I like to play characters that go straight into the battle, but often find them in disadvantage against mages or simply boring to play in combat since combat options are reduced  to "I cut it with my sword" and "I run like hell" in a few games I've played. More complex combat options require a more detailed/complicated system but that's not what I'm aiming to.

I'm working on a game (your usual fantasy heartbreaker) where all skills are outlined sketchly, but players can precise the specializations they want of those skills and allocate bonuses there. Further than that, they can define the usual tricks they pull from those specializations and assign additional bonuses on those. So now players can design their own 'feats' without other pre-requisites other than having the appropiate skill.

But now I want somethig else, something that could help give flavor to the crunch designed by the players. Mainly because I can't ask too much creativity from my group of players, but it'll be better if it can help improve the play experience.

I'm thinking of something between fighting method (how does he/she kills his enemies) and fighting philosophy (whatever motivates him/her to go into a battle). Method is kinda easy, it can be full attack in close range, attack from distance, it can absorb damage or avoid attacks, lure enemies to traps, etc etc. that can fall into the specializations and tricks mechanics. For the "fighting philosophy"... that's still fuzzy in my head. I can let players fill that blank but I need something there that a full fighter can oppose to the magic user's faith in it's own powers... otherwise I'm afraid I won't get a balanced system.

From reading this thread http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forge/index.php?topic=30595.0 you could say this is like a game designed for those two people who doesn't believe in clichés, want to play a mage who wields a sword or a fighter who isn't at disadvantage at that mage. Any Ideas?

crap. My mistake. title of the post should be "What's in a fighter? without using a design based in cliches i mean..."

Hi WM,

Actually, there's a lot of games that give high flexibility to combat in games without lots of crunch.  The oldest would be Tunnels & Trolls - if you wanted to do anything outside of normal combat rules ("I pull the curtain over his head, then push him out the window!") you'd make a basic attribute check.

Generally, the general ways games have done this are:

1) General resolution - player describes what they want to do, GM picks a skill/stat and applies modifiers based on how effective/cinematically cool they think the tactic is - Sorcerer, Dread, The Pool, Hero Wars, Tunnels & Trolls, etc.

2) Specific interfaces- player describes what they want to do, and the GM applies specific rules that allows the stunts/tactics to interface with the existing rules.  Iron Heroes, D&D4E (pg. 42), Rune, Diaspora, etc.

3) Specific rules- the crunchy options you mention - Burning Wheel, Riddle of Steel, GURPS Martial Arts, etc.

So, there's a lot of options besides just pouring specific rules on top of a situation.  What's nice is that the "Fighting Philosophy" stuff can also apply with a lot of those options. 

You might want to look at FATE for example.  Characters have traits or aspects that can affect play, so having, "Never Retreat", or "Press the Advantage, always" are valid things to include on your character.

Chris

I do like the traits feature from FATE. You're right, perhaps the "fighting philosophy" should be included there. I've been testing traits use in a previous game with my group, but limited to 3 traits per character. Players earned karma points for roleplaying them as disadvantages and burned those same karma points to play them as edges.

What could be included in a list of "fighting philosophies"?

I think it helps in a game to have the combat rules just be a specific use of the general rules, as that makes creative actions equally easy to determine rules for.  White Wolf does that in their games.

Similarly, in a few of their games they use "stunt bonuses".  If you describe an action creatively, or take a creative action, you have a bonus to the role.  That encourages players to not keep making the same roll or taking the same action each turn.  You might also use some sort of "drama track" that gives bonuses for dramatic action and penalizes bogging things down with repetition.

You could also give a defense bonus for defending from the same attack consecutively.   

Yeah, Vampire the masquerade was the first tabletop RPG I played, so I've always been a fan of making combat about tactical decisions on abstract representations instead of actual grids with minis, and letting players use the enviroment and maneuver in a three dimensional space. The game I'm working on is getting far away from but still somehow a hack of the Anima RPG, in the sense that any player can try anything in battle and limitations come only as a higher difficulty on the roll.

WM,
  My game, SteamPunk Crescendo, does a good job of matching fighting against magic. And making the fights more interesting. The trick is, I make the Action Types open to all players and people just pick and choose based on the situation. I find that they are pretty well balanced and interesting options. It is not too complex, but what Action Type you pick has an impact on the outcome.
  But this was only possible because I divided up priorities between attack, defense and getting your stakes. In other words, if you want interesting tactical choices, you have to find a way to tie the different meaningful choices to each other. Then you can say, you can have a little more of decision A, but you have to sacrifice a little of decision B.
  The problem with FATE is that you can invoke an aspect and that helps one roll (so you do have to sacrifice something), but it doesn't really feel tactical (at least to me). you are gaining an advantage at the expense of a possible future advantage. but the sacrifice may not even have a bearing on this encounter.
  So, that is how D&D does it, you offense and defense is tied to your position on the map, and that way, moving creates a tactical sense of sacrifice and advantage based on position.
  But, you don't need a map to get that, it just makes it easier sometimes.