free banner exchange by Bpath.com Captain Anorak's Guide to Gaming
Combat Systems:
1. Fundamental Considerations
Before writing a combat system we must first decide what it's supposed to do. These are some of the points which I think important.

WHY IS COMBAT FUN?

The simple answer to the question 'Why is combat fun?' is that you get to kill things. But if I won all the time with no risk to my character and without having to think about anything, I would find that combat boring. So, what do we need in a combat system to make it fun? I think that there are really three things.

Risk -

Decisions - I've met some people who find AD&D combat boring. They same things like 'I just sit there and roll dice every turn - if I roll high enough I win and if I don't I lose. Where's the fun in that?' A game is more exciting if it involves making tactical decisions. To a great degree I am a wargamer, and I enjoy games that require tactical thought to succeed. I get little enjoyment from having a superhumanly hard character who can cleave his way through any number of normal opponents; I get far more enjoyment from playing a skilled but normal fighter who has to think and use cunning tactics to achieve a high kill ratio (ie. many opponents killed by me but me never killed by an opponent). So a game with a lot of decisions about what to do in combat holds more interest for me. But I would say this: it's not just about what you do in combat. Many important decisions occur before joining battle, like what weapons to acquire, what skills to advance, whom to pick as allies and ememies, and most importantly of all whom to engage in actual combat. If a battle can't be won don't fight it.

Even if combat is completely mechanistic with no tactical decisions once battle is joined, there is a lot of tactical thought involved in the lead-up to combat, if the scenario allows it. Unfortunately, many scenarios are linear and prevent the player from making tactical decisions: they simply consist of fighting five orcs in a room, then moving on to the next room with the next five orcs in it, with no room for working out a better way to approach the overall problem of clearing out the den of orcs.

Depiction of real combat -

SIMULATION OF GAME-REALITY

The most fundamental point is that the combat system must simulate the reality of game combat. See Rule 2 for Game Mechanics. This might not be the same as the reality of combat in our world: a game might include cinematic moves or magical powers that don't work in our world.

The statement that 'the combat system must simulate combat' may seem obvious, but it's clear to me that in the writing of many combat systems in commercial games, writers haven't thought about what combat is really like and tried to simulate it. For example, in Paranoia 1st Edition the base chance of hitting with a weapon is equal to the attacker's skill, determined by his primary stats and the number of skill points invested. There is no concept that it's innately easier to hit with some weapons than with others. It's obvious to me that firing a burst of full auto at a single target gives a greater chance of at least one bullet hitting than firing only a single bullet, but in Paranoia there is no difference: an unmodified skill roll is made whether a single shot or a full auto burst is fired from the same weapons. Call of Cthulhu is even worse: getting better weapons sometimes reduces your chance of hitting.

TRANSPARENCY
See Rule 1 for Game Mechanics for a definition of transparency.

A very important principle here is that in melee combat a positive active defence such as dodging or blocking should be represented by a positive stat value for defence; the absence of such defence should be represented by zero. Imagine this system:

1A. A character has Attack and Defence stats. A typical untrained human has Attack 15, Defence 12. To hit, an attacker must roll less than or equal to his Attack minus the target's Defence on 1D10, giving a 30% chance for two typical untrained humans. Lack of defence reduces Defence: complete lack of defence results in Defence 0.

Under 1A, if my opponent puts up no defence (literally doesn't move) then I'm always going to hit. If my opponent has severely restricted defence (such as being a largely immobile creature) then my chance of hitting is very high. This is a good, simple, transparent simulation of reality.

This contrasts very strongly with simple to hit rolls which are used in many games. Follow the link just given for a discussion of these.

THE SENSE OF INVOLVEMENT

It's good to feel involved in combat. When I watch a swashbuckler film, I'm intensely absorbed in the cut and thrust of the combat action. In martial arts sparring, in paintball, and I presume in live roleplaying (which I haven't tried) there is a real rush of excitement as I throw myself into the closest thing to real combat I can get without risking serious injury.

I'd like to feel the same involvement in RPG combat. How can this be done? I think the simple answer is that greater involvement is felt with a greater level of detail in the portrayal of combat. This can work a number of ways:

Actions - In reality, combat consists of a number of distinct though related actions. A duel between two swordsmen consists of attacks, parries, dodges and feints. So a game system that deals with each of these separately is more involving.

Decisions - If there are different actions possible, characters get to make decisions about what to do. The more decisions you get to make, the more involving the game will seem.

THE RISK OF INJURY

My own feeling is that combat should always carry with it risks of death, permanent disablement, and temporary incapacitation. So I despise a game like AD&D which allows ressurrection of the dead and instant magical healing, where being injured doesn't affect your ability to fight on or carry a risk of permanent maiming. But I'm aware that many gamers (technically called 'sissified wusses') don't like their characters to be injured and so prefer games like AD&D that don't carry said risks. This is discussed in much more detail in vulnerablity to death and injury.

PLAYER MANIPULATION OF THE RULES

There is a spectrum of complexity in game systems, and as systems get more complex, rules interact with each other in more and more complex ways. As this interaction increases, there is more scope for players to learn to manipulate the rules. See Rule 4 for Game Mechanics.

Many games have special combat abilities which only certain characters can use, such as the 'feats' of the D20 System. These add more options and decisions to the game, making it more involving and more tactically varied. On the down side, they can increase the risk of players making decisions over rules rather than making the choices that their characters would in real life.

Part 2: Melee Combat.