dick.
Okay, so, I don't like Strike myself, but that's clearly bullshit.