Have you ever used RPG combat as a 1v1 game against someone else? Not wargaming...

As a guy who does both RPGs and wargames, most RPGs have lousy combat systems. Which is fine, since they're not solely about that. And the ones that are most about combat are usually terribly designed by people who "had a cool idea" and never touched a wargame newer than Chainmail, if they even touched that.

So if I was gonna do a 1v1 battle I'd break out an actual wargame system.

Honestly, were any of you ever making characters like that?

>i think combat is THE element that doesn't necessarily need a GM narrating stuff
You couldn't be more wrong. Combat without GM narration and making sure players narrate themselves turns into boring dice roll competition, with absolutely nothing but numbers popping out. It makes it so boring that it's the easiest way of making entire party to quit the game.

Me and a friend tried out the nWoD 1e fighting styles, one boxer vs one kung-fu guy. Turns out kung-fu is incredibly retardedly overpowered.

Seriously, how in the fuck am I ever going to land a punch that does size is damage, against a person that can do three attacks per turn? Come on.

You mean like fechts? Yeah, I've done it so many times since I discovered TRoS.

Depends on the game, not all games have dull DnD-combat. Eon (up to 3rd ed, Swedish rp) has a combat system that almost narrates itself. You will know where you hit, if any organs/bones were injured, how much pain/bleeding/tissue damage you make you opponent suffer.

Yes user, let's not only assume everyone is playing D&D, but also bring some obscure, never-translated Swedish RPG.
Solves everything!

There's similar english ones, I've never played Warhammer fantasy rpg but I've heard it does something similar.

Also, Sweden strong.

Woah, chill out Cpt. Defensive. Both of the games are clearly being used as examples. The first for an archetype and the second goes into specifics to clearly explain the reference.

If you had to pick a wargame to 'switch to' as soon as a fight broke out in your RPG, which would you pick?

> Combat without GM narration and making sure players narrate themselves turns into boring dice roll competition, with absolutely nothing but numbers popping out.
Care to elaborate this? Preferably with examples.

If the DM can't be arsed to translate hit and damage rolls into a vivid description of a fight, the players won't either.

It will just turn into a bland series of "I hit this target value and I do this number of damage. Your turn."

>I've never played Warhammer fantasy rpg but I've heard it does something similar.
>never played
That explains why you are so delusional about it

What examples do you need? Once you cut narration from combat, it turns into "I attack with sword" and focus on numerical outcome. Soon it just turns into series of rolls after pointing out target of the attack or not even that if there is only single enemy present.
It's like you never played with murderhobos under pussy GM who assumes that asking players to put any sort of effort would be rude.

Battletech already does exactly this and it's amazing

A friend of mine and I have messed with using 4e for Fire Emblem-style skirmishes.

Yes, plenty of times as part of an adventure.
I run for about 14 years now, and sometimes characters have duels.
The duels are not great, not balacned. Its usually the story behind the duel that makes it intense. Its sort of a rock-paper-scissors with druids being shotguns.

Its not fun if you just set up 2 characters to fight. The characters in d&d are not balanced in terms of duel strength. Soem are designed for doing tasks(sneak and picklock), some are designed to heal and buff the party, some are designed for crowd control or diplomacy...
Using it as a duel tool will not work well

>Soon it just turns into series of rolls after pointing out target of the attack or not even that if there is only single enemy present.
If you won't something different you should try games with more detailed combat beyond simple exchange of attacks between motionless actors to reduce HP. They don't need GM to create vivid picture of action. But hey maybe you just want to play free form, it's okay.

...

It DOESN'T MATTER. If you cut narration from it, it's still rolling dice, you stupid shit. Doesn't make a difference if you just rolled for attack or rolled for backstab under the 5th rib, because that activates your x3 damage multiplier.

All you are doing right now is reasuring me you never played TTRPG in your life.

What are you talking about? How can I be delusional about a game I just said I 'heard did something similar'? Are you a complete cunt, or what?

Not him, but there is nothing edgy in describing what's roughtly 1 in 4 groups of players.
Shouldn't summer be already back in school?

Ok, you are a complete cunt.

About the fact you never played Warhammer, only heard something about it and based on that hersay, you are going to conclusions that you consider valid facts.
That's what delusional means - drawing conclusions based on own believes treated as reality.

>If you won't something different you should try games with more detailed combat beyond simple exchange of attacks between motionless actors to reduce HP.
Mechanically, combat should be fairly quick. Narratively, it deserves to be described in every bit as much detail as every other part of the adventure.

Sure, a crit is just extra damage. But I appreciate it when a DM goes to the effort of translating that into a vivid picture of heads rolling and fighters getting run through.

>All you are doing right now is reasuring me you never played TTRPG in your life.
But I've enjoyed playing TTRPGs, dear angry cunt. And I've used combat outside the main play to teach new players and just to have fun. Some systems have fun combat that doens't require GM to work smoothly.
>Doesn't make a difference if you just rolled for attack or rolled for backstab under the 5th rib, because that activates your x3 damage multiplier.
Lol you've just confirmed you've never played any system with interactive combat. You have so many fun new things to discover.

And you don't have any arguments, so?

If you remove from them narration, you are still rolling dice to get highest/lowest (depends on how game is build) outcome.
Fun as fact. Totally see enjoying myself replacing Role with Roll in RPG.

Fun as fuck

Damn autocorrect

Do you understand english, cuntface? If you do then you would have seen that I did not make any conclusions, I did not say that I thought something was a fact.

>Mechanically, combat should be fairly quick.
And combat in TRoS is very quick you can awesome breathtaking duel under 10 minutes.
>But I appreciate it when a DM goes to the effort of translating that into a vivid picture of heads rolling and fighters getting run through.
It's inbuilt in some systems. I was sold when my friend ran it for me and replicated fight between Aragorn and that uruk-hai without GM. At the end he beheaded my orc character with one clean perfect hit and it felt awesome.

Only if you play DnD exclusively, as you seem to do.

>You have so many fun new things to discover.
I will repeat that you have so many fun new things to discover. But if you are free form kid, it's fine. Stick with it, have fun, no need to be angry cunt about that and foam at the notion of dice rolling.

You don't have any arguments either. You just spilled spaghetti and said the other guy never played an RPG.

I know you are being a newfag. You shouldn't be proud of it.

I never played D&D in my fucking life, but that's apparently the only game you know at all yourself. GURPS sucks at this, because you will die in first round of combat if doing so. FATE actively requires from you to ROLEPLAY though combat. YOu will suck entire mood out of it if you start just rolling dice in Call of Cthulhu. Half of the fun in CP2020 combat comes from blowing up limbs. Last thing you want to do in Twilight 2000 is reducing the game to just rolling for it, as that's the easiest way to be killed in the most stupid fashion possible, applying Hollywood tactics to what's a tactical shooter as a tabletop game. Wild Fields expect from players to familiarise themselves with fencing to go anywhere beyond most basic forms of attack that anyone can easily parry or counter. And the list can go on and on...

But sure, let's just blame D&D, you stupid cunt.

>obviously only plays D&D
>claims she's never played D&D in her life

>It's inbuilt in some systems.
I know. I've played MERP/Rolemaster, and I didn't like it. Tables and charts are inflexible and they get predictable. A decent DM can provide much better descriptions, tailored to the situation at hand.

I'm surprised you wouldn't like those games since you enjoy D&D.

...

Honestly, is wrong with you? Literally anyone who has different stance on the hobby is instantly branded as "excessive DD player".
Show us on the doll where you've been hurt.

I'm on the fence about D&D.

Either way, Rolemaster and D&D are two very different things.

Anyone can google 'rpg-names' and put them in a post. I'm still convinced that you only ever played DnD.

>Tables and charts are inflexible and they get predictable
Yeah, it's the slowest part of TRoS too. Fortunately you have to look at them only so often while characters and mooks are encouraged to behave realistically and retreat or concede when heavily wounded if possible (so less searching through the charts). We used houserule that all level 1 wounds caused same damage except Bludgeoning which caused 0 Bleed and 1 more Shock.

Yes user, anyone can assemble a list of games on a fly with explaining why said games won't work wht "just roll for it" approach. That's because they are all secretly only playing D&D...
Have you stopped taking your meds again?

Charts with specific injury results are always going to be more cumbersome than an abstract pool of points representing your level of injury, and an imaginative DM who can translate the point values into meaningful descriptions.

Sure, I'll take the charts if my DM doesn't have a creative bone in his body, but that's just as a back-up option.

>Anyone can google Wild Fields
>He doesn't even know what game it is
I'm not sure you even know what you are talking about right now, but keep going. There is a high chance you are going to make a total clown out of yourself in next reoly and we'll all have a hefty laugh out of it.

Just sayin, you seem pretty determined to prove you have never played D&D.

I'm pretty sure you only play D&D.

There's no shame in only playing DnD if you enjoy it, user. No need to be so defensive.

>Charts with specific injury results are always going to be more cumbersome
They aren't that cumbersome, even less so if you don't have to look them up every turn until combat ends. Level of wound is descriptive enough. Level 1 is a scratch, level 4 is a very serious injury. Level 5 wound to vitals is instant death and traumatic amputation to the limbs. Basically you don't have to see the charts to know what to do next, whether to keep fighting or lay down and call medic to put your guts back. Everyone can understand what's happening and picture it in their heads without GM speaking a word.

>Wild Fields
Which edition?

>Basically you don't have to see the charts to know what to do next
What's the point of having charts, then?

>What's the point of having charts, then?
To familiarize yourself with the game first, to be impressed with pure gruesomeness of Level 5 and get mental image for later use. Level 2 and 3 are manageable, and character can fight even with level 4 and 5 wounds if Spiritual Attributes kick in and he is still alive.

First one. Second decided to fix firearms, in the process broking everything else, while also throwing in a lot of gear gimmicks.

It would be just as easy to compile a chart linking those descriptions to specific amounts of HP damage. I don't see what's so special about the system you're showing me.

That's less descriptive though, which is what the entire argument is about. If lack of GM-narration renders every combat in every game utterly dull (or not).

Not him and why I don't see the full appeal of autistically following such chart, he as a point with this bit:
>To familiarize yourself with the game first
There is nothing worse than picking a game for the first time and decide to just run it like the previous one you used, despite obvious differences. So while I take such tables always with a grain of salt, they are useful to learn new system.
Kind of how you read the doorstopper of GURPS Basic Set, despite never going to use 95% of it, just to know the system as such beyond the bare basics of "roll 3d6 and hope for the best".

How is copying those exact descriptions and linking them to increasing amounts of HP damage somehow less descriptive?

The descriptions would be completely unchanged.

>It would be just as easy to compile a chart linking those descriptions to specific amounts of HP damage
It doesn't use hit points and hit points are descriptive at all. If attacker managed to land a hit level of Wound is calculated as attacker's Strength and how well his strike he performed (degree of success) reduced by target's Toughness stat and armor. Level of wound is what TRoS uses for damage.

>The descriptions would be completely unchanged.
Because the original game is built around 1d10 dice pools, degree of success and without hit points. It adds up well together.

How then do you know about pain, shock and blood-loss? Those factors are also descriptive and simulate being injured on the sheet in more detail than just "-5hp", and that extra simulation also tells a story. .

>Level of wound
>Levels one, two, three, four and five

Why is this somehow considered more descriptive than numerical hit point damage?

I get it, the entire system is built differently and it doesn't use hit points. That's clear.

I'm just saying it's no more descriptive than adding a similar chart telling you "5 HP damage represents a solid blow, ribs and muscle will be bruised" to D&D or any other system that uses HP.

> to go anywhere beyond most basic forms of attack that anyone can easily parry or counter
I read the first edition. It didn't seem to me that forms of your attacks depend on anything but weapon in your hand and Proficiency level. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Explain how we will know about blood loss, shock and pain from "5 HP damage" then, and how those factors will come in to play.

>How then do you know about pain, shock and blood-loss?
By familiarizing yourself with the interpretations and mental images of specific amounts of HP damage.

I'm told that's what these charts are for, too.

what system?

Aye. It's how a lad's been teaching me Mutants & Masterminds. Is honestly surprisingly fun. Would recommend as a teaching method for more complicated systems.

Don't ignore the second part of the post, how do we simulate pain, shock and blood loss then? Those factors are vital to telling the story of the injury.

There is also the bit where you have to declare what and how you try to attack. Unless you want to stay at level of "always going for three" or "always making a combo of face, face, sudden leg attack", knowing both the system and bit of fencing was pre-requested. And even those still required to have at least a mental image of all the moves, so your combo actually worked, rather than turning into Kmicic

How do you interpret pain, shock and blood loss based on 'level three wound, upper body'? You either reference the chart or have it memorized.

You can do the exact same thing for HP values.

Using HP is only less descriptive if no one at the table can be arsed to make an effort to actually translate numerical damage into a proper description.

Some games have charts to do that for you. Whatever, that's fine. It limits you to a certain pre-defined set of results, but it's better than nothing.

Just don't try to argue that systems using HP can't be fluffed up with just as many descriptions as a system that classifies wounds into a set of numerical levels, with numerical representations of blood loss, shock, and what have you.

>Why is this somehow considered more descriptive
Because they have descriptions AND effects that HP crits doesn't have and same numbers of Bloodloss, Shock and Pain will affecting characters in different ways. Pain is reduced by Willpower, it reduces number of dice in your combat pool each turn.

Say two characters got hit with truncheon on the upper arm for level 3 wound. Honestly broken humerus is too much for level 3. Average Joe the Levy with 4 WP and little training (6-8CP) will lose half his pool and ability to fight, sharp pain doesn't let him concenrate, he is in dire situation. Sir Coldsteel with WP7 shrugs it off and keeps fighting slightly disctracted by the pain. All these desciptions come from the mechanics game provides.

Didn't you prove them right about their characters being too weak, if you did that?

GURPS.
They were approaching it very much in whack-a-mole style, with close to zero tactical approach used. Just enough to survive, but never enough to actually be good or feel strong. So they've blamed it on me making their characters too weak.
Turns out a 125/-25 character (with 15 points in non-combat skills) in a TL4 game managed to slice them to pieces by sheer virtue of using tactics and terrain. And they had both the map in front of them, all the barriers set up as physical blocks for easier imagination and enemy's sheet in their hands.
Felt almost like a thing straight from an Errol Flynn movie, with them being typical nameless soldiers/guards getting shanked with almost zero effort.

There is also famous "bull fight" meme, which is great for teaching green players how to fight at all. Basically you set up the party against a bull. If they manage to kill it, they are ready for using the system. More often than not people end up with TPK. Against a bull.

What? Pain, shock and blood loss are clearly given on the chart.

Nobody argued what you think they are arguing. The argument was if GM-narration for combat was strictly neccessary in all games or not.

All the time in L5R.

When our group is divided on something, we generally have a duel.

I usually win because Kakita.

>You either reference the chart or have it memorized.
First of all, TRoS doesn't reference damage chart every turn or even every time someone lands a hit. It doesn't slice HP down little by little with large slices from crits. I can only imagine the tedium of describing meningless loss of HP. That's why I was talking about level 1, 4 and 5 being self-descriptive. Characters have declared their attacks and defenses already and direction of the attack. You don't need details to know mere scratch won't stop a fight. You know that overhand strike followed by level 5 wound means split skull or half of the head chopped off. That comes naturally once you've learnt their effect on the game.

Not exactly. It was about misuse of the characters and their skills, not the characters being weak themselves.
When I was done with doing this "trial TPK" (took less than 15 minutes), I cracked open the beer I've stored and we started a discussion of what just happend, why this all was possibible, what they could do in each moment (they could easily just swarm me, for starters, being 1vs5 in a system when 1vs2 is a death-wish) and so on and forth.

I basically had to teach them how to use their own resources, since turns out just because they were playing the game for so long didn't mean they know how to apply what they have for their advantage.

Not sure how familiar you are with GURPS, but I had 125/-25 character, they were all close to 230 mark. That means "hardened adventurer" vs party of what passes as "low-power super". Party. And they all died.

>Nobody argued what you think they are arguing.

What? See .
This user literally said that using the exact same descriptions in a chart that's linked to HP damage is, and I quote,
>less descriptive.

Well, in that case I don't have any sympathy for them anymore, since they should have used the time they had to learn what their character can/can't do and how to effectively utilize their resources.

>and how you try to attack
I read that part. IIRC difference between target locations comes up only when attack deals huge amount of damage and then critical wound effect specific for this location is applied. Attacks inflict the same amount of damage everywhere.
>always making a combo of face, face, sudden leg attack
Do they have in game mechanics for changing direction of attacks? Does it affect die roll somehow? Since Dzikie Pola uses HP you don't want to get hit anywhere.

Yes? It IS less descriptive, unless you change the standard HP-system to include shock, pain and blood loss (which is what you wrote as a solution in your post given below), which just makes it pretty much the same.

ah, i was wondering if it was gurps because of the point thing, but was hesitant to assume since i knew a 1-on-5 fight between typically favors the 5 quite heavily.
and yeah, the ox template is insane. definitely a fun one to crack out on a brainless party.

>I'm told that's what these charts are for, too.
Who told you that? user, wounds do not translate into HP very well. You can have level 4 Wound on every single part of your body and still live as long as team of amazing doctors prevents extreme bleeding and complications. How would you translate this into HP loss?

And this is exactly why you need to make sure you aren't just "swinging it like a flail" - it makes a massive difference where the attack connects and if the target could/did parry that. If you are going to just ignoring both areas of attack and your opponents skills, you end up literally minced, since your attacks make parry of his attack impossible, while he can easily parry you.
Plus recovering from wounds takes ages, so it's not just "meh, this is HP-run system". You won't recover on the next day/week after a botched duel, so you might not survive the encounter. Not getting hit is achieved with properly combining your attacks against opponent's parries and thus gaining upper hand by either killing him before he wounds you OR parrying his attacks better than he parries yours. Either way, it's not just "who rolls higher wins" type of deal, as the declaration of what you attack makes a big deal of how you can parry. Since pretty much all combat is without armour, this kind of sucks when your only defense comes from how you allign your attacks againsts counter-attacks and you botch that up by not knowing how to fence at all.
On the plus-side, just reading the book carefully helped with entry tier fencing, so you were at least above Kmicic. And the system itself worked this way wonders when GM was adjusting enemies - all they had to do was just flailing madly at you to be weak.

The best part about ox combat is that it's perfectly normal animal with no combat skills or anything special, other than the fact it's a large bovine. But it goes exactly as you might expect for smacking an ox with a stick and making it charge you.

>ignoring both areas of attack
So how the game treats different areas of attack? I don't remember rules for decreasing or increasing your chances to hit depending on target or what sequence of attacks you launched. Or rules for covering the line, specific action does it. Tell me about them please.

It goes in very simple fashion - you declare your sequence of moves. If they are retared, opponent can easily attack a body part that remains unguarded, since you simply can't parry such attack, having all your effort put elsewhere.
For example let's assume you are trying to attack head from the left 3 times in a row. Saw hello to a sabre in your right tight, because you can't parry that.

Is ths Dzikie Pola or Burning Wheel? It seems that target of attack still doesn't matter since parry, block or dodge doesn't have a target and will defend against all directions.

Never played Burning Wheel, so I don't know if it applies to it too.
But I heard the games are similar. Can't confirm, since I only know one of them.

Burning Wheel uses the same scripting of 3 actions, maybe even under Wild Fields influence. Can you point me to the page where this sequencing is mentioned in the rulebook?

I'm in the office, user. The only reason I'm on Veeky Forums at this hour is because there is barely any work today.