How many of you enjoy combat in tabletop games? If so, what appeals to you the most about it?

It really doesn't. It can largely be summed up as "use as much deceptive attack as you need, and take the riskiest called shot you can afford with a reasonable chance of success to win."

That is certainly part of it, but there is a lot more to it depending on what equipment and skills are used. There is of course everything mentioned in the picture as well.

What systems actually do tactical combat well? I have played D&D 4E before, but I found that really boring.

what RPGs have you truly enjoyed?

It does sound like you'd enjoy something conceptually akin to Breath of the Wild in RPG form, except even there, fighting is a core part of the mechanics of the game to attain success. More often than not, you can't outrun your enemies, and strengthening your defenses and boosting your attacks becomes usually the best route for success.

IMO 3.5/open20 does a reasonable job at it. Unlike 5e where death is very unlikely to happen and combat is more roleplayed than anything, 3.5 combat is deceptive because you think "nah, no way in hell we are dying right".

A good DM will push your limits. You could be a crit or an AoE away from death, and a good DM makes all combat tense and difficult. Each action has to be considered carefully, and you can and will die if you get cocky or careless, imho.

Most of what's mentioned in that picture are pointless non-options, because GURPS, like every rules-heavy system is riddled with trap options. They just never get described as such because any attempt to critically analyze GURPS gets fanboys crawling out of the woodwork to tell you how you don't have to use every rule (good job captain idiot, we also don't have to use the game at all so shut up).

I enjoy combat systems that are built around creating an awesome fight scene. Granularity and 'realism' isn't my cup of tea, I prefer over the top action, with good gameplay that backs up the use of conflict for story progress and resolution.

My favourite combat systems are Legends of the Wulin and D&D 4e.

>what RPGs have you truly enjoyed?

Honestly, I've enjoyed most of the games I've played, but the parts that I enjoy tend to be the parts that interact with the mechanics the least. I'd say of the ones I've enjoyed the most, I'd go with BESM, Fate, and Savage Worlds, because the mechanics in all are pretty streamlined and combat tended to be quick.

That of course depends on what you are running. But I am not talking about the GURPS Ultra Lite combat where everything is resolved by a single roll. Try not being so presumptuous.

I find Pathfinder's combat to be even worse than 4e's so I suppose that I will have to look elsewhere then. I just find the focus on pre-combat buffs and throwing save or dies down range kind of silly, but you are right that it can be pretty deadly.

Oh, I forgot, I haven't tried it out yet but I've heard good things about Hackmaster and I also enjoyed combat in Star Wars Edge of the Empire a lot. It's fun, tactical, dynamic and it lets you get really creative with the dice results, too. Has loads in and out of combat ways to solve a problem.

Out of curiosity, what did you dislike about 4e combat? Knowing that might help us understand where to direct you.

This: Plus, the argument seems to be that "GURPS doesn't provide realistic combat", but then uses an example where a character starts with heroic (i.e. above 50) points, spends the majority on specializing in one stat, and then is (surprise surprise) better than humanly possible.

Looks to me like GURPS is doing exactly what its supposed to.

I don't really feel strongly about combat, it just irritates me that it's pretty much the only conflict resolution system most games will have. I just want a system where a lengthy debate can have the same mechanical role as a boss fight, and that isn't "roll opposed [skill] checks until the enemy runs out of !health".

Ignoring that, I always love being able to stack up environmental circumstances and preparation to stomp the other side of the encounter into the dirt. Nothing quite like rigging a building to explode before inviting your worst enemy over for a cease-fire.

I think something like Fate where there's also mental damage could work nicely for debates. However, it's in the human nature to try and solve most conflicts by force, especially when the party encounters a foe with whom a mutual agreement is simply impossible.

Deathwatch and/or most of the 40k ffg rpgs

when it comes to 40k, just seeing the universe come to life in a cinematic way on the table is incredible. Just seeing my hordes of zombie going on relentlessly as the opponent try to gun them down. Its just beautiful to watch.

I play GURPS, so the combat is a little more involved then something like 5e. In GURPS, at least if the GM is playing with the Martial Arts supplement, players can choose from a wealth of options to make combat into a bit of a strategy game. It can slow down the game if the players aren't familiar with what they can do, but if the GM enforces a "make you decisions quick" and the idea of "signature moves." Pic related for guidelines on how to speed up combat.

but the GM can enforce*

Depends on the system. I think DnD combat is a waste of time.

I only like combat as a cool element of the story or as a part of wider problem solving. Rollplayers who only play for combat ruin RPGs. Rollplayers are gutless little bitches who hate to lose and can't take the challenge of an honest wargame. Instead they want to play a cooperative '''''''roleplaying''''''' game focussed on combat, where the GM is supposed to create fights the players are likely to win and the only '''''''challenge''''''' is how optimally they win.

Anyone who enjoys only game mechanics should instead just play skirmish scale wargames that have lots of granularity and a campaign system. You can even play teams of 3vs3 or 2vs2 if you want that coop element. It's much better because your opponents will be more or less equal in power to you and will be going all out to beat you, making it more exciting and a much closer call than the vast majority of combat encounters in RPGs.

But rollplayers won't do this because they just want to win playing on easy mode, and are pissbabby sore losers.

Badwrongfun arguments are always stupid and just make you look like a cunt.

Of the games where you actually need to dedicate significant time to combat, I like 4e/Strike!'s grid based tactical approach, especially as a Leader (or DM playing the monsters) I get to make lots of interesting decisions each turn.

Games that don't dedicate as much thought are better off with brutal and simple/fast combat, so it ends fast and the most important decision is "do we even want to fight these guys?".

I'm working on a mostly narrative combat system. Basically you declare what you're attempting, make an attack roll with modifiers, and see what happens. Killing monsters with a lethal blow requires higher rolls, weakening or disarms are much easier. Higher level characters and monsters obviously get bonuses to these rolls.

Monsters do not take 'damage' numerically, but players do for fairness and to make the game more fair for their sake.

Realistic combat with balanced amounts of simulation and abstraction, with retaining a realistic level of freedom. Mythras captures this really well.
Using creative ways to hinder opponents for a killing blow or even kill them outright. For example, one of my favourite combat encounters so far consisted of a few ghouls.

One player pinned a ghoul to a tree with a spear and held it in place while others hacked away its limbs from a safe distance. The other ghouls were distracted by a player with a great hammer, who was breaking their limbs and a player who covered him by pushing other ghouls away with his shield until they neutralized the ghouls. None of them knew that a direct blow to the head would most likely kill them, otherwise they would keep coming like zombies with rabies. Therefore they resorted to just disabling them: hacking off or crushing limbs and leaving them there relatively harmless, or hang one ghoul with a grappling hook to a tree branch.

Not a single ghoul 'killed' per se, but encounter pretty much resolved.

Systems that allow such actions are fun.

Seems like you're moving towards something like 3.16 Carnage Amongst the Stars
Though in that system monsters just die when you hit them and the damage is actually how many you kill.

Sounds like Fate/FAE adapted for purposes. Would be neat.

If you only want combat, why not just play a board game? There's plenty of co-op boardgames when combat will go much faster and require much less prep than a ttrpg.

Because combat is fun in the context of continuous storytelling, characterisation and roleplay?

You can still do those things in a board game, it's just that noone does it.

Because combat is at its best when there is weight, a reason behind the fight. Be it revenge, justice, peace, love, money, in tabletop games there is really no tension other than winning or losing.

In TTRPG, your character's woes become your own, and their struggles are yours. No matter who you play, you are far more invested in the end result, and the potential outcomes of each fight, especially with a good DM.

Poor Initiative, okay but not stellar Perception. This is a very vulnerable PC.

Question: Do you care about whether you character lives or dies?

Yeah, because RPG's are built for it instead.

I'm not saying that combat is bad in ttrpgs, I'm saying too much is bad (more than half of the session being combat).
It is true that combat has weight and aids in drama, tension, and in a small way makes you feel like your character's struggle is also your struggle.
When you have too much combat though, these benefits diminish.

Hackmaster is fantastic if you love crunch, all of your players are fast with maths and GM can handle tracking ticks in combat

I like it when combat involves more than just "I hit him, they hit back" or "I cast a spell". Had a lot of fun as a Monk in 4e the one time I played it. But maybe I'd have gotten sick of it too if the sessions stopped happening after the first three or four...

You must be retarded or something. The first guy is talking about rollplayers. I know standards of reading comprehension have been plummeting on Veeky Forums in recent years but following the line of an argument is basic shit.

The first reply still applies. Badwrongfun arguments are universally dumb.

Combat's why I play.
The surrounding story is only useful to up the stakes; say you don't feel anything slaughtering goblins, but goblins that have killed the beloved blacksmith's wife and are now carrying him by the neck into the woods? Those goblins are going to get ground up into paste, and the paste will be set alight. Then commence goblin genocide.

I love everything about combat. The death, the carnage, the veteran players abusing the system and the newbie's dash of insane creativity in a fight. The mooks, the elites, the bosses, the monsters, the cunning mercenaries, the bandits, the dumb orcs, the animals, owlbears and ilithids alike; waiting to be slaughtered by the thousands. The arenas, the dungeons, the battlefields, the muddy riversides that slow movement, the icy glaciers, old churches and rickety bridges; every location with its own story to tell and obstacles to add.
Spiked pits? Gunpowder barrels? Pools of acid? Lava? Ambiental death ready to show itself to the unwary, or aid the tactically minded.
Slashing, bashing, crushing, shooting, throwing, suppressive fire, hammer and anvil, charging?
Fireballs? Tornadoes of Ice and Lightning? Napalm? Love them all. All manner of spell and sword.

t. foreverGM

>Poor Initiative, okay but not stellar Perception. This is a very vulnerable PC.
LOL not really when I can headshot you from 300m you poor cuck. You go first, miss me cause you're 400m out, then I go and headshot your dick off. Kek.

The fact that GURPS allows you to have a 38 rifles skill in the first place, is the problem.

Yeah, the game allows it. The GM might not.

I love tactical skirmish games, and rpgs, but somehow the two are never combined. I'd like to play a TTRPG where each player actually has 3-5 characters, skirmishing off against larger groups of bandits, orcs, suspiciously well coordinated animals, whatever.

Isn't that Mordheim?