TheRPGSite

By "best" I think I would emphasize "most fun" or "most likely to be repeated". Only people who have tried at least a few different systems need apply :D

For myself, I have GM'd way too little the last 10 years, but I always think fondly of the time I ran a Sword & Sorcery game, loosely based on R E Howard's style, and rules loosely based on the Stormbringer system. I.e. combat was a slightly simplified version of Runequest, no hit locations but with an added critical hit table. It was a blast!

Rolemaster (using my trademark post-it notes in books to keep track of tables) also worked surprisingly well, although I always prefer to have a calculator nearby when I do this. 

So, which one do you prefer?

Friday Night Firefight of Cyberpunk 2020 is my favorite.  It's not perfect but it's solid and always exciting.  I actually had fun using them as a skirmish minis rules set.

I never really had fun playing combat in RPGs until I started using a grid and miniatures. So I'm going to have to utter the heresy of saying 4th Edition D&D.
Now, I think the non-combat part of 4th is hot garbage, and the combat side gets cumbersome and cantakerous as characters level up, so it's not a ringing endorsement as a whole RPG.

Agree that 4E's powers with something like "shift a square, do 2d10 damage, teleport 4 squares away and knock all adjacent creatures prone" are considerably more entertaining than the melee options from 3rd.  I was fairly enamored with my toolbox of nasty tricks with my Warlock back in the day.

 4e is the best combat system in ttrpgs and it's not particularly close. And it's by far the best edition of DnD, grognards be damned.

GURPS of course.

I like immersion when I game, so the combat systems I find the most fun are ones that emulate their genre. WEG d6 Star Wars is my standard to beat for Star Wars games because it does a good job of the fast and slightly chaotic fights found there. Mekton is really good at the anime mecha genre with their quick move and counter-move weapon capabilities in play. Traveller does an exceptional job of representing the sheer lethality of literary science fiction stories. It doesn't hurt that all three combat systems are scaleable so that you can have personal combat with artillery or even ortillery support. I have the most fun with these three combat systems.

Quote from: DocJones on July 17, 2024, 07:00:33 PMGURPS of course.

I do really love GURPS combat.  The critical hit tables are bit dull but less likely to produce commical statistical outcomes than those found in linear systems.

I actually quite like Mutant Chronicles Resurrection combat, especially that a range penalty is also applied for using a weapon closer than its optimum range.  Really, they did a pretty good job of it but I think they tried too hard to work in the funky damage dice when d6s mostly would have worked as well or better.

Twilight 2000 / Dark Conspiracy is very good.  I always appreciate when there's some reason to use something other than the biggest possible weapon.

Rolemaster maps to D&D better than GURPS and is easier for people to pick up.  It's not complex, just chart heavy, and combats tend to last fewer rounds.

I'd say Galaxies In Shadow if I was ever quite satisfied with it.

Played with no house rules, I'd have to pick either RuneQuest 1 or 2.  Enough options to be interesting, but not so many to overwhelm.  Possible to survive a fight, but risky every time you get into one.

For me i think i like Dungeon Crawl Classic's combat most but that might just be because i love the DCC fighter.

Wow, that is so hard to measure.  One of my favorites is Wushu: Black Belt Edition since it is super narrative and cinematic.  Of course, that might be a huge negative if you're hard core simulationist.

Quote from: David Johansen on July 17, 2024, 07:23:57 PM

Quote from: DocJones on July 17, 2024, 07:00:33 PMGURPS of course.

I do really love GURPS combat.  The critical hit tables are bit dull but less likely to produce commical statistical outcomes than those found in linear systems.

I actually quite like Mutant Chronicles Resurrection combat, especially that a range penalty is also applied for using a weapon closer than its optimum range.  Really, they did a pretty good job of it but I think they tried too hard to work in the funky damage dice when d6s mostly would have worked as well or better.

Twilight 2000 / Dark Conspiracy is very good.  I always appreciate when there's some reason to use something other than the biggest possible weapon.

Rolemaster maps to D&D better than GURPS and is easier for people to pick up.  It's not complex, just chart heavy, and combats tend to last fewer rounds.

I'd say Galaxies In Shadow if I was ever quite satisfied with it.

Rolemaster would be my 2nd choice for its critical hit flavorings.

I really like GURPS combat for several reasons.

- It isn't a grind through HP slog. One good blow could end a fight.

- There are a lot more options than just rolling to hit

- Tactics and defense matter


Having said that, the type of game you are playing and the role of combat in that game matter too. I also like OD&D combat. It is fast paced and meant to be resolved quickly. It does that.

For verisimilitude and grittiness, it's HarnMaster.

For a middle ground, it's RuneQuest. Unlike Trond, I use hit locations. I could never get my group into the critical hit chart for major wounds.

For it's fucking wild, it's older D&D and clones. At a certain point, the sheer amount of HP bugs me to death.

I actually have a counter to this.

A couple games I own have multiple combat systems.  Each one covers a different kind of combat.

Palladium RoboTech has their normal combat system, but also has very different rules for vehicle fights (lots of pilot skill checks to pull off maneuvers like jinking, tailing, hairpin turns), and even has a third combat system for warships/starships (volley fire, glancing blows instead of full dodging, splitting health into front, center, rear sections).

Another game with two (or three) systems is Mini-Six Bare Bones.  There is the original combat system from the D6 Star Wars series, the Static Defense system to simplify and speed up gameplay, and a third and little know system from Gryphon Publishing called Dueling Blades for epic 1-vs-1 sword duels. 

I tried the Dueling Blades system for lightsaber combat, and I was SOLD!  It works extremely well for that, and is very different than regular combat.  Quick description; it's based on an opposed roll, margin of success determines 1 of 4 types of result, and movement is a major factor resulting in "kills" by forcing an opponent out an airlock or over a balcony.

But the main point here is that different fights can be better if the game treats them separately with bespoke rules for that type of fighting. 

Quote from: Monero on July 17, 2024, 06:19:31 PM4e is the best combat system in ttrpgs and it's not particularly close. And it's by far the best edition of DnD, grognards be damned.

Someone who likes, what they like.  Popularity, be damned!!!

Quote from: Slambo on July 17, 2024, 07:49:39 PMFor me i think i like Dungeon Crawl Classic's combat most but that might just be because i love the DCC fighter.

Very interesting outcomes, if the wizard / magic user rolls high.  DCC is unique.

Quote from: Man at Arms on July 18, 2024, 12:18:15 AM

Quote from: Slambo on July 17, 2024, 07:49:39 PMFor me i think i like Dungeon Crawl Classic's combat most but that might just be because i love the DCC fighter.

Very interesting outcomes, if the wizard / magic user rolls high.  DCC is unique.

Quote from: Man at Arms on July 18, 2024, 12:18:15 AM

Quote from: Slambo on July 17, 2024, 07:49:39 PMFor me i think i like Dungeon Crawl Classic's combat most but that might just be because i love the DCC fighter.

Very interesting outcomes, if the wizard / magic user rolls high.  DCC is unique.

I only got into DCC. Are there mech or vehicle rules in one of the spin offs?

D&D 4e was really great for combat.

The system was improved for 4e's Gamma World which is really a total blast to play - once the GM removes the silly aspects (which is easy).

Though, I've had great fun running combats in pretty much every RPG that I've played long term...which are almost all rules-light-ish.

I would love to know which RPG's have separate rules for hand-to-hand versus gun battles.

Those are not the same things.  Also, being good at one ought to have no benefit to the other. 

Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 18, 2024, 12:28:25 AM

Quote from: Man at Arms on July 18, 2024, 12:18:15 AM

Quote from: Slambo on July 17, 2024, 07:49:39 PMFor me i think i like Dungeon Crawl Classic's combat most but that might just be because i love the DCC fighter.

Very interesting outcomes, if the wizard / magic user rolls high.  DCC is unique.

Quote from: Man at Arms on July 18, 2024, 12:18:15 AM

Quote from: Slambo on July 17, 2024, 07:49:39 PMFor me i think i like Dungeon Crawl Classic's combat most but that might just be because i love the DCC fighter.

Very interesting outcomes, if the wizard / magic user rolls high.  DCC is unique.

I only got into DCC. Are there mech or vehicle rules in one of the spin offs?

I also, only got into the core DCC rulebook.  Perhaps one of the spinoffs, may have what you are looking for?

For me, the best combat system is one in which it takes no more time to resolve at the table than it would take your character to do it in the game world. Old school D&D as well as modern rules-light games accomplish this with a single d20 to see if your attack is effective followed by a single roll for damage, with relatively few modifiers. I've played other systems. All were more complex, but none were more fun or satisfying.

Thinking about it, I might say The Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game first edition.  It's really good. It's fun.  The weapons are different without being too complex.  Each class has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Numbers of attacks, dodge and parry bonuses don't get inflated out of control.  It's not the bloated mess that later games turned into while losing much of what made it cool.

Some of my favorite combats were with TFT--"GURPS V0" if you will. I remember back in Jr. High having Melee and Wizard that we'd break out in Shop class for a few rounds of combat.

Fast moving, fun, deadly, easy to learn.  Having hex maps and counters was great.  No complicated tables or anything fancy.

I've been looking through both my old TFT stuff and the stuff I got a few years back from SJGames (don't really care for the company now, but some good quality stuff in those Kickstarters a few years back).  Might have to dust it off and start playing it.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on July 18, 2024, 11:55:12 AMI would love to know which RPG's have separate rules for hand-to-hand versus gun battles.

Those are not the same things.  Also, being good at one ought to have no benefit to the other. 

This is one of the key reasons I love Friday Night Firefight.  The later martial arts additions were over the top but the original combined gun fights with melee action well.

Honestly, it depends on what you are looking for.  If you see combat as just one pillar of the three (combat, exploration, interaction), then the "best" combat system will be one that is fast, smooth, and doesn't take up more than one-third of your time.  The OD&D or B/X combat, where everything is abstracted into a few modifiers and hit points is hard to beat in this case.  It lacks granularity, but that's a feature if you want combat to be fast.

On the other hand, if want combat to be a focal point of the game, then you are going to want much more granularity.  Some folks have brought up 4e, and I can see why.  It certainly is granular with lots of options.  It falls flat on a few other features, though (where the mechanics really take precedence over the in-world fiction).  I'd actually say something like Battletech has an excellent combat structure, but now you are getting into the gray area between RPGs and Wargames.

So, I'd say the answer is... it depends on what you want out of combat.

Quote from: David Johansen on July 18, 2024, 07:15:28 PMThinking about it, I might say The Palladium Fantasy Roleplaying Game first edition.  It's really good. It's fun.  The weapons are different without being too complex.  Each class has its own strengths and weaknesses.  Numbers of attacks, dodge and parry bonuses don't get inflated out of control.  It's not the bloated mess that later games turned into while losing much of what made it cool.

Amen, brother.

Palladium 1st edition is indeed a great game without the bloat/complexity of the later games.

I'd recommend PF 1st Ed as everyone's first Palladium game.

Quote from: Trond on July 17, 2024, 01:52:10 PMBy "best" I think I would emphasize "most fun" or "most likely to be repeated". Only people who have tried at least a few different systems need apply :D

Well, those are two separate questions, right? "Most likely to be repeated" doesn't necessarily mean it's the "most fun," it just means it's the one you'd run most of the time.

So I'll answer them separately, because I think it matters. The MOST FUN I've ever had playing combat is Starfleet Battles. The question asks "game" so this counts as far as I'm concerned. If I am not going to be a pedantic ass, and assume you mean RPG (which you are, obviously) then I'd have to go with HERO 4th through the lens of Fantasy HERO. Played a campaign of that and the combats were insanely satisfying, albeit slow as molasses. It felt like player decisions had a direct effect on outcomes, vs. something like D&D where you essentially just roll a die and see if you hit. I also think Amber is exceptionally fun because the more you put into it, the more you get out. If you want to just say, "I kill the dude," because you do not like combat in RPGs, so be it. If you want to go into insane detail and explain every single action in a duel with sabres, have at it. Each player has complete control over how interesting and descriptive they want combat to be.

For the most repeatable question, obviously something like B/X or AD&D since it's pretty much the one system almost every knows enough to at least fake it. You're gonna probably roll a d20 and then the DM tells you if you hit, then you roll another die to see how much damage you do. It is simple and straighforward, and thus extremely serviceable. You can add Arms Law like we used to do if you want crits and stuff, add parrying and dodges (Palladium), whatever. It's a great basis that can be hammered into different forms based on your needs.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2024, 12:09:17 PMHonestly, it depends on what you are looking for.  If you see combat as just one pillar of the three (combat, exploration, interaction), then the "best" combat system will be one that is fast, smooth, and doesn't take up more than one-third of your time.  The OD&D or B/X combat, where everything is abstracted into a few modifiers and hit points is hard to beat in this case.  It lacks granularity, but that's a feature if you want combat to be fast.

When using an involved tactical system, that doesn't necessarily mean that combat takes up most of the time. One can just have fewer combats. Also, combats can be decisive and resolve in just a few rounds instead of taking many rounds of attrition. Say, my HERO System and Savage Worlds games have tended to be only one-third combat.

Quote from: jhkim on July 19, 2024, 07:32:09 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on July 19, 2024, 12:09:17 PMHonestly, it depends on what you are looking for.  If you see combat as just one pillar of the three (combat, exploration, interaction), then the "best" combat system will be one that is fast, smooth, and doesn't take up more than one-third of your time.  The OD&D or B/X combat, where everything is abstracted into a few modifiers and hit points is hard to beat in this case.  It lacks granularity, but that's a feature if you want combat to be fast.

When using an involved tactical system, that doesn't necessarily mean that combat takes up most of the time. One can just have fewer combats. Also, combats can be decisive and resolve in just a few rounds instead of taking many rounds of attrition. Say, my HERO System and Savage Worlds games have tended to be only one-third combat.

First of all, the number of combats has nothing to do with the length of combats.  If one-third of your game is combat (i.e., you have one combat encounter for every exploration portion and social encounter), and your combats take longer than the social interaction or exploration, then you will spend more than a third of your time on combat, no matter how few you have.  The only way to balance time will be to unbalance numbers of encounters.

Second of all, very few combat systems are highly granular and extremely deadly (dead in less than 3 rounds).  I'm sure some exist, but even if a granular system resolves in three rounds, those rounds tend to be long (because there are more decisions to be made, more things to keep track of, etc.).  You list Savage Worlds as an example of... what exactly?  A granular game (which it's not)?  Fast resolving (it depends on the tiers... lots of bennies and high toughness means "whiff, whiff, whiff, dice explode kill!)?  So I'm not sure how you think SW is relevant to this discussion.

I agree with Osman that it's the Fantasy Trip the proto-GURPS.  I don't recommend it, however, since it's SJ Games, which earned a spot on the red list for corporate unhingedness.

D&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 19, 2024, 10:30:01 PMI agree with Osman that it's the Fantasy Trip the proto-GURPS.  I don't recommend it, however, since it's SJ Games, which earned a spot on the red list for corporate unhingedness.

Yeah, I don't care for SJ Games' insistence on mixing politics with gaming.  Still, you can find the old stuff on eBay that wouldn't give them any money.  There's also some retroclones available like Heroes & Other Worlds (C.R. Brandon).

Quote from: Trond on July 17, 2024, 01:52:10 PMBy "best" I think I would emphasize "most fun" or "most likely to be repeated". Only people who have tried at least a few different systems need apply :D

For myself, I have GM'd way too little the last 10 years, but I always think fondly of the time I ran a Sword & Sorcery game, loosely based on R E Howard's style, and rules loosely based on the Stormbringer system. I.e. combat was a slightly simplified version of Runequest, no hit locations but with an added critical hit table. It was a blast!

Rolemaster (using my trademark post-it notes in books to keep track of tables) also worked surprisingly well, although I always prefer to have a calculator nearby when I do this. 

So, which one do you prefer?

I'd pick Stormbringer as well.  I like Runequest's slightly more detailed combat, but Stormbringer is a great compromise between grittiness and ease of use.

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

Note though that, thanks to the Warlord class and really pushing hp =/= meat that 4E was the first edition of D&D that could actually DO a no magic setting without houseruling to get around the reliance on magic healing.The

You could just say "human only" and "only martial classes" and have the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord (and later the knight, slayer, thief, hunter, scout, and skald) which for 4E covers all the bases you need mechanically to meet the game's expectations.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 08:20:05 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PM...

Note though that, thanks to the Warlord class and really pushing hp =/= meat that 4E was the first edition of D&D that could actually DO a no magic setting without houseruling to get around the reliance on magic healing.

You could just say "human only" and "only martial classes" and have the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord (and later the knight, slayer, thief, hunter, scout, and skald) which for 4E covers all the bases you need mechanically to meet the game's expectations.

I would say it's a nice effect of 4E that you can trim the game's content to run a low-magic campaign, but I feel like it's still not suited for it. As a DM you have to be pretty explicit about banning a good ~70% of officially published classes & races. Normally I wouldn't complain too much about that, but it's actually a lot of work to homebrew 4E classes so that hurts.

You also need to houserule to account for missing magic items in core math, and various other problem points. What I like about 4E in this respect is it's easy to hack because the core system math actually works, but you still have to do it.

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

The only real and valid complaint someone can make about 4e are those that play purely TotM as 4e all but requires a grid to play. For those people, fair enough, that's a legit reason for not wanting to play 4e.

But all the other complaints? It's just nonsense being repeated by people who either never played the game(the vast majority) or had some axe to grind with 4e because it had no qualms sacrificing their sacred cows.

Luckily myself and my players never succumbed to group think so we're able to enjoy 4th edition, the objectively best version of D&D ever released.

Quote from: Zelen on July 20, 2024, 02:39:23 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 08:20:05 AM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PM...

Note though that, thanks to the Warlord class and really pushing hp =/= meat that 4E was the first edition of D&D that could actually DO a no magic setting without houseruling to get around the reliance on magic healing.

You could just say "human only" and "only martial classes" and have the fighter, ranger, rogue, and warlord (and later the knight, slayer, thief, hunter, scout, and skald) which for 4E covers all the bases you need mechanically to meet the game's expectations.

I would say it's a nice effect of 4E that you can trim the game's content to run a low-magic campaign, but I feel like it's still not suited for it. As a DM you have to be pretty explicit about banning a good ~70% of officially published classes & races. Normally I wouldn't complain too much about that, but it's actually a lot of work to homebrew 4E classes so that hurts.

You also need to houserule to account for missing magic items in core math, and various other problem points. What I like about 4E in this respect is it's easy to hack because the core system math actually works, but you still have to do it.

The following comes from my experience in playing in two actual "human martial only" 4E campaigns...


First, there's no need to homebrew classes; the martials are literally the best supported classes in 4E with thousands of powers available to the original four that can completely change how they play and the later E-classes had access to at least one set of those classes' utility powers (hundreds of them).

You could literally have a party of all fighters and they'd each play very differently from each other even from level 1. Throw in the other classes and it was easy for even large parties to have the PCs feel distinct, and not just by their equipment.

Similarly, 4E had the concept of "inherent bonuses" that completely closed the math hole of lacking required magic items in no magic campaigns.

Not that you really needed them; the expected math could also be compensated for by using slightly lower level monsters, but you don't even really start feeling the shortfall until you're in your early teens level-wise... and I can count on one hand the number of 4E campaigns I played in that went past level 16 (and I played a dozen-and-half during 4E's lifetime... level 10 was by far the most common end point).

Even if you did go all the way to 30 the real shortfall with party synergy meant that a level 26 monster would be about as dangerous to a party as a level 30 would be to a fully equipped one.

Further, magic items in 4E were easily the LEAST interesting parts of a PC. Magic item properties were always inferior to class powers and had PC-based limits to how many item powers could even be used in a day.

In short, PCs in 4E were never defined by their magic items which made them super easy to discard.

If you REALLY wanted magic item effects in a no magic setting, 4E also included the concept of "boons" which were things like special training or recognition that allowed access to unusual resources that could be handed out in lieu of magic items.

In short, most of the work you suggest needs to be done to make a no magic setting work in 4E has actually already been done.

ETA: also what Monero said about non-combat options. It might not be as codified as 3e (which had rules for literally everything), but I think a lot of people excuse just how thin and hand-wavey the social and exploration rules in B/X and 1e actually were.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 09:01:33 PMNot that you really needed them; the expected math could also be compensated for by using slightly lower level monsters, but you don't even really start feeling the shortfall until you're in your early teens level-wise... and I can count on one hand the number of 4E campaigns I played in that went past level 16 (and I played a dozen-and-half during 4E's lifetime... level 10 was by far the most common end point).

Chris,

Did you find the HP bloat to be a problem? We only tried a few games of 4E. The combat engine was excellent, but the combats themselves took forever. I've read suggestions online to halve everyone's HP (monsters as well.) Would that make sense?

Quote from: Monero on July 20, 2024, 08:27:45 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

Skill challenges were a solution looking for a problem. They weren't fun, they weren't interesting, and the rigid structure made it far easier and more satisfying to ignore them and just run skill checks old school.

4e's rigidity was the game's achillies heel. Tinkering with the systems was a PITA, and people just went and played Pathfinder instead.

Quote from: Monero on July 20, 2024, 08:27:45 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

The only real and valid complaint someone can make about 4e are those that play purely TotM as 4e all but requires a grid to play. For those people, fair enough, that's a legit reason for not wanting to play 4e.

But all the other complaints? It's just nonsense being repeated by people who either never played the game(the vast majority) or had some axe to grind with 4e because it had no qualms sacrificing their sacred cows.

Luckily myself and my players never succumbed to group think so we're able to enjoy 4th edition, the objectively best version of D&D ever released.

See, the problem with your screed is that it is based on straw-manning.  As someone who has played a year-long 4e campaign within the last 2 years, my complaints come from neither ignorance nor bias.  They come from actually playing the game.

There are a number of clear experiences I have had playing that edition, and they form a solid basis for complaints.  They may not bother you, but they are real and legitimate.

• Character choices are large and broad, but very prone to hidden optimizations.  This means that some choices become much better than others, but without obvious indicators of which those might be.  A player can nerf their character's capabilities (compared with other characters) by only a few choices, as well as the reverse.  And optimizer can quickly outpace the rest of the party.
• Lack of niche protection exacerbates this issue.  Some people might like every character class being equally capable of filling any niche, but when a cleric is out-damaging a fighter or a warlord out-healing a cleric, players can feel that their characters are generic.  You might not, but some do.
• Combat takes a long time.  And the higher the level, the longer it takes.  And we had many four-hour sessions using published adventures where we did nothing but two combats.  Nothing else.  Analysis paralysis was a real thing.
• Many of the published adventures focused heavily on just combat encounters and spent very less time or space on exploration or social interaction.  They were written as, "This happens, so now you need to fight X here."  Now, these were WotC's own adventures.  While you can argue that 4e didn't have to be played that way, you can't deny that people will assume it should be played that way.  The company's own adventures are written that way.
• Having a "resolution structure" for social challenges might be a feature for you, but it's a bug for a lot of us.  We neither need nor want social encounters to be solved primarily with dice.  If the published adventures seemed to wound the other two traditional pillars of RPGs, the skill challenge system finished it off.  Some things need clear mechanics, some don't.  It's a matter of taste as to where that line is drawn.  Just because the skill challenge system suits yours doesn't mean it suits others... and history shows that more people didn't like it than did.

4e had some interesting ideas, and it attempted to change the combat in ways to make it less abstract, more tactical, and more varied.  It succeeded in some respects.  In others, it failed.  It's greatest failure is in the disconnect between the mechanics and the conceits of the setting.  That's a different argument, and this isn't the thread for it, as we are focused on combat.  4e could be a very deep, solid tactical combat experience if that's what you wanted.  But not everyone wants that.

Greetings!

4E was absolute garbage. It nearly destroyed D&D as a brand. Yes, there are a few 4E fans--but they are an insignificant minority. The vast majority of D&D gamers hated 4E, and with good reason. Commercially, and strategically, 4E was a dismal failure.

Try and cope all you want. At your own table, drink it down and keep playing 4E if you love it so much. The rest of the hobby is very glad to see 4E gone though. 4E is a discarded, hated edition that has been thrown into the ash heap of history, and forgotten. The hobby has moved on.

I prefer simple, quick, and brutal combat systems. Having some complex, multi-faceted system might seem attractive, but the fact is, the more options, the more realism, blah, blah, blah, the more time it requires--both from the DM and the Players. That time factor is compounded with each and every individual combat encounter, and instead of moving on and enjoying playing a Role-playing game, everyone gets sucked into a detailed, overly-complex, overly time-consuming snoozefest.

Thankfully, that is also a huge negative dynamic that the OSR has generally sought to avoid entirely. The majority of gamers want speed, fun, and simplicity.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I never got the chance to play 4e. All the controversy makes me very much want to try it, but at this point I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never find anyone still running the game.

On the original topic: As several comments have mentioned, this is necessarily more a question of "fit for purpose" rather than a combat system being universally "best".

4th edition aside, I don't find the combat to be much different in play between any of the other versions of D&D. Yeah, they tweak little details around the edges, but the core system's barely changed over the years.

One combat system I will always laud is the one in Dragon Warriors, in that is serves the same purposes as classic D&D combat, while solving my biggest issues with that system, and without taking any longer to adjudicate.

I also really like the combat system in Warlock! for the simple reason that if you attack an enemy who is armed and aware of your presence, you are always risking getting hit in return. That's really how it should be.

Quote from: Aglondir on July 20, 2024, 09:13:37 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 20, 2024, 09:01:33 PMNot that you really needed them; the expected math could also be compensated for by using slightly lower level monsters, but you don't even really start feeling the shortfall until you're in your early teens level-wise... and I can count on one hand the number of 4E campaigns I played in that went past level 16 (and I played a dozen-and-half during 4E's lifetime... level 10 was by far the most common end point).

Chris,

Did you find the HP bloat to be a problem? We only tried a few games of 4E. The combat engine was excellent, but the combats themselves took forever. I've read suggestions online to halve everyone's HP (monsters as well.) Would that make sense?

The early monsters were prone to hp bloat, and the developers recognized the problem and by the second year (Dark Sun and MM3) had revised the math significantly. Then Monster Vault in Essentials went back and cleaned up most of the classic monsters and MV: Threats to the Nentir Vale was largely regarded as one of the best monster books ever.

Honestly, 4E's biggest problem was Hasbro making them launch a year early. This meant a lot of thing were rough or missing. The reason the wizard is the only class with the controller role and its spells are so different from all the later controller classes is literally because they had no real idea what they wanted the controller role to be... but it go or be cancelled time).

Nearly all the problems had been smoothed out by the time PHB2 (the one that included as the "missing" 3e races/classes) came out 9 months after launch.

But you never get a second chance at a first impression, so a good chunk of the audience had bailed before the fixes came through and all the complaints about 4E that are accepted as facts are really only true for about the first six months of the run and the books already in the pipeline before 4E even launched. But as that was the experience of many before they left, it is a valid experience for them.

So, the TL;DR version is HP Bloat was a thing in early 4E, but had been fixed by year two.

If you ever decide to give the system a second chance I actually recommend getting the Essentials line; Monster Vault, the two "Heroes of" books (Fallen Land for the most classic fighter, thief, cleric, magic-user, human, elf, dwarf, halfling... Forgotten Kingdom for Paladins, Rangers, Driuds and Warlocks, human, drow, dragonborn, tieflings, half-orcs), the Dungeon Master's Kit, and Rules Compendium.

One thing I noted during the Essentials period was a number of players who were coming direct to Essentials from 2e or 1e instead of through 3e reported much more positive opinions of 4E. Essentials is definitely closer in spirit to earlier editions and is probably a better on ramp for established D&D players than PHB1 and MM1 are.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 21, 2024, 08:41:26 AMHonestly, 4E's biggest problem was Hasbro making them launch a year early. This meant a lot of thing were rough or missing. The reason the wizard is the only class with the controller role and its spells are so different from all the later controller classes is literally because they had no real idea what they wanted the controller role to be... but it go or be cancelled time).

Nearly all the problems had been smoothed out by the time PHB2 (the one that included as the "missing" 3e races/classes) came out 9 months after launch.

But you never get a second chance at a first impression, so a good chunk of the audience had bailed before the fixes came through and all the complaints about 4E that are accepted as facts are really only true for about the first six months of the run and the books already in the pipeline before 4E even launched. But as that was the experience of many before they left, it is a valid experience for them.

This is a problem I anticipate getting worse and worse with Hasbro D&D, given that they keep hiring people from the videogame industry to run it. The attitude of "push it out the door and we'll patch it later" is ubiquitous in videogames, but is never going to work on the tabletop. At the most fundamental level, you can't patch a physical book. Hell, even in videogame world, people are getting increasingly sick of it.

Quote from: Monero on July 20, 2024, 08:27:45 PM

Quote from: Zelen on July 19, 2024, 10:54:04 PMD&D 4th Edition has the best combat system if you're viewing the combat in isolation from other aspects of the game.

It wouldn't be my preferred rules system for various reasons, but the combat it something that I remember fondly anytime I'm in a game with crunchy-but-less-tactically-rich combat (e.g. D&D 3.x, Pathfinder 2e).

Upsides of D&D 4e : Improving the system's weaknesses in exploration + social pillars of gameplay is usually a lot simpler than developing a tactically rich & balanced combat system

Downsides of D&D 4e : It's really a huge amount of work to unpin the game rules from the setting assumptions (e.g. high magic, heroic fantasy, etc) so if you're not running that style of game good luck.

4e has just as many options for social and exploration as any other edition. In fact, it's really the only one that has a resolution structure for non-combat encounters in Skill Challenges.

The only real and valid complaint someone can make about 4e are those that play purely TotM as 4e all but requires a grid to play. For those people, fair enough, that's a legit reason for not wanting to play 4e.

But all the other complaints? It's just nonsense being repeated by people who either never played the game(the vast majority) or had some axe to grind with 4e because it had no qualms sacrificing their sacred cows.

Luckily myself and my players never succumbed to group think so we're able to enjoy 4th edition, the objectively best version of D&D ever released.

I ran a 4E Mystara game when it was released. The combats did take quite a bit of time but we were playing combat heavy scenarios so that was to be expected. At first the game was moving along fine. The offline monster builder software was really great for building custom content. Once the computer I had it on died, there was nothing but the online piece of garbage. Making custom content without electronic assistance was far too much work for game prep so I ended the campaign. Combats were fun and interesting if a bit lengthly but real problem was in prep and in campaign play.

It worked fine as long as the campaign was just an long series of combat encounters and skill challenges but the focus of the game being entirely on the encounter really made campaign play a bit less dynamic and less fun.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 21, 2024, 09:01:41 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 21, 2024, 08:41:26 AMHonestly, 4E's biggest problem was Hasbro making them launch a year early. This meant a lot of thing were rough or missing. The reason the wizard is the only class with the controller role and its spells are so different from all the later controller classes is literally because they had no real idea what they wanted the controller role to be... but it go or be cancelled time).

Nearly all the problems had been smoothed out by the time PHB2 (the one that included as the "missing" 3e races/classes) came out 9 months after launch.

But you never get a second chance at a first impression, so a good chunk of the audience had bailed before the fixes came through and all the complaints about 4E that are accepted as facts are really only true for about the first six months of the run and the books already in the pipeline before 4E even launched. But as that was the experience of many before they left, it is a valid experience for them.

This is a problem I anticipate getting worse and worse with Hasbro D&D, given that they keep hiring people from the videogame industry to run it. The attitude of "push it out the door and we'll patch it later" is ubiquitous in videogames, but is never going to work on the tabletop. At the most fundamental level, you can't patch a physical book. Hell, even in videogame world, people are getting increasingly sick of it.

Even worse, they are also adopting the DLC mentality of the video game industry, where features are gated behind additional purchases.  And the effects of these additional features on the game seem poorly playtested and conceived.  So, just like in video games, it leads to power creep and severe unbalancing.  You can see this with what has happened to 5e post-Tasha's...

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 21, 2024, 08:25:04 AMI never got the chance to play 4e. All the controversy makes me very much want to try it, but at this point I've resigned myself to the fact that I'll never find anyone still running the game.

Funny enough, you don't need someone to *run* it. Out group found it can be fun to just grab the Monster Manual and use it to select a warband (based on CR...which is not a very refined system) to play a quick head-to-head mini combat game. Sure, it's dropping what RPG elements were in 4e just to focus on th mini combat rules, but those were really the only thing our group really enjoyed about 4e anyways.

Good combat systems emulate the genre and type of combat specific to your setting. D&D has never been particularly good at it for me post-2e, not because the HP/AC over-abstraction, but because of the baked in boardgame/videogame emulation elements that got pasted on top of it.

4e is a superb example of a skirmish game - and should have been marketed as such rather than being 4e D&D.

I don't think D&D combat is *bad* - in fact I think it's the yardstick which I measure other games. Different editions did it better. My preference is 1e/2e.

Anyhow - to answer the question... and I'll note why I like these at the end and how they each moved me past D&D combat.

Interlock (CP2020)- SUPERB emulation. Quick, clean and lethal. As intended. Can be used on battlemap, but works great without. Establishes melee combat as resisted-checks, ranged is static Difficulties plus modifiers. If you wanted some "cinematic" anime-vibes, you could lift Roadstriker rules which allow gunfire to be resisted rolls with Dodge skill. Pacific Rim deepened melee combat by having melee combat ranges (and a shit-ton of martial arts) which really sounded cool on paper but got a little overboard until you got used to it.

Talislanta - Passive targets with Resisted checks as an option. Your attack/defense skill is used as a penalty to attempts to hit you in melee. Ranged is modified with similar skills as an action. Combined with the universal table which uses a single d20, this system is incredibly powerful. I remain shocked that it hasn't been adopted by other d20-style games. Alas, it's the red-headed stepchild. Combat can easily be done on battlemap or without. Magic is incredibly robust and can scale wildly beyond D&D's


MSH - Highly abstracted without modifications, but intensely simple. Obeys its comic-emulation abstractions Amazing(50)ly well. If you don't mind being loosey-goosey and going high-octane, it can easily be used to do heroic fantasy, or any other genre. If you're trying to do hard sci-fi... ehhhhh... But otherwise combat feels great.

DCU - Like MSH but with more defined numbers. Same conceits. Combat is excellent here. You can get more granular with fidelity than MSH.

Savage Worlds - Literally designed to be used with any genre. But it has the benefit of using small numbers so calculations are trivial. Combat for melee is static challenge VS. target skills derived difficulty number which I like. Ranged is static targets based on ranged + modifiers. Combat can match the tic-tackiness of 4e D&D on a Battlemat with FAR less mechanical overhead.

The benefit of Savage Worlds is, once you understand how to tweak it, you can raise the granularity of detail up or down as you see fit. On it's own, it runs fast and cinematic. But if you want that CP2020 detail, you can easily lift optional rules from their Sci-Fi settings or 3rd party material (or do it yourself easily) and give yourself customized ammo, effects, detailed caliber weaponry and armor. The combat system scales from down-n-dirty man on man to mechs and Kaiju combat, all the way to mass-combat where countless units of different sizes are slugging it out.

The takeaway for my combat system choices are this:

1) I want a combat system where the skills of both/all participants matter in melee. I don't want you to have a static DC based solely on gear you wear. I'm perfectly fine with resisted checks. As long as the defender's ability is factored into the roll. For ranged - I'm fine with ranged DC's being static with modifiers.

2) I want the system to be easily understood and flexible enough to go battlemat or theater-of-mind.

3) I want the system to be dedicated to express a specific genre AND/OR designed well enough to emulate the thing we're doing to taste.

I want to avoid too many calculations - especially if I'm having to roll as a resisted check. Passive scores based on ability are *always* better for me as a GM and feels better for me as a player, it keeps me from feeling the game is too war-gamey or boardgamey.

Honorable Mentions:

Palladium - gets too fiddly but if you just go old-school Palladium fantasy, I can get down with it.
d6 - Can get unwieldy at the high-end. But in the low-to-mid game sweet spot, it's quite satisfying. Especially since I'm generally "past" dice-pool mechanics these days.

Quote from: Osman Gazi on July 20, 2024, 01:13:08 AM

Quote from: Cathode Ray on July 19, 2024, 10:30:01 PMI agree with Osman that it's the Fantasy Trip the proto-GURPS.  I don't recommend it, however, since it's SJ Games, which earned a spot on the red list for corporate unhingedness.

Yeah, I don't care for SJ Games' insistence on mixing politics with gaming.  Still, you can find the old stuff on eBay that wouldn't give them any money.  There's also some retroclones available like Heroes & Other Worlds (C.R. Brandon).

Yes.  Also, "Legends of the Ancient Worlds" from Dark City Games is another free TFT clone that requires giving SJ Games no money.  You can get their equivalent to their "Melee" and "Wizard" modules, the core tactical combat and magic system, for free on their web site.

Small groups (3 players or so) I think GURPS is great.  Larger groups and it can slow down a little bit in my experience.  For genres where Combat sort of makes or breaks the mood, like Sword and Sorcery...I find it lots of fun.  I think it is great for guns/high tech as well, though very, very dangerous.

  For larger groups I like DCC a good deal and I think Savage Worlds is a ton of fun too.  Exploding dice can make for some WTF moments (which bennies will mitigate to a degree) which for my group has always led to a more fun experience.  I also think it gives a decent number of options in fights that do not overwhelm players and it does keep the action moving fairly fast paced. 

  Mythras (RQ) looks very interesting and I want to run it, though it does look like combats with more players (more than 4) could slow down...but this is a perception I have from reading and not playing.

For me it's systems with impulse initiative. I don't want rng in my turn order, and I want guns to be WAY faster than swords, and movement to matter. RuneQuest, Feng Shui, and Bound to None go in this direction.

Quote from: Hixanthrope on July 23, 2024, 11:01:04 AMFor me it's systems with impulse initiative. I don't want rng in my turn order, and I want guns to be WAY faster than swords, and movement to matter. RuneQuest, Feng Shui, and Bound to None go in this direction.

I'm not familiar with the term "impulse initiative." Could you define it or point me to a good definition? Also what does "rng" in your second sentence mean?

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 23, 2024, 12:29:16 PMI'm not familiar with the term "impulse initiative." Could you define it or point me to a good definition? Also what does "rng" in your second sentence mean?

Might be a different thing, but the Ringworld RPG by Chaosium had Impulse Initiative. It was basically RQ strike ranks. Your weapon speed and Dex combine to give you a number. In combat the lowest numbers go first. Every round the order is the same unless someone is really slow that they go early in the next round. It got confusing if you didn't take careful records.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 23, 2024, 12:42:57 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 23, 2024, 12:29:16 PMI'm not familiar with the term "impulse initiative." Could you define it or point me to a good definition? Also what does "rng" in your second sentence mean?

Might be a different thing, but the Ringworld RPG by Chaosium had Impulse Initiative. It was basically RQ strike ranks. Your weapon speed and Dex combine to give you a number. In combat the lowest numbers go first. Every round the order is the same unless someone is really slow that they go early in the next round. It got confusing if you didn't take careful records.

Confusing without careful records reminds me of the "ticks" system of initiative that Exalted 1e introduced with "Power Combat" in the Player's Guide. If it's at all like that, I'll give it a hard pass.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 23, 2024, 12:42:57 PMMight be a different thing, but the Ringworld RPG by Chaosium had Impulse Initiative

Yeah, our table called all those kinds "impulse" after Ringworld. The common idea is that your actions take a certain amount of time, measured over sections within a round (or not) called Impulses, Strike Ranks, Phases, Ticks, etc. Instead of making everyone's turn take the same amount of time, this works well for games that want tactical combat. RNG means Random Number Generator. (https://brpcentral-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com/monthly_2024_06/Screenshot_79.png.8eb9b6f5ebddeb126729442602e4b236.png)
In BtN, all the combat is not the same every time, as different items/psionics/weapons have different speeds, and combat options allow you to hurry or delay your actions for tactical advantage. Never cared for the way Ringworld did it without rounds, just let me count to 10.

Quote from: tenbones on July 22, 2024, 02:22:57 PMInterlock (CP2020)- SUPERB emulation. Quick, clean and lethal. As intended. Can be used on battlemap, but works great without. Establishes melee combat as resisted-checks, ranged is static Difficulties plus modifiers. If you wanted some "cinematic" anime-vibes, you could lift Roadstriker rules which allow gunfire to be resisted rolls with Dodge skill. Pacific Rim deepened melee combat by having melee combat ranges (and a shit-ton of martial arts) which really sounded cool on paper but got a little overboard until you got used to it.

One issue I've had RAW with Interlok is how body armor and cybernetic armor (especially body weave) can soak gunfire. It makes the supposedly lethal system not-so-lethal.
Our houserule since CP 2020 has been to say that armor ablates (SP is reduced) from every attack. That makes it possible to whittle down an armored up opponent.

Hackmaster. No other game has a combat system like this and it's not unusual for people to try it and feel like they can't go back to another game. Real shame about the non-combat system parts, though.

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 23, 2024, 02:12:37 PMConfusing without careful records reminds me of the "ticks" system of initiative that Exalted 1e introduced with "Power Combat" in the Player's Guide. If it's at all like that, I'll give it a hard pass.

I have not played Exalted, but I did play Scion 1e which had the ticks/battle wheel turn order. Honestly, the only thing I found confusing was their explanation of it. Roll for a count on which to join battle, then the speed of the action determines on what count the character may take another action. Use a base 10 tracker and the count rolls over; character token goes on the appropriate count line and a marker moves through the lines. From memory, it was faster than finding the next card in Savage Worlds.

Quote from: Wisithir on July 23, 2024, 08:10:55 PM

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 23, 2024, 02:12:37 PMConfusing without careful records reminds me of the "ticks" system of initiative that Exalted 1e introduced with "Power Combat" in the Player's Guide. If it's at all like that, I'll give it a hard pass.

I have not played Exalted, but I did play Scion 1e which had the ticks/battle wheel turn order. Honestly, the only thing I found confusing was their explanation of it. Roll for a count on which to join battle, then the speed of the action determines on what count the character may take another action. Use a base 10 tracker and the count rolls over; character token goes on the appropriate count line and a marker moves through the lines. From memory, it was faster than finding the next card in Savage Worlds.

Players don't tend to have a problem with it as they (usually) only have a single character in a fight. For the GM trying to keep track of a half-dozen opponents (even with a minion grouping counting as a single opponent), it's a pain in the ass.

Quote from: phydeaux on July 23, 2024, 04:29:58 PMHackmaster. No other game has a combat system like this and it's not unusual for people to try it and feel like they can't go back to another game. Real shame about the non-combat system parts, though.

...and what is the combat system like?

No turns at all. Second by second combat, where attacks take a number of seconds to execute (representing finding an opening), but movement is more free. That means no, the orc is not moving around the fighter to hit the mage. The orc moves left, the fighter moves left. The orc moves right, the fighter moves right.

You'd think this would be slow, but in practice, it's actually faster than most combat systems and a lot more exciting, imo.

Quote from: phydeaux on July 24, 2024, 04:21:56 PMNo turns at all. Second by second combat, where attacks take a number of seconds to execute

Sounds like Gurps or RuneQuest. How is it different?

TinyDungeon:  Normal roll, beat a 4 on a 2d6.  Really goood? get 3d6. Really bad? 1d6.

Simple

My flavour of RPG and combat system in an RPG is Rolemaster . For sure characters can die a LOT! That I know of its one of the most lethal RPGs out there.

Naturally, like anything in this hobby, its up to what kinda game people around the table enjoy but that is my bag.  If you are at all curious to see roughly how combat works check out the following video I made a while back which gives you an insight into just how deadly this game is ... certainly not a game for everyone!!

https://youtu.be/a7cYZyhO1J4?si=3F6STZvPNiWmDAwJ

Happy Gaming to you.

Quote from: phydeaux on July 24, 2024, 04:21:56 PMNo turns at all. Second by second combat, where attacks take a number of seconds to execute (representing finding an opening), but movement is more free. That means no, the orc is not moving around the fighter to hit the mage. The orc moves left, the fighter moves left. The orc moves right, the fighter moves right.

You'd think this would be slow, but in practice, it's actually faster than most combat systems and a lot more exciting, imo.

The house rules I used for 2e for half a decade were a mix of this and rounds.  It went initiative (d10), act on you initiative roll and following actions followed as your previous action completed (moves were 10' per segment, spells = casting time, additional weapons = weapon speed, etc).  The round ends at 20.  As you said, it's a good way to do it:  intuitive, fun, tactically deep, and much easier and faster than it sounds to run.  The advantages of using rounds are that it gives a reset each round, making it easier to not lose track of things, and the initiative roll adds some unpredictability and excitement to tactics.

Mythras is my favorite right now.  The actions, maneuvers, special effects, etc just feel right.

Rolemaster is a system I got a lot of use from in a MERP campaign.  Those critical charts are worth the price of admission.

Harnmaster packs a whole lot of realistic detail in a pretty simple process.

Hackmaster has a great initiative system, with some good elements to speed combat along and provide for furious exchanges of blows to occur.

Quote from: Hixanthrope on July 23, 2024, 11:01:04 AMFor me it's systems with impulse initiative. I don't want rng in my turn order, and I want guns to be WAY faster than swords, and movement to matter. RuneQuest, Feng Shui, and Bound to None go in this direction.

This is definitely my opinion, as well, except for movement. A reflexive and organic-feeling initiative system is practically a must, and the only game I have ever played which came within an order of magnitude there is Feng Shui. It feels organic, but it isn't reflexive with all the tick-tracking, and it doesn't help that there are a lot of ties cluttering the initiative cycle. There really isn't a game out there with "good" combat, although there are some with less bad combat, and there are a few games out there which had (past tense) good combat, but didn't age well into the smartphone era.

That said, I think position rules tend to get in the way of good combat more than helping. Most ranged weapons don't actually care about where you are standing that much, and most melee weapons come with a move or shift baked into the biomechanics of an attack. The major reasons rules put emphasis on movement are for flanking or attack of opportunity rules. These tend to produce weird behavior like the 3.5 conga line, or outright break immersion because retreating from melee doesn't trigger attacks of opportunity IRL. If you think about it, the best parts of combat tend to revolve around resource management, not position.

Savage Worlds.

Fast, Furious, Fun combat with a lite crunch ruleset. Characters are distinct while fitting on an index card, and combat allows for a ton of tactical thinking and variety of options.

Plus it can handle any number of combatants easily. You can feel free to let the PCs bring a ton of allies and control them in combat, and beef up the opponents to be just as numerous.

I've ran multiple, exciting battles that have ranged in the upwards of 40 to 70 characters on the combat map.

And there really is nothing like running a Zombie Apocalpyse game and actually covering the map with Zombies, forcing your players to fight through them to escape.