What table top game has (in your opinion) the best combat system and why?

My issue with riddle of steel and SoS is that no matter how good the rules are, they don't magically make players good at describing their actions in an entertaining way, or act in a way that makes perfect sense, so all the potential realism is wasted.

On the other hand, a players who CAN do all those things will still be able to do it with a super simple rules system, so what are you really gaining by picking the complex one?

Unless you role-play more for the mechanical, boardgame aspect of it rather than the role-playing part, which would be a bit weird.

The way to make role-playing feel more realistic is to have a group of players who want it that way and act that way, not by picking a specific system.

It's not about realism. It's about having a fun, engaging combat system. Y'know, the 'Game' part of RPG. TRoS/SoS has that in spades, which is why people love it. It's on the lower fantasy more authentic end of combat systems, but the important part is that it's enjoyable to actually play.

Compared to what though? I know I'm barking up the wrong tree here but Pen and paper role-playing is such a weird venue for people who get most of the enjoyment from mechanics. I mean, sure, if you do player vs player a lot and have an actual challenge, but even then the player-skill ceiling is so low that it's essentially just more steps to do the same thing as simpler systems.

Because you're attempting to compartmentalise and break things up when it's all part of the whole.

I enjoy the mechanics in roleplaying games because they add to and complement the roleplaying side. The game and the RP are stronger for the presence of each other. Using mechanics and teamwork to solve problems as a group is fun, and is thematically coherent with the idea of a group of heroes working together to a common end.

>the game part = mechanics

You'd do well to broaden your understanding of what qualifies as a game.

You'd do well not to make broad, ambiguous statements which say absolutely fucking nothing.

I absolutely agree, but that argument always runs smack into the fact that none of that is dependent on how granular the rules are.

You can do all those things in rules-light games. In fact, a lot of the time detailed rules tend to lock players into certain chains of actions, because with detail and multiple options come best options.

A rules light game lets you describe a mechanically simple action any number of ways, a lot of detailed combat systems end up dictating the fiction for you.

And that last thing can be a good thing.

Heck, I'd argue that well designed rules light systems also drive the fiction in a certain direction, with PbtA being an excellent example of that.

Restrictions inspire creativity, and a well designed game will support the premise, themes and even cliches of its genre with appropriately designed and enjoyable to engage with mechanics. I don't want to be able to do absolutely anything, I want to take actions in line with the themes of the story being told and have the system support or reward me for that.

And while you're generally correct, personal preference plays a factor. Rules light games bore me. Without mechanical distinction between my character and others, without my actions having distinctly different mechanical consequences, I don't see the point in losing the system at all. The game side is part of why I play roleplaying games, so anything that is fundamentally lacking in the game side just doesn't interest me.

What do you consider a system that meaningfully distinguishes between characters mechanically? The majority of them do so very shallowly, like Ability name A and B that are largely similar, or choosing between 3+3+3 or 9.

The way I see it rules light games gives me a car and tells me to paint it however the fuck I want, rules heavy games let me pick between 12 differently coloured cars.

>WFRP 1E/2E
These have awful combat. It's a boring shitslog with all the issues of D&D sans the casters.

I love GURPS combat. It's interesting, logical, more or less realistic, and really tense. The only problem with it is that it's really long if your players don't know that they are doing.

Meaningful mechanical differences. Different actions and abilities that function in different ways with different interactions with the various systems present. For all your blase attempt to paint that all as 'largely similar', either you're purposefully misrepresenting things or you just don't know very much about how competently designed crunchy systems work.

A system where every character I play feels different, mechanically- Because the fluff side is easy. I can create and roleplay a good character with no system at all, so if I'm going to use one it should be able to keep up.

A system with an enjoyable, engaging system for solving problems. Not necessarily combat, although that works too. Things which actually reward teamwork and encourage clever use of the mechanics alongside smart RP.

I'll grant you, systems which entirely achieve this are few and far between, usually I have to compromise and make up the difference myself, but that it's hard to achieve only makes pursuit of it, and good system design in general, more valuable, not less.

Riddle of Steel style systems.

There are no editions of Riddle of Steel games. There's Riddle of Steel, Song of Swords, Blade of the Iron Throne, and Band of Bastards - soon to be called Sword & Scoundrel.

Song of Swords is good, the melee combat is probably the best around. I'm partial to Phoenix Command myself for modern gun combat, though that's because of my masochistic streak.

I literally asked you for examples, just saying that unnamed systems that have good mechanics have good mechanics isn't really arguing either point.

You're talking about some kind of "feeling realistic." I don't understand. The goal isn't to describe your actions is an entertaining way, it's to play a game.
>Unless you role-play more for the mechanical, boardgame aspect of it rather than the role-playing part, which would be a bit weird.
It's weird to you because it's not your thing and you don't understand it, just as I don't understand what you're describing. Sounds more like you want the narrative stunt style stuff of Exalted or Legends of the Wulin.

>I literally asked you for examples
When? You mean here where you immediately poison the well by saying you consider shallow the mechanical differentiation of the majority of RPG systems? Any example he lists, you'll just lump it in with this overly broad categorization you've made.

With a bit of fixing, Legends of the Wulin. Kung fu styles have different stats, traits and boosts, alongside archetype Secret Arts that lets you customise how your character works in combat, creating very different playstyles. The combat itself is fun and intimately enmeshed with storytelling, as Chi Conditions used for representing physical injury are equally applied to emotional or spiritual conditions, letting the fluff side of a combat, the character development or emotional climax it represents, also be mechanically meaningful and important in determining the result.

LotW is a very imperfect system. It's hard to learn, and takes a bit of tweaking to get running well, but when it gets going it's the best example of crunch informing RP and vice versa. A fight in LotW isn't just a mechanical or a narrative challenge, it's a synthesis of both where one side couldn't really exist without the other. And this isn't getting into the awesome and fascinating way Secret Arts let you interact with the world and the systems out of combat.

But, as has been mentioned before, LotW isn't particularly appropriate to this thread as it's very much a high action, high fantasy combat system.

If your goal is to play a game, why would you choose role-playing over playing a board game? I'm honestly curious.

I'm not saying you're not allowed to enjoy good rules if you're into role-playing, but that it's weird to be into role-playing if the rules rate above characterization and immersion in your priority list.

It's like eating ice because you're thirsty, yes, you can do that, you could also just pour yourself a glass of water.

It's like taking up a team sport because you like group hugs.

You are telling me all these great things about systems that you refuse to mention, I honestly just want a concrete example so we can actually discuss it instead of shadowboxing about hypthetical game design.

You're confusing your personal priorities and understanding for some sort of objective evidence. Stop thinking so much of your own opinions and things will get a lot easier for you to comprehend.

>Opinions are just opinions

No shit, that's why we use arguments.

>I can't stand D&D anymore
Welcome to da club, OP.

We have been telling these americucks at Veeky Forums to stop playing D&D since forever but they refuse to listen.

Love you OP, smell you later.

I really liked Jadeclaw's system. You can trade extra successes for additional effects rather than dealing more damage. This made for a neat, cinematic system where tossing tables in the way of blades and hopping off walls can set up some cool scenes.

For gritty realism and low magic I'd say The Sigil System. It's d100 and it uses wounds rather than HP so it has high lethality and difficulty.

Not that user, but I think I can shed some light on this issue, if you're actually interested and capable of seeing it..

>If your goal is to play a game, why would you choose role-playing over playing a board game?
Choosing a role-playing GAME over a board game or other game is, from my perspective, because one desires both the role-playing aspect of playing a character within a setting and still having the narrative controlled, metered, and guided by a set of rules.
As said the user said above, restriction breeds creativity and the mechanics and "game" aspect lends depth and heart to the role-playing as your are forced to comply with a force outside of the Players's and GM's whims.
At the same time, a board game or such completely lacks the role-playing aspect unless you just Play Pretend on top of it.
In short, some people eat Reese's Peanut Butter Cups not because they want peanut butter or because they want chocolate, but because they want both at the same time for that unique experience.

>it's weird to be into role-playing if the rules rate above characterization and immersion in your priority list.
It is only weird if you rate the rules FAR above characterization and immersion.
Also, if you consider good rules more important than characterization and immersion simply because you find adding those easier with a good group, it's not weird at all.
It's easier to find a smooth running car and give it your own character with seat covers, fuzzy dice, and rims than it is to find a car that suits your style and then work with the mechanics until it runs smoothly.
Similarly, it's easier to add good role-playing to a game with solid rules than it is to add the benefits that solid rules bring to a game focused on rules-light role-playing.

Savvy?

I think that GURPS is, in fact, right up your alley. It gives more agency in many ways than, arguably, most systems. In my experience, not being engaged or not having fun with the combat has as much to do with the narrator as much as it does with the mechanical options. The following is largely written about melee, but ranged also has similar options across the board.

I think that GURPS hits the mark for agency, intuition, and narration. Each round of combat is 1 second, so each participant does, effectively. First, the attacker needs to be good enough to even potentially hit the target. If the attacker can't hit the target because their skill is too low (they can't manage to roll under), nothing happens. You have options to make this better, including evaluation, which stacks as high as a +3 bonus for the next attack, and similar maneuvers. An all-out-attack (which does not allow you to defend that turn), has a number of maneuvers the attacker can use, like determined for a +4 to hit. By far, the greatest number of options are available for attacking, which helps to enable narration.

If the attacker makes a good enough roll to hit the target, the target has options, depending on the circumstances, to parry (one attack from one target each turn), to dodge, or to block with some shield or other object. Their respective rolls for those abilities are typically more difficult than attacking. Dodge uses the basic speed of the character, parry uses the skill of the parrying-weapon/2 +3. There are maneuvers an attacker can use to make the defenses less effective, like deceptive attacks, and feints. There's your agency.

If the defender fails the defense roll, then you roll for damage. Armor and shields, interposed material, etc, reduce damage. This is, in my opinion, much more satisfying than armor rules as given in most other games, ignoring unearthed arcana, which introduced a similar damage reduction value.

Narration is aided, in my opinion, by the whole string. Instead of rolling against an AC, which abstracts away dodging, parrying, skipping off armor, etc, and leaves the entirety of the narration up to the potentially inexperienced GM, the narration is practically laid out for the GM to garnish with style.

Rolled 14 against 18 AC can be:
> You missed!
> Your blow skipped off their armor/hide.
> They dodged the blow.
> Your attack swung too weakly, and they pushed your weapon aside with a flick of their sword.
Too easy for an inexperienced GM to fail to embellish or dramatize, though great GMs can do great things with that information.

Vs GURPS.
Fail the attack roll? How badly?
> Your swing whiffed by a meter over their head.
> Your sword came within an inch of their face, but didn't connect.

Made the attack roll, but did they defend and how well?
> They expertly dodged the attack, backing up a step as they do so.
> At the last moment, their buckler interposed itself between your sword and their chest. Their muscle-memory clearly ingrained deeply.
> Metal clashes and the edges bite as their estoc takes the blow of your longsword.

Okay, you hit, now roll for damage. Was it weak? Was it critical? What about armor?
> Your swing connected, but only just. They are certainly gouged in their arm, but they can shrug it off.
> Wish a crushing blow your pommel strikes their forehead. They take grievous damage and are downed. They'll need to steady themselves before they can retaliate.
> The dagger hit your enemy, but their armor was too thick. They felt it, but only barely, as the steel took the bulk of the hit.

There are other rules which are baked in that are also satisfying, but optional. Is your weapon a heavy crushing weapon? Their light weapon cannot hope to parry it completely, at least not without being damaged. What about locations? That longsword does a lot of damage if you slash at their guts, but perhaps is not as effective elsewhere.

>These have awful combat. It's a boring shitslog with all the issues of D&D sans the casters.
a character in WFRP has what? 10 Wounds? that's along way from D&D's Hitpoint bloat.

Legend (Rule of Cool).
Truly varied tactical combat with each encounter meant to be challenging on its own, without resource attrition BS.

>the spritual successor of RoS and SoS
>Harnmaster
What? Do you mean predecessor?

yep. obviously

Pretty terrible when your players just go "I attack" every round and don't even want to aim or evaluate or try to sweep the enemy's legs or something. Banning regular attacks and forcing to pick between "committed attack" or "defensive attack" off Martial Arts helps a bit, usually.

That's very stupid tactics, for a number of ways:
1) Often simple attacks cannot penetrate enemy's active defences. You need to feint, or deceptive attack, or both.
2) You cannot use hit locations to your advantage. It is much more easier to kill enemy who can't move because of crippled leg or have no weapon because of the crippled arm.
3) Moving and positioning yourself is very important in GURPS combat with tactical combat on. And going just "attack, attack, attack" makes you miss chances to strike from the side.

In short, if your players just go "attack, attack, attack", they are one of the following:
1) People who don't understand system enough to use more complex strategies;
2) Retards who don't want to understand system.
First you teach; second you ban from the table ASAP.

Pardon me, but I heard that Riddle of Steel has combat rules so complicated, that a duel takes hours to resolve. Does anyone actually care enough about the system to redpill me on it, as I am looking for the PDF of it right now on the PDF thread and using the best moves my google-fu can muster?

Go look up the successor system Song of Swords instead. Still in active development (the physical book has recently been Kickstarted), has an active board presence with at least one of the devs showing up fairly regularly (), and has a pulpy sister system in Ballad of the Laser Whales.

Does it use d10?

Yep.

Alright, I will take a look when I have some time and see how it plays then.

Note that that thread OP isn't quite right, the latest version is v2.0, here:

GURPS,

rest is just a boring slog of useless AC abstraction and "lol I got ten 8+ you're dead no parry allowed xD"

It's considerably harder to hit someone because of all around low WS and the enemy's Parry/Dodge not giving a shit about your WS. As a result, hits are rare and they're not actually guaranteed to do damage since you need to get past TB+Armor. And the end result is that you're standing still and just performing the base "attack" over and over until someone dies, just like in D&D.