Cosmeticism has its place. The feeling (however illusory) of being able to actually "do something" to stave off damage, rather than simply sitting and hoping the GM's roll misses, is a significant contributor to in-game engagement; it's one of the reasons I prefer defense rolls to static defense values.
I have found that to be very player dependent, even within the same group.
I used to be all about rolling for my defense - not liking just sitting back and relying on a static defense. But I realized that a big part of that was that my engagement with the game system was higher than other players.
I wanted to engage in the combat mini-game. Whereas other saw combat as something to roll through, then move on to the rest of the game.
In playing different games since, and even homebrewing my own; I've come to realize that there is more than one way to have the combat mini-game be engaging, and that different systems work better for different groups.
That said, one thing I think is also needed (which The Riddle of Steel does do) is that there has to be an element of player decision and resource management. Simply adding an unchanging defense roll to an unchanging attack roll is in itself not that interesting; it's when you have to balance finite (and diminishing) resources between attack and defense that it takes off.
Yes.
That's why in the case of games like: d6, WoD, RQ, WFRP, Interlock; the defense roll is a waste of time. All the potential for cool stuff to happen in combat is loaded into the attack roll.
Whereas in RoS and H+I, not only does what defensive move you select matter; you are managing your overall diepool in RoS, or your advantage in H+I.
Good question. I can't personally say, never having played such a system, but I think for me the lack of the back and forth of both sides rolling would eventually erode the tension somewhat, especially once I figured out exactly what my success thresholds were for both rolls (which I would, quickly; I have that kind of numerical mind).
Other players with actual experience may report different mileage.
For me, I have found that speed of play at the table can also create that desired tension. Give me low HP values, meaningful attacks and movement, with a simple action economy that gets things done quickly.
No one taking more than a few seconds to decide what they do on their turn. Roll initiative then boom, boom, boom, round resolved, done. Next!
Which is why for me 5e combat is really the worst of both worlds. Weaponry with no meaningful distinctions, you are always going to do the attack that does the most damage, yet you have this borked action economy with fiddly bits and baked in HP bloat that slows things to a crawl.
...This is not true with Mythras. If the defender rolls better than the attacker (e.g. crit vs ordinary hit or succeed vs fail), they can impose effects.
I did leave Mythras off the list because does have those defensive options. But I am not a fan of it's execution. Just too many damn extra rolls and other fiddly bits baked into some of the maneuvers that slow things down.
PC:
"I crit! I disarm!"GM:
"Wait, the opponent gets to make another roll to see if that is true..."PC:
"The hell he does. Ok, I trip him then!"GM:
"Well, he gets to roll.."PC:
"Serious!? Screw that - I cause him to Bleed then."GM:
"Ok so he get to make a roll.."PC:
"Fuck off! Did I roll a crit or not?"A bit of hyperbolic cherry-picking, but you get the point.
In RoS or H+I, when you decide to go for a disarm - one roll and you're done. You pulled it off or you didn't.
Vs: You roll, you hit, roll damage, or maybe you crit, now select option, maybe an extra roll from the opponent, then maybe roll damage, maybe not.
With effect based systems there is also largely no sense of
'I want to pull off/go for x move against that bad guy'... It's almost always about a general attack, then:
'I got lucky and rolled a crit - what should I do now?'...
You're taking quite a lot for granted here that I am not sure is obvious - in particular that Move-based systems are "smoother". I am not sure if you are arguing this is true somehow as a characteristic of the system itself, or because it imposes rules competency.
In my experience, it's Both.
Your attack and crit choices are rolled into one decision. You lose the hesitancy of selecting the optimal crit result, and because it compels rules competence, (you need to know how the moves interact) analysis paralysis is effectively a non-issue when deciding how to engage your opponent.
That being said;
it is highly group dependent. Everyone at the table has to buy-in to learning the combat system, otherwise that one guy that doesn't can turn things into an utter slog.
If the former, this seems to contradict what e.g. some reviews on drivethru I have seen have to say about problems of scaling, and about difficulty using the system outside a man-on-man context. If the latter, I don't think that's necessarily any more true than an effects-based system.
I have not had such issues. You just aren't going to use the maneuvers against claw wielding monsters that you would against people. You just use the more straightforward actions that the situation calls for.
I think a lot has to do with perceptions in how combat is run... I was at college in the same time/area as one of the RoS creators, played with them, and the group I joined learned from them. I've smoothly run combats with PC's against multiple combatants. It's not a matter of resolving everything in turn, but breaking things down into manageable conflicts that you run in a logical order and stopping point before you move on to the next one.
Much easier to run than explain.
I do think the moves-based vs effect-based distinction is valid and useful.
As a fan of RoS and H+I, I must acknowledge the reality that moves-based systems will always be niche systems in RPG land. They require more player buy-in and must be more tightly designed. Two obstacles that will always see them relegated to the category of cool sounding games that not a lot of people actually play.