This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Best sword fighting rules?  (Read 3020 times)

Marchand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 304
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #15 on: November 30, 2022, 06:26:48 AM »
This is the difference between effect based combat systems like Mythras/RQ, vs. Actual 'sword fighting' systems in games like RoS and H+I where the 'special effects' are the system.

Roll then pick, vs. You pick what move you are doing, then you roll - with certain moves affecting others..

That is an interesting distinction. For me, I'm content with a system that generates richer results than a back-and-forth of roll d20 vs AC. I wasn't necessarily looking for the system itself to be a kind of sword-fighting simulator, where players need to pick their moves ex ante. As you say, the way the moves interact with each other is probably going to generate a lot of complexity.
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #16 on: November 30, 2022, 07:55:07 PM »
Is there a scaling issue for the GM when using more involved combat rules? One duel can be a fun centerpiece, four or five duels happening concurrently seems much more chaotic and less dramatic, while forcing the GM to duel multiple characters while the players only run one each. ...

This happens in every game with rolled defenses. An extra roll for each combatant every round adds up.

Any game that uses rolled defenses is best done with 3-4 players, Max.

The truth is that for most games with rolled defenses, the defensive roll is entirely cosmetic. They add nothing to the game other than an extra time wasting roll because defensive crits typically do nothing other than block a crit attack.

d6, WoD, RQ, WFRP, Interlock - would all play faster, and better, with static defenses. Nothing worthwhile would be lost at the table during actual play.


This is the difference between effect based combat systems like Mythras/RQ, vs. Actual 'sword fighting' systems in games like RoS and H+I where the 'special effects' are the system.

Roll then pick, vs. You pick what move you are doing, then you roll - with certain moves affecting others..

That is an interesting distinction. For me, I'm content with a system that generates richer results than a back-and-forth of roll d20 vs AC. I wasn't necessarily looking for the system itself to be a kind of sword-fighting simulator, where players need to pick their moves ex ante. As you say, the way the moves interact with each other is probably going to generate a lot of complexity.

In my experience, no.

The actual combat section of RoS or H+I, are no more complex than exception based rule sets with lists of modifiers/class abilities, and have more straightforward action economies then what 5e has.

The nature of such systems also inherently enforces a degree of rules competence upon the players. 'Move' based systems also tend to flow better/faster during play as moves are selected on the spot - rather than rolling to see if you even hit, then deciding what the optimum crit option to select like in 'Effect' based systems.

But like I mentioned above, it comes at a cost; 3-4 players max in the group due to the GM having to also run every bad guy.

But since that cost holds true for Effect based systems like Mythras, then might you well go to a Move based system, and get smoother play at the table while you are at it.

FWIW - The Riddle of Steel quickstart rules: https://web.archive.org/web/20130524120628/http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/support/trosqs.zip
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #17 on: November 30, 2022, 10:07:05 PM »
The truth is that for most games with rolled defenses, the defensive roll is entirely cosmetic.

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.

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.

(And in the spirit of full disclosure, it should probably be noted that I am the guy who wrote those Quickstart rules for The Riddle of Steel, so I may be fairly accused of bias in this area.)
« Last Edit: November 30, 2022, 10:10:12 PM by Stephen Tannhauser »
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

Wisithir

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • W
  • Posts: 229
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #18 on: December 01, 2022, 03:10:28 AM »
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.
Is the same feeling better served by having only one roll, but having it always made by the players, roll to hit against a static defense and roll defense against a static attack?

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #19 on: December 01, 2022, 07:37:43 AM »
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.
Is the same feeling better served by having only one roll, but having it always made by the players, roll to hit against a static defense and roll defense against a static attack?

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.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #20 on: December 01, 2022, 08:45:07 AM »

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.

I think knowing the odds is part of it, but not all of it for every player.  I've seen players that couldn't remember the odds from one round to the next--even if you told them--exhibit similar responses.  I think it is having the physical dice in the hands that does it, too, because in my limited time with online play, it's not nearly so obvious.  Finally, I've seen the opposite--where a player was feeling so unlucky that they wanted someone else to roll for them. :)

More broadly, where tension is concerned, I've observed an uncanny valley effect.  You can have tension by making every roll important, every roll involve a decision.  Or you can have tension by keeping the system simple enough that the tension moves out of the individual exchanges into the overall fight.  Miss, Miss, Hit is boring if it takes to long.  If it's short enough, it's anticipation, build, excitement, release.  A system that tries really hard to be a little of column A, a little of column B, is in danger of falling into the valley where the tension is gone.

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #21 on: December 01, 2022, 11:19:00 AM »
You can have tension ... by keeping the system simple enough that the tension moves out of the individual exchanges into the overall fight.  ...If it's short enough, it's anticipation, build, excitement, release.

What would you consider an example of this kind of system, out of curiosity?
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

Steven Mitchell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 3770
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #22 on: December 01, 2022, 11:35:45 AM »
You can have tension ... by keeping the system simple enough that the tension moves out of the individual exchanges into the overall fight.  ...If it's short enough, it's anticipation, build, excitement, release.

What would you consider an example of this kind of system, out of curiosity?

Simple D&D, often with henchmen and hirelings.  Say, B/X around 3rd to 7th level.  You roll, you hit or miss.  If you miss, that's it.  Keep moving. If you hit, a little more buzz with damage. Creatures taking out of the fight left and right. Occasionally someone casts a spell or uses an item.  In good hands, it's definitely there.  By the time you get to WotC, it's rarer to get that, takes more expertise by the GM and the players, and is a much more fragile state.  All those reactions, options, etc.  With something like AD&D, depends on the group and which options in the rules they are using and/or know well. 

Conversely, I always found Champions in the 3E/4E range, with starting super heroes, or Fantasy Hero, to go much more like what you are discussing.  Players can simply blast each other back and forth, but we didn't typically.  There was a lot of looking for an edge with the right power at the right time, though that's as much about building off of each other's abilities as it is cat and mouse with any particular PC and opponent. 

I own Riddle of Steel but have never played it.  I have played Burning Wheel a few times which does some of the same things (though in a much different way mechanically).  I see those working not only best in a relatively small group (even 5 players is too many, 3 or 4 is better) but best for certain kinds of adventurers.  RoS was of course perfectly designed for a Three Musketeers type of game.

Marchand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 304
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #23 on: December 01, 2022, 01:32:58 PM »
Is there a scaling issue for the GM when using more involved combat rules? One duel can be a fun centerpiece, four or five duels happening concurrently seems much more chaotic and less dramatic, while forcing the GM to duel multiple characters while the players only run one each. ...
The truth is that for most games with rolled defenses, the defensive roll is entirely cosmetic. They add nothing to the game other than an extra time wasting roll because defensive crits typically do nothing other than block a crit attack.

d6, WoD, RQ, WFRP, Interlock - would all play faster, and better, with static defenses. Nothing worthwhile would be lost at the table during actual play.

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.

This is the difference between effect based combat systems like Mythras/RQ, vs. Actual 'sword fighting' systems in games like RoS and H+I where the 'special effects' are the system.

Roll then pick, vs. You pick what move you are doing, then you roll - with certain moves affecting others..

That is an interesting distinction. For me, I'm content with a system that generates richer results than a back-and-forth of roll d20 vs AC. I wasn't necessarily looking for the system itself to be a kind of sword-fighting simulator, where players need to pick their moves ex ante. As you say, the way the moves interact with each other is probably going to generate a lot of complexity.

In my experience, no.

The actual combat section of RoS or H+I, are no more complex than exception based rule sets with lists of modifiers/class abilities, and have more straightforward action economies then what 5e has.

The nature of such systems also inherently enforces a degree of rules competence upon the players. 'Move' based systems also tend to flow better/faster during play as moves are selected on the spot - rather than rolling to see if you even hit, then deciding what the optimum crit option to select like in 'Effect' based systems.

But like I mentioned above, it comes at a cost; 3-4 players max in the group due to the GM having to also run every bad guy.

But since that cost holds true for Effect based systems like Mythras, then might you well go to a Move based system, and get smoother play at the table while you are at it.

FWIW - The Riddle of Steel quickstart rules: https://web.archive.org/web/20130524120628/http://www.driftwoodpublishing.com/support/trosqs.zip

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. 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 do think the moves-based vs effect-based distinction is valid and useful.   
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk

Manifestopheles

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #24 on: December 01, 2022, 03:39:27 PM »
For me the absolute minimum should be a parry-riposte mechanic. I've been toying around with the idea, and I think it could work fairly easily in an OSR-type game, assuming you've got ascending AC and a steadily growing Base Attack Bonus, especially for fighters.

Basically, my idea is this: at any point, any character with some kind of combat training (i.e. BAB of, say, 2+), can forgo a +2 to their normal attack to gain a +2 to AC. That is the parry mechanic that is fairly popular in your run-of-the-mill B/X/BECMI clone, only, in this case, you can basically remove any number of your attack bonus to add to your AC, as long as you have the BAB (not your STR modifier or Magical Weapon bonus or anything like that).

With that in mind, you can also choose to forgo a +2 to your AC for the chance of getting a riposte, which means that, when they're being targeted, and their opponent misses them, they get to perform a counter-attack. So, for example, say your have a level 4 fighter with +4 BAB, they sacrifice all their BAB during their turn for a +2 bonus to their AC, instead of +4, in order to sacrifice another +2 for the chance of a riposte.

The idea is that it goes in +2s to prevent misuse, and if you choose to do it you have to keep a +2 for your armor class to do the parry. That means that a level 2 Fighter with only +2 BAB cannot do a riposte just yet, and will have to wait a couple of levels more. Not sure if that's too restrictive though, but the idea behind it is that, theoretically, at higher levels, with sufficient BAB (say +10), you could sacrifice up to 10 BAB, keep +2 AC and perform up to 4 ripostes, which could be pretty significant if you're surrounded.

Thoughts?
« Last Edit: December 01, 2022, 03:41:02 PM by Manifestopheles »

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2022, 05:16:58 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2022, 05:18:40 PM by Jaeger »
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

Stephen Tannhauser

  • Curmudgeonly Refugee
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 1205
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2022, 05:40:41 PM »
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.

What would you say is a good example of a non-moves-based combat system that engages well for groups who don't like the TRoS or H+I approach? You mention D&D5E as a bad example, so I was curious about the other end of that spectrum.
Better to keep silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt. -- Mark Twain

STR 8 DEX 10 CON 10 INT 11 WIS 6 CHA 3

Marchand

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • M
  • Posts: 304
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #27 on: December 02, 2022, 01:55:06 PM »
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.


That made me laugh! But I think the point is Mythras requires system mastery too. That is what guards against your example. I think both approaches are similar in that respect.

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.

That's pretty much a fair point although you can get defensive effects off a normal success if your opponent fails or fumbles their attack. Which significantly increases the likelihood they will happen vs needing a crit. Not trying to be persnickety, but it makes a big difference in practice.

Two obstacles that will always see them relegated to the category of cool sounding games that not a lot of people actually play.

Ain't that the truth. You'd think people would get bored of d20 vs AC ping pong eventually though.
"If the English surrender, it'll be a long war!"
- Scottish soldier on the beach at Dunkirk

Jaeger

  • That someone better.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1536
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #28 on: December 04, 2022, 05:25:20 PM »
What would you say is a good example of a non-moves-based combat system that engages well for groups who don't like the TRoS or H+I approach? You mention D&D5E as a bad example, so I was curious about the other end of that spectrum.

Well, I'll echo Mr. Mitchell when he hit the nail on the head, with minor modification:


...
More broadly, where tension is concerned, I've observed an uncanny valley effect.  You can have tension by making every roll important, every roll involve a decision.  Or you can have tension by keeping the system simple enough that the tension moves out of the individual exchanges into the overall fight. Miss, Miss, Hit is boring if it takes to long.  If it's short enough, it's anticipation, build, excitement, release.  A system that tries really hard to be a little of column A, a little of column B, is in danger of falling into the valley where the tension is gone.

I'd substitute simple with Fast.  Although simple is a perfectly valid way to get there. You can have some mild complication for certain effects but it must play fast at the table.

As for what games? Aside from the obvious simpler system options...

I've given up. I homebrewed my own diepool system to run my starwars campaign to get the feel that I want. If I run other stuff I've gotten to the point that I automatically houserule to get the feel that I want at the table.

Nothing out of the box does it for me unless I go into B/X simplification territory - and then I have my own issues with HP escalation once you get past the first few levels...

I am amazed at the continual tolerance for systems that require multiple rolls to attack, defend, damage, soak, etc,.. by RPG gamers.



That made me laugh! But I think the point is Mythras requires system mastery too. That is what guards against your example. I think both approaches are similar in that respect.
...
That's pretty much a fair point although you can get defensive effects off a normal success if your opponent fails or fumbles their attack. Which significantly increases the likelihood they will happen vs needing a crit. Not trying to be persnickety, but it makes a big difference in practice.

For me, my preferences are derived from the smoother feel in play for the same effort in system mastery. Like I said, the attack and crit options are rolled into one decision. And unlike Mythras, With RoS and H+I, you can get moments where you are able to chain a variety of moves 2-3 deep depending on the situation, which lends a very 'martial artist' feel to play.

But Mythras is the least obscure of the three games, with actual active support, so it will naturally get the most actual play.


...
Ain't that the truth. You'd think people would get bored of d20 vs AC ping pong eventually though.

Until one realizes that generally speaking players do not work for their fun. Games like Mythras, RoS, H+I require a bit of effort to learn the combat system to really make them sing in play. Effort = Work. No can do! Who would want to play such a complicated mess!
"The envious are not satisfied with equality; they secretly yearn for superiority and revenge."

caldrail

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Best sword fighting rules?
« Reply #29 on: December 05, 2022, 04:05:07 PM »
I never worried about combat rules that much, looking up charts just interfered in the rhythm of play. I preferred a more interactive roleplay style with players getting more involved via decision than dice rolls. I know a lot of gamers prefer a more game-orientated method and regard my methods as arbitrary, but the idea wasn't to control the players, just challenge them, and most of the time I got good results from it (besides, I became aware one of my players was cheating outrageously and I wasn't going to give him too many opportunities)