Slow versus fast.

[FzGhouL]

Sorry, pretty much ignore my statements, I kind of centered things in my own mind.

I guess my main statement is:

Many game makers want a Combat system that is both
1) Indepth
2) Plays "Fast"

And alot of the time, people argue that you can't have both...(I disagree)

But, I guess what would you rather have:
A very indepth, rules upon rules, scrutinizing strategies,
OR
A few quick simple rolls, a quick outcome.

[daMoose_Neo]

No matter what you do, to get that combination you're going to have to sacrifice a little bit of both to meet in the middle.
From just ponderage, I'd say a possible system that uses a d% and some probability variables could achieve the desired results- player declares they're aiming center mass, they're standing on a hill top, aiming at a stationary guard wearing plate armor over his chest and back.
Account for: Skill (base chance to strike in ideal conditions), distance (how much the arrow could possibly deviate), what the armor is going to (odds are deflect or penetrate. If it dents his armor, he's not going to take "damage"). Such a system might also want to stay away from "damage" (noted by the dented armor example) and go with "Wound Descriptors"- someone throws a punch at you, you might get "Black Eye, penalty to sight based actions for 2 days" or if you blocked a suffifciantly strong punch "Bruised Forearm, sensitive to pressure for 2 days".  Account for worse and worse wounds, you'll have some that result in a lingering death or some (like the arrow shot) which kill instantly. If you know the Head, Neck, and Heart to be basic "Instant Kill", you can get away with a one roll combat system thats both quick and generally realistic:
- Player aims for the Guard's Neck, which is unprotected.
* Elevated Height = Bonus to roll
* High Skill = High starting %
* unprotected = no penalty for armor
* difficult target (neck) = penalty
* distance to target = penaly
Roll less than the final number to strike. Obviously, with the neck target, you miss the roll you blow the shot, but if you were aiming center mass, it wouldn't be unreasonable to have a Target/Bullseye system: come so close and you won't hit center mass, but you could graze the shoulder~ Get folks familiar with the system and they'll start calling it out themselves: "Okay, I'm X feet high, but X feet away...the guard isn't wearing a neck guard, but its a difficult shot...but I'm skilled enough..."

I'd say a major weakness of many combat systems is the need for a vitality score of some kind without any particular reason. You're not going to spend two hours (real or game time) hacking away at each other. Normally, its going to be one hit decides the outcome, its just who can land the blow. Thus, it'd make more sense to make actually striking a little more difficult, but allow 1-hit kills to be the norm. As was said in another discussion on Armor, most armor is made to DEFLECT the blow, so reducing the number of blows that actually connect would a little more realistically reflect the actual use of Armorments and such.

[ffilz]

In reading this thread, I still don't quite see what you are looking for, unless you are just trying a survey.

You might want to read this older thread on speed of play.

One point I tried to raise in that thread, that also applies here is that "fast" or "slow" are subjective perceptions of each individual player. What the player is really thinking when he thinks about the speed of a system is more like one of the following:

- Combat in this system takes too long so I don't get a chance to do the other things I want to do.

- Combat in this system takes too long so we only clear out one or two rooms of the dungeon in a game session.

- Combat in this system is too deadly, combat only lasts one or two rounds so I don't have a chance to react to an initial poor roll or decision ("oops, we shouldn't have gone through this door" or "oops, I didn't notice the archer in the tree").

- I like this system because I have a chance to apply strategy to maximize my combat performance in a complex battle, yet we still have time to do other things in a game session.

I personally like tactical, wargamelike combat systems so I want some detail and I want to use a hex map. I'm willing to spend two hours to resolve an important combat. Other people want some detail, but don't want to spend that much time on a combat, they may choose to forgo the hex map and some of the tactical options. Then there are the folks that are more concerned with the implications of combat, and are satisfied with a single roll resolution system.

Frank

[zephyr_cirrus]

One reason that I enjoy faster combat systems more is not only because of the shorter duration of the battles, but because what the faster system lacks in substance it makes up for in flavor.  You see, a battle takes place in a short amount of time, and people really don't have enough time to think about all their combat options.  People will either choose the one that will do the most damage to their opponent(s), the one that is most convenient, or the one that will most likely keep them alive (or possibly others I haven't thought of).  Anyway, this random factor is greatly diminished in a slower system because the players have a much greater amount of time to think things out, thus creating a more scripted feeling to the battle, which can be seen in movies and the like (which is good if that's what you're going for).  If you want things to look cool and cinematic, then you might want to look at a slower system.  If you want more random action that seems more realistic, then a faster system may be something to think about.

[M. J. Young]

If you want things to look cool and cinematic, then you might want to look at a slower system.

I think this is a very interesting insight, and wanted to highlight it.

--M. J. Young