Blending Strategy and Roleplay in Combat

[architect]

I'm attempting to create a game in a world where combat moves quickly. Several rules and regulations, such as in DnD, I believe, slow down roleplay and lengthen combat that should theoretically be taking place in mere seconds. Now, I realize that slowing the game down is a necessary requirement for certain combat scenarios... however, I'm trying to find a way to abandon all the rule-lawyering that comes with combat.

My only solution thus far is to simple the combat models. Unfortunately, I have little to no research in this area. I'm asking for recommended reading here- or at least suggestions on the building of a blended roleplay/combat model. I'm steering clear of a simple descriptive roleplay combat but I also don't want to get into writing long lists of spells that I must playtest 1,000 times to be able to have any semblance of balance.

I want: my characters to be able to come up with their own spells, abilities, and weapons to use in combat.
I want: the combat to be fun and fast paced with real strategy but simplistic rules
I want: roleplaying not to stop at the door of combat but to continue through

I believe that games like Deadlands deal with this problem well and I hear the World of Darkness games to as well. I'm not entirely sure though.

Any research or thoughts anyone has would be greatly appreciated.

[TonyLB]

Before we can form a bridge of reading from where you are to where we recommend going, it will help us to know what you have read.  So... spill!  What systems have you read?  What have you run and enjoyed?

[Valamir]

Have you seen Riddle of Steel?  It would be simplicity itself to strip out all of the crunch and go with just the die pool vs. die pool competition which has a high degree of strategy all by itself.

[Trevis Martin]

I second the Riddle recommendation.  You can look at the quickstart rules (some aspects of which I prefer to the main rules, b/c they are simpler) at http://www.theriddleofsteel.net/support/

best

Trevis

[Bill Cook]

I want: my characters to be able to come up with their own spells, abilities, and weapons to use in combat.
I want: the combat to be fun and fast paced with real strategy but simplistic rules
I want: roleplaying not to stop at the door of combat but to continue through

Brother, don't we all:) Welcome to the Forge, BTW.

Haven't played Deadlands. WoD is pretty simple with lots of skills, traits and clan-categorized powers. More list items on a sheet makes a character feel more fleshed out and system supported. It's basically dice pool checks with a fixed target number. There are three types of damage, increasing in severity. You'd have to drift to author your own items/powers.

TROS is very cutting edge. Spiritual Attributes enable your players to provide a story-based driver for their character. Budgeting your combat pool across a two-turn round supports an array of mealy tactics. The magic system is very build-a-spell; and the second supplement, The Flower of Battle, has rules for Items of Power--weapons with their own SA's.

[architect]

I'm gonna need to definitely read all of these. I feel so ignorant on the world of system-creating, especially combat systems. I have the feel and story of my world down pat, but the mathematics and mechanics just confuse me...

[architect]

I haven't read much- so be warned. I've run 3e-Dnd and Coc all on the d20 system, I'm not a big fan. Deadlands, and Shadowrun (2ndE) are also on my palette. I've read some smaller games as well like Kobolds Ate My Baby and Vs. Monsters. I feel like I know a little bit about where we're going but I'm still very curious. TROS? I've got no idea what's going on here, but I like what I'm hearing.

I'm trying to steer clear from a complete story version of combat and a complete and comprehensive combat guide for every scenario that could ever apply. Grappling rules and tumbling rolls seem ridiculous to me. At least for my game, that is. I want the players to feel like they can guage and move their difficulty level based on any set of circumstances. I want the system to conform to the action- I don't want it to have to move the other way around.

I know that's really vague and naive- but soon I will post the information I have on my game "Walls" and maybe it'll make a little bit more sense.

Think of this- if you were making a "the matrix" game (I most definitely am not- but run with me) would you use a fully comprehensive guide to everything you could do? Running and jumping off of walls- slowing down time, doing flips. Or would you simply gives a set template to manipulate that applies to any given situation- leave certain difficulties up to the architect of gameplay- etc.

This is what I'm trying to apply to my combat game. If the game has what would visually appear to be massively complex combat- I want to counter that with a massively simplistic system. This way players feel like they are unlimited. They don't have to think of "floating in space grappling while throwing fireballs" rules. They don't have to spend 20 minutes searching and then 20 more arguing over what the specific meaning of "ground attack" or something means.

Who's with me?

[Trevis Martin]

Well riddle can be played heavy or light in that respect.  It has a lot of tactical menuvers and stuff that are in the core book but my group usually plays a stripped down version with just the dice pools.  Works well IMO.

In Heroquest and Sorcerer both you really don't have an explicit combat mechanism (well Sorcerer says it does but the truth of it is that Ron didn't have the language for what he was after at the time.)  Instead they both have simple and complex resoultion systems.  In other words the basic mechanism is used in both cases there are just some special rules for truly complex conflicts.  Not only combat either, but any complex conflict.

You can get the rules synopsis for Heroquest from here

http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf

and there is an Apprentice version of Sorcerer at http://www.sorcerer-rpg.com but of course the full version is so much better.

You might take a look at Mike Holmes' rant on the subject of combat systems for some interesting reading.

I've also heard Swashbuckler praised for it's handling of duel type combat, because maneuvers lead into other maneuvers but its very cinematic in feel.  There is a review of it in the Reviews section of the Forge (link is in the site header.)

best

Trevis

[Nogusielkt]

I don't think roleplaying ever stops at combat on the players side... the GM just fails to roleplay combat.  How else are you supposed to react when a goblin attacks you?  Cry?

[architect]

I always try and keep damage numbers low- I want the players to feel the combat. I play music, sometimes two or three songs depending on what's happening. And I almost always plan story events to happen during combat so that the players feel like their battle is worth their time. More often than not, it would seem, that the average person would just avoid battle. I think hero's (usually) are no different. I say, give them a story reason to stay and fight. Give them things to defend. Give them emotions to correspond.

But I, like all DM's, am an imperfect being. I have been known to throw some goblins in their way and just let them mercilessly hack them to pieces without second thought to the emotional ramifications of genocide.

[tj333]

A game not mentioned is the Shadow of Yesterday (TSOY) that is on these forums. Specificaly the Bring Down the Pain mechanics. Bring Down the Pain lets the players controll the level of die rolls required in a situation.

On a side note I have found the V:TM/Storyteller to be a very time comsuming system for a fight espicialy when people start taking multiple actions or rolling high die pools. As a rule system it handles combat easier then DnD3 but for die rolls DnD3 is is better in my expirience.