Looking for more fun combat

>>51801671
>Dungeon World seems to me like its combat would become very boring after a while as well.
I've ran dungeon world and yeah it's weird, on the player side there's not much in the way of options. On the monster side though you can make some very interesting enemies. So it's a case of having only a few tools but a wide variety of problems. Maybe that works for you, maybe not.

I'd recommend Legend of the Elements as being the game I've enjoyed combat in the most, it's an rpg based on Avatar: The Last Airbender and it does a very good job replicating that sort of highly-mobile magic martial arts combat

>>51801671
I'm going to upset about half of /tg/ at this point and recommend 4th edition. If you're just after combat its pretty good.

>>51801671
I'd recommend Song of Swords. The combat there is fun, but deadly.

>>51801671
Pathfinder combat is just as bad as most D&D combats.
That said, if you are just looking for combat, D&D 4e did it the best among D&D.
Personally I'd recommend Runequest 6 (later renamed Mythras), but you might run into issues because it leaves a lot of the ruling up to the GM and how the group wants to interpret the setting.

>>51801745
Someone obviously hasn't played Dungeon World and doesn't know what they are talking about.

Players have tons of things they can do. Way more than they can in d20.

Dungeon World, Torchbearer, and FATE all have really fun combat mechanics. Those would be my pick.

>>51801754
I'll second this, but be sure to make the popular adjustments. Free weapon focus think I believe, and MM3 style math. Not every expanded option is a good idea but most work ok, try to pull a 4e thread from suptg.

>>51801826
>Someone obviously hasn't played Dungeon World and doesn't know what they are talking about.
>Players have tons of things they can do. Way more than they can in d20.
How many of those things are mechanically distinct?
When I played it the part consisted of a Barbarian, a Thief, a Bard, and a Cleric
In terms of options in combat
>Barbarian: hack and slash, challenge his enemies
>Thief: hack and slash, volley, backstab
>Bard: hack and slash, volley, sing, deafen
>Cleric: hack and slash, turn undead, cast spell (although most of them weren't combat oriented)

For crunchy gamist games try
-Dnd 4e
-13th Age
-Only War
Iron Kingdoms RPG
-Shadowrun, if you're a masochist

For in-depth simmy systems try:
Song of Swords, (now on Kickstarter!)
Flames of War
Traveller

Hope this helps.

>>51801671
Try something completely different, like Song of Swords. It's a high-stakes mixture of strategy, bluffing and betting, with a huge dose of autism to make it super realistic. The rules are free but there's a kickstarter for extra content which is one reason why I'm openly shilling it.

>>51801754
>If you're just after combat
As opposed to other D&D editions' what, exactly?

>>51801671
The secret of fun combat lies in not paying much attention to combat mechanics.

Narrate actions the characters and their opponents do - and here's the important bit - and treat that narration as factually true. The character swung his sword and grabbed his opponent's hand while he was distracted? Good, now he has a hold on that hand and can continue from there. The character sidestepped his opponents overhead attack? Good, now that opponent has his weapon stuck on the floor and can't use it.

Just talk a lot and have it be factually real in the game world's reality, that's the key to fun combat. Pay less attention to the rules and more attention to cool stuff that can happen, then make that happen.

File: 1463408684176.png (38KB, 499x338px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 499x338px

>>51802780

>>51802725
D&D was originally about getting the treasure out of the dungeon most efficiently (see: gold as experience). Combat is dangerous and isn't where you want to end up in.

>>51802850
This. Combat focus only came into the limelight 3e forward, where combat = exp and players were buffed enough to be able to challenge the environment instead of vice versa.
Check out some OSR games to see how the older style played but without the older game design.

>>51801671
There's not much point in sticking to d20 games if the d20 game you're playing is boring you.

ROLEMASTER mutha fucka!

Offensive bonus is a combination of stat bonus and SKILL. You invest points every level into skills, including weapon catagories. Someone who spends their life mastering the halberd will be poor in combat if they pick up a sword.

Defensive bonus is stats and magical bonuses from items or some spells.

Combat is d100+your offensive bonus-defensive bonus= your total

Get the CHART (yes RM is chart heavy, don't be intimidated with the quantity, they're organized and straightforward)

Across the top are numbers 1-20. These are your armour types, which you know because it says what type of armour it is when you bought it.

Down the side is 1-150. This is your attack total.

Cross reference those two and you get a number or a number and 2 letters (this is where the fun starts!)

Lets say you got 13BK.

That's 13 hit points (yawn) and a B critical on the Crush table.

Go to the Crush table, and roll a d100. Find that number on the B column and read the gory details. You will receive injuries like Sheild Arm broken, you can no longer use a sheild in combat, you are stunned for 1 round. And 10 points of damage.

You can take bleeding, losing hits every round. You can take penalties to attack or even all skill rolls for a period of time. You can lose a limb.

You can fucking die from one fucking hit.

It makes combat scary again.

Back to the first chart. Each weapon (dagger, rapier, spear, axe, etc) has a different attack chart that reflects is effectivness against certain armour types.

The heavier your armour, the easier it is to hit you generally, but it is much harder to do anything serious. (except grappling, which is done EXACTLY like weapon combat, because skills and criticals work better)

Its not a great rulebook from modern editing standards, but damn that system makes combat exciting again.

>>51801671
GURPS. Play Dungeon Fantasy or Banestorm.

>>51802799
It makes combat more lively, can't argue with results.

File: 1487129563507.jpg (2MB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1200px

>>51801754
This. 4e was a blast to play, and not bad to GM either. It has tons of options which are (more or less) balanced and errata'd, and it has enough history that there are tons of suggestions for avoiding common pitfalls.

Also, Tactical Warlord was my favorite support class from any system.

>>51801783
Seconding this. It's a great system, and actually the only one I've had fun with in terms of combat.

>>51802780
No, that's how you get shitty combat when the game's mechanics don't back up what you're doing.

If you're okay with a different kind of fantasy, Legends of the Wulin is a Wuxia RPG with the best combat system in any RPG I've ever played.

4e or Strike!, possibly if you have someone to hold your hand through it, Legend of the Wulin.

How does one get into 4e now?

>>51804812
You download the PHB from somewhere, just to get the hang of the game, then get the offline Character builder tool (CBLoader) and use funin.space for finding anything you don't know.

links here : http://pastebin.com/85Hm56k5

>>51801783
Thirding that, and adding Mythras/Runequest 6 to the pile.

>>51804892
Adding to this, you should use funin.space and the CBLoader as rules reference, as they are the most up to date. Book PDFs may be out of date.

>>51801671
If you like very crunchy combat, you might like Exalted 3e. It does have the (big, big) problem that a lot of its stuff requires some houseruling because the mechanics are poorly written, but the general setup of how combat works is really cool despite that.

Basically, you have two types of attacks: withering, which reduces your target's Initiative score and increases yours, and decisive, which deals damage if it hits based on your Initiative score.

Plus, there's about a million powers that interact with combat in different ways, ranging from "inflict a penalty each time an enemy rolls a certain number" to "you can't attack for a turn but can counterattack all enemies" to "you shoot eyebeams that set people on fire". It's skill-based rather class-based, so any character can potentially get access to anything.

>>51804285
>>51804290

Wulin is great, but requires some caveats.

When it works? The system is fucking great.

Actually getting it to that point is an enormous pain due to how awfully edited the core book is, made worse by a few core balance issues probably due to them rushing the book out. It's a system with a lot of great ideas that aren't quite executed correctly. Still, past that learning curve it's legitimately great, but I wouldn't blame anyone for not wanting to go through all that effort.

>>51801892

>saying just "I hack and slash" triggers the move

Dude, it's totally clear in the game: it doesn't work that way.

I dunno OP. What is EXACTLY the problem? The options are fine per se (numbers vs numbers) but they are too few?

Or you need more descripitions?

Burning Wheel has an interesting idea for combat, but I don't know how it actually goes.

>>51801892
no system will ever have good mechanics for you, stay deep in crunch

>>51804290
Stop shilling Strike!

Why does /tg/ keep shilling Strike!?

The fun bit in encounters is overcoming challenges, not just "here's a guy kill him"

>>51801671
If you're not having fun in combat that's a GM problem. Combat is the same in most games, the names and the math is all that changes.

You should be setting up interesting situations that makes people invested in the battle, not expecting the mechanics to be fun on their own. Every game you will ever play will eventually come down to "Roll a die, does it hit? roll damage" as a basic combat mechanic. Mix in some "I cast instant death / sleep / fuck off faggot" occasionally

>>51808043

>If you're not having fun in combat that's a GM problem. Combat is the same in most games, the names and the math is all that changes.

Read more systems. This is hilariously wrong.

>>51807772
>Dude, it's totally clear in the game: it doesn't work that way.
I know, but what I said was that choices don't mean anything if they're not mechanically distinct, so all the different ways you can say you attack someone which result in a hack and slash roll are all just different bits of fluff around the same option

>>51808096

So if you don't like FATAL it's the GM's fault?

>>51808123

But.. .they are.

>>51808144
>But.. .they are.
ok, in what way are two actions both of which result in a hack and slash roll (and only a hack and slash roll) made by the same character distinct choices with different effects

>>51801754
How do you have your hotkeys set up for max DPS?

>>51808165

> hack and slash, volley, backstab

Your example. Different. Deal with it.

File: kot.png (427KB, 514x662px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 514x662px

>>51808144
>>>51808096
>So if you don't like FATAL it's the GM's fault?
I think you hit the wrong post with that.

>>51808165
When you make a melee attack against an enemy in Pathfinder, tell me two actions that you can do that change the result significantly.

You can add modifiers - Power attack, weapon finesse - You can make a different ' move' - Most combat maneuvers - But most of the time, it's dice + strength + BAB.

DW just cuts the shit and tells you that all Dice+Strength+BAB rolls are this one number, your Hack 'n Slash number, and makes everything work off of that one number. That's all they've done.

>>51808225

Yes. But I think it's pretty clear nontheless.

System matters as in any game.

File: 1443115912213.jpg (41KB, 400x483px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 400x483px

>>51801745
>>51801826
>>51801892


This.

OP what you want is Dungeon World

It's pretty much objectively one of the best currently out there. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.

You want fast, intuitive combat? Dungeon World does that.

You want real, deep roleplaying mechanics? Dungeon World does that.

You want great mechanics that reward diversity of play? Dungeon World does that as well.

My last session of Dungeon World my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window. This is real roleplaying we are talking about here, not babby 3.5 shit. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Dungeon World ASAP.

>>51808217
and my earlier list of combat options included them as different options, you then said that it didn't work like that because you described an action which caused the roll, I asked for an example of two different hack and slash rolls made by the same character

If you're saying that those are the different options then aren't you agreeing with my post here >>51801892

>>51808263

That's true, if you ignore fictional positioning, Aid, weapons' properties (at very least range) and all that.

So, it's true if you're a retard.

>>51808297

I didn't say anything back then.

>>51808264
Yeah I love Savage Worlds for example but after playing nothing but Savage Worlds I get really fuckign sick of it. That's true of any system, except D&D for some odd reason.

While I appreciate the design of *World games, I don't think you can really recommend them on the grounds of their combat mechanics.

PbtA is very focused on getting the rolling out the way and focusing on the roleplaying. There isn't much in the way of meaningful mechanical choice, all rolls work roughly the same way with different fluff attached. And this is fine, it suits a certain playstyle, but it does not provide a meaningful or compelling combat experience the way a crunchier game can.

>>51808318
>I didn't say anything back then.
I'm not even entirely sure what you're arguing anymore, I list the options a DW character has in combat, you seem to agree that those were the only options, you still seem to be antagonistic, why?

>>51807953
I mean, OP is looking for a tactically interesting RPG, and that's the one thing it does well.

>>51808318
>That's true, if you ignore fictional positioning, Aid, weapons' properties (at very least range) and all that.
You think Dungeon World doesn't use those, too?

Aiding others is a roll you can make. You describe the positioning, and if you find yourself in a more agreeable position to your action, it's not as difficult. Weapons even have properties, you can add tags to them in order to give them bonuses to various things.

At the core, the base roll is the same: You roll a d20, and you add your modifiers. The modifiers are the same every time, give or take being clever. DW doesn't ascertain 'being clever' as 'forming a little congo line of fighters', but there are clearly bonuses for charging, fighting together with a friend, and using a weapon suited to the situation.

>>51808336

You're ignoring the GM's moves, especially the softer ones. Basically those determine a greater variety in the moves' use at the table.

Besides even if arguably DW isn't really that prone to having +1 for the character ficitional positioning, other PBTAs do it way more, like AW itself (see the Read a Sitch move).

>>51808345

You're buttblasted because the point is not that the choices are "dice-rollingly" limitated (they are), but because you originally said they're always the same move.
Which is madness.

>>51808364

I'm saying DW does it. And ignoring that is retarded.

DND doesn't, for the most part. For a bonus, you gotta have shit like spells cast on you.
I mean, there ARE options like having higher ground, in some editions at least, but they're pretty far in between. The GM doesn't really throw at you opportunities for that.

>>51808166
I understand this is a bit more complicated than just hammering left click like you are used to, but you can probably figure it out for yourself.

>>51808476
>you originally said they're always the same move. Which is madness.
I never said this, I even listed >>51801892 the different moves that various PCs in the game I played could use, I just think those aren't enough which going by
>the point is not that the choices are "dice-rollingly" limitated (they are)
you seem to agree with

>>51808476
>DND doesn't, for the most part. For a bonus, you gotta have shit like spells cast on you.
>I mean, there ARE options like having higher ground, in some editions at least, but they're pretty far in between. The GM doesn't really throw at you opportunities for that.

In 5e, the DM can give you advantage for whatever he pleases, and some things like enemy being knocked down are baked in. In 4e, Combat Advantage was handed out for all kind of shit (higher ground, attacking downed/flanked/unaware enemy, etc.), and 3.5 also has an autistically precise list of bonuses you get for attacking from a 45° angle on a sunny thursday for some sort of bonus if you got a relevant feat.

And in older editions (that inspired DW), the DM could do whatever he wants, or it was AD&D, which started the trend with making rulings for everything.

>>51808476
>I'm saying DW does it. And ignoring that is retarded.
>DND doesn't, for the most part. For a bonus, you gotta have shit like spells cast on you.
>I mean, there ARE options like having higher ground, in some editions at least, but they're pretty far in between. The GM doesn't really throw at you opportunities for that.

Ah, I get what you're saying. I thought you were talking about how PF/5e/etc allows things like flanking, feats, etc. to affect your combat modifiers and that, somehow, DW doesn't.

Turns out we're bros! It's a good feeling.

>>51808637

>I've ran dungeon world and yeah it's weird, on the player side there's not much in the way of options

And no, I don't agree. I think the number of moves if fine.

>>51808667
The number of moves is fine, but the moves doing numbers are not.

>>51808667
not much in the way of option =/= always the same move

>I think the number of moves if fine
fair enough, I don't, you do you

>>51808655

I'm familiar with 3.5 and 4th.

No, it's totally different. Basically in those games the players can only use the fiction that the GM "deliberately" put there for advantage (if you can get to the high ground/whatever). In DW, every soft move is prone to being used against the adversary and can be "cashed in" for fictional positioning.


Also, in DW you CAN flank, without even considering the classes' options. It's called Aid.

>>51808685

Yep, they are, if you don't play with retards at least.

>>51808269
signed, dungeon world dev.

>>51808990
Aid is one of the worst moves you can possibly make in DW.

>>51811231
> one of

So the game is full of trap options just like 3.5?

>>51802780
Ignore the naysayers, this guy has the right idea. Do you want a combat where each side just stands there rolling to hit? Or one where a foe charges the player as he tries to wrest his sword free from a fallen enemy, causing both to go down in a tangle of limbs, wrestling for possession for the blade as their struggles carry them dangerously close to the nearby ravine? Give your narrative events some impact by making them have an effect on the game, and challenge your players with the unexpected.

>>51812180

Nope. It's bollocks.

Well, okay, it's half right. How you as a GM run a fight is important to how fun it is.

But you know what really, really helps run a fun fight as a GM? Good, engaging combat mechanics.

>>51808269
Oh god. This stale pasta again.

>>51812208
I will say this guy's not wrong either. I normally run 2e, where this sort of thing is often required to make combat interesting. There's something to be said for combat systems that don't require the DM to perform a narrative trapeze act to be fun and interesting.

>>51812208
100%

>>51812350
No amount of DM narration will keep combat from becoming stale in a game with bland combat mechanics.

(This is why I don't like Mutants and Masterminds)

>>51801754
This. It's the best D&D for tactical combat. But then, it doesn't taste a lot like D&D.
In regards to "MMO" and "not muh D&D" comments; if Lamborghini set out to and succeeded and made the most fuel efficient car on the market and it looked dorky, regardless of how good it was at its goal, it'd get bad reception because that's not what that brand name does.

>>51812322
It's true, though.

>>51812670
I don't think M&M's combat is all that bland, honestly, it just takes a little bit longer to resolve than it should. Even in a basic slugfest of two beatsticks swinging at each other until one drops, there's a wide variety of results for attacks compared to games like D&D, and once you start experimenting with more intricate power design it's not even bland when it comes to the amount of actions you can take.

File: GURPS Combat.jpg (702KB, 1858x1588px) Image search: [Google]

702KB, 1858x1588px

GURPS with tactical combat is a really satisfying experience, not even meming here.

>>51813168
I can't speak to DWs gameplay. I haven't played it yet.

However, I will point out the only things I've heard of DW are DW meme shills who whine about other games with no idea what they're talking about in those games (and generally acting like cunty brats - I told the last one I talked to I'd be willing to try DW so long as I didn't have to play it with DW players), and apocalypse world fans saying DW just slaps some shit mechanics on AW, ruining the game engine and giving you hot garbage as a result.

I haven't tried AW yet either.

But it seemed worth pointing out the two prevailing things that tend to come from someone shilling DW. It's all rather played out and Blase, and I'd rather skip ahead and see if anyone has non meme content to contribute.

So: without whining about other games, what exactly is fun about DW? What does its game mechanics do that is fun or novel? I'm not an easy sell on handwaivy game mechanics, I lean towards GURPS, personally, but I've got an open mind and play a lot of different games.

>>51813963
Although I enjoy Dungeon World and Apocalypse World I'm surprised to see people going gaga over their combat systems in this thread. They are fairly bare bones although not in a bad way.

>>51814074
Yeah, I don't really get it, myself. I want more mechanically differentiated and nuanced combat, personally.

Ideally what you want to do should depend on who you're fighting, what the enemy has for equipment, where you're fighting, what skills and equipment you have, and what powers/abilities you have, how healthy your opponent is, and what they've already seen you do.

I don't have an example system, but that would yield combat with a great deal of strategy, and would stop the combat game from getting stale.

>>51801671
Rolemaster 2nd Edition. You only need two d10s and MAYBE a d8 to play it, the skills table is huge and anyone can do ANYTHING even a Barbarian can cast spells granted that its way harder to learn them though, the critical table is enourmous with 100 different crits possible per crit table there are six I think and each, and the system is built towards world hopping At least in ours that is, we almost died in Shadowrun's Seattle cause we don't understand guns yet

>>51814235
Why RM2?

I've only played RM4.

Combat was interesting, but the process of character advancement was absolutely terrible.

>>51814074
Dungeon World's is barebones in a bad way.

AW's works so well because it is very quick and every single roll has clear and significant consequences.
DW's muddles the water with easily recoverable and plentiful HP, as well as the removal of meaningful consequences from moves. The false expectations player tend to have from its association with D&D further exacerbates the issue.

>>51815645
This.

AW if fun because it is very focused. It is made to do one thing but it does it well and can be hacked into doing other things easily enough, at least if you are willing to spend some time and have a good theme in your mind. The entire game is made with propagating interesting narrative as a goal. That is what Moves are supposed to do: produce high stakes and hard choices.

DW is a bad game because it introduces classic HP and damage rolls and that is not how combat should go. It makes basic moves rather boring. It does not incentive hard choices nor takes advantage of its genre. It can be fun in a way that any narrative-focused game can be fun, namely when you have a good GM but that is not a merit of the game itself. If your GM can narrate fights in interesting ways then you would have fun even in freeform.

In AW you don't really "fight". You try to take control of the situation using violence or are put in the middle of gunfight and try to do something about it. In DW you roll repetitively for H&S until your enemy drops and react with saving throw from time to time.

>>51804892
>CBLoade

It looks like the 4echaracter builder only has options from the PHB. Any idea how to fix it. Also the compendium wont load.

>>51822436
You patch it.
Then install cbloader.
Then install the fan patches which add the rules which came out after cbuilder was discontinued.

>>51822436
Look for the link in the pastebin with the instructions (you may need to uninstall and scrub a folder).

>>51808357
>>51804290
I concur.

It's basically the opposite end of AW/DW when it comes to combat, too.

>>51808269
I never understood why people fucking hate DW shills until I read this post, thank you.

>>51823241
That is just stale pasta. Your hate for it should only be as lukewarm as the pasta itself.

>>51801671
Song of Swords has what you need.

>>51816298

>>51823280

I'd try and weasel out of not knowing it's pasta by saying "Well clearly I was thanking him for showing the pasta," but fuck it.

>>51823333
It is the stalest of pastas, er, paste? Pastarum?
In any case, people hate DW shills because they do pretty much treat the game like the second coming of Christ and refuse to see any of its glaring flaws.
So basically, for the same reasons as all other shills.

>>51813122
That's a fucking awful analogy. It's more like if Lamborghini tried to make a sports car that was as similar to drive as a racing video game as possible.

>>51823998
>Any analogy in which 4e is not vidya is a bad analogy, and must be rectified immediately

>>51823998

You provide no basis for calling it awful and then provide a strange and nonsensical analogy of your own. Care to clarify?

>>51801754
There is literally nothing that can be done in 4e that can't be done in 5e, combat wise.

People are just fucking lazy and don't read the rules.

>>51824866

Horse fucking shit.

Martial characters who are actually mechanically interesting to play? The best you've got is the trashpile that is the fucking battlemaster.

>>51823241
That pasta is what they all open with before autistic ally speeding about how every other game is shit in comparison

>>51824866
How about marking as a core tank mechanic

>>51824989
To be fair to 5e, UAs now have both a Fighter and a Sorcerer archetypes who have what are basically actual defender mechanics.

The sorcerer one could even work out ok, on account of being a full caster (although it is a sorcerer).

>>51824117
Essentially

>>51824394
Both analogies suck. Cars don't translate to table top RPGs. My point is that 4e isn't taking some classic ttrpg element and doing it justice. It's completely leaving the genre entirely and attempting to do something else that's done better by video games in a needless attempt to stay relevant

typos are none of your fucking business I'm posting from my phone

>>51825265

Except that's horseshit. 4e is an RPG and nobody in the history of /tg/ has ever made a good argument that it's not. You don't like it? Fine. It tried to do something that is outside your preferences. That doesn't stop it being a fucking roleplaying game.

It's the exact same bullshit the anti-storygame idiots ramble on, trying to draw arbitrary dividing lines that only exist to separate what they like from what they dislike.

>>51813526
I've been looking for that pic, thanks Anon!

>>51825265
>Cars don't translate to table top RPGs

I have found them to be one of the better analogies.

> My point is that 4e isn't taking some classic ttrpg element and doing it justice.

Let me stop you there for a moment. I think I understand what you imply but... I mean, are you trying to say that combat is not a classic element of ttrpgs?

>>51801754
As long as the group/gm has played other RPGs so they can freeform/houserule out-of-combat as necessary, this is a great suggestion. I've also heard Fantasy Craft has great crunch but haven't read it yet.

>>51823415
>see any of its glaring flaws.

What flaws? There are no flaws.

>>51825372
Just alternative mechanics?

>>51825299
4e is a "SRPG", in tabletop form. Like Disgaea or FFT or Tactics I, except those games do it better.
Storygames are collaborative storytelling but *not* RPGs.

In an RPG, the focus is on getting immersed in the world, thinking in character, and playing your character.

Storygames and 4e force either thinking like a script writing committee member, or think of the whole thing as an abstract strategy game.

Both can be fun, but they're not RPGs.

And yes SRPG has RPG in it. So does JRPG, even though its generally just a long ass fantasy movie padded by random battles.

>>51825393
Alternative virtues*

>>51825399

>In an RPG, the focus is on getting immersed in the world, thinking in character, and playing your character.

And yet you've not said anything about how either of the types of games you describe don't fit that definition. Or, y'know, given any argument or justification for that definition beyond pulling it out your ass.

It's possible to be immersed while also considering the narrative as part of the gameplay. It's possible to be playing a character while also engaging in a crunchy, satisfying combat system.

4e is an RPG. Storygames are RPGs. Attempting to act as if they aren't is just wilful ignorance on your part.

>>51825449
I guess I'm just a purist in my opinions then.

As for the explanation, I thought I made it clear, but I'll try again.

In storygames your goal is the overall story and "what would make for a cool story". In an RPG its "what would my character do, with his skills and the information he has available."

In 4e instead of "what would my character do with his skills and the information he has available", it's "what's mechanically effective in this abstract skirmish strategy game." And you have to consider things like "no I can't use that power again until I sit down for 5 minutes. Even if it is just throwing g dirt in someones eyes, and everyone who saw me do it before is already dead."

>>51825299
You make a valid point actually
>inb4 making a big deal of me saying you're right in an Internet argument

>>51811231
I still have no idea why they changed it from AW. Playing DW then AW was great, I never really liked DW that much but it was ok and I couldn't quite describe why, then playing AW I realized what a botched hack it is.

>>51825535
>In an RPG its "what would my character do, with his skills and the information he has available."

This is how both 4e and AW plays, in my experience.

You either haven't played them or have done so while willfully ignoring how they work.

>"no I can't use that power again until I sit down for 5 minutes. Even if it is just throwing g dirt in someones eyes, and everyone who saw me do it before is already dead."

The character in question doesn't know he has powers. He could try throwing dirt again, it'd just not be as effective (because if it's the power I'm thinking about, he could not follow it up with a stab in the same move).

But I can already see that the goalposts are going to be shifting all over the place tonight, so if you excuse me, I'll be off now.

>>51825535

>In storygames your goal is the overall story and "what would make for a cool story". In an RPG its "what would my character do, with his skills and the information he has available."

What stops you doing both? What's ever stopped you doing both? If you're playing an adventurer, someone who isn't just going to go home and sit on enough wealth to live forever in luxury after one dungeon run, but instead is going out to risk life and limb for even more, you're already making decisions and shaping your choices towards what will make a cool story, rather than adhering to some idea of perfect simulation or authenticity. It has never not been an aspect of RPGs, storygames and their ilk just choose to focus on it more.

>In 4e instead of "what would my character do with his skills and the information he has available", it's "what's mechanically effective in this abstract skirmish strategy game." And you have to consider things like "no I can't use that power again until I sit down for 5 minutes. Even if it is just throwing g dirt in someones eyes, and everyone who saw me do it before is already dead."

This makes even less sense. It isn't an abstract skirmish strategy game. Those mechanics on your sheet? They are a representation of your characters skills and the information they have available.

The key part there? They're a representation. A power that lets you throw dirt in someones face isn't a literal case of you physically only being able to do so once. Using the power represents your character seeing an opportunity. The right moment against the right opponent to use that capability effectively.

And you know what? Nothing stops you doing it more, with the improvised action rules. Powers give you a reliable, mechanically sound option that represents some aspect of what your character can do. Nothing stops you improvising, trying to use your powers in different ways or coming up with cool ideas.

>>51825715
>What stops you from doing both
Nothing. In an RPG the focus is on being character, in a Storygame the focus is on the story.

On the extreme end, you determine the course of events entirely by out of character scene editing mechanics, rather than by your characters innate abilities.

As for 4e? My point is that it's sufficiently abstracted that you don't get the sense that you're making the decisions the same way the character would. Your information and the characters information are completely different, and you can't choose to just ignore the information your character wouldn't have, because then you've got nothing. You don't have the information your character does, you have different information.

>>51825399
How do you determine those goals? How are you deciding that these games don't result in people roleplaying? Because the results as far as I've experienced and heard are that people roleplay in these games, they play their character, come up with backstories, strengths, weaknesses etc. If you instead determine how rpg-y they are by looking at the mechanics, OD&D is not an RPG. RPGs were made noticing that wargame players if only in charge of one character will make up shit outside the rules, be it personalities, relationships with other characters, backstories, etc. They roleplayed, but there was nothing even encouraging them to do so - some still don't, like murderhobos, but it's not overly common, definitely not enough to brand an entire game as not being an rpg. Encouraging roleplaying mechanically is fairly new and not necessary for a game to be a roleplaying game, and I'd say 4e players do roleplay, even if it's more focused on what the mechanics do (what would my character do in this combat vs. how would I ask the barmaid out)

In storygames you're concerned with the overall story but that doesn't stop you roleplaying in any way, it just changes how you do so.
Author stance, emphasized in story games:
>I as a player want this narrative to unfold in x way, so I will do y as my character.
Actor stance, the "default":
>I think my character as defined would do this, so I will do that.
Gamist stance or something, naturally emphasized in crunchy games with no reward for roleplaying:
>X is mechanically optimal so I'll do that.

The first and last can be done badly for sure, but a reasonable player will be able to justify why their character is doing what they want them to do, developing or exploring them via the narrative or mechanics. These are also at best emphasized by certain games, and depend more-so on players than systems in my experience. Actor stance seems driven by our desire to roleplay, regardless of the system.

>>51825869

So you ignore most of my former point? Okay then.

>As for 4e? My point is that it's sufficiently abstracted that you don't get the sense that you're making the decisions the same way the character would. Your information and the characters information are completely different, and you can't choose to just ignore the information your character wouldn't have, because then you've got nothing. You don't have the information your character does, you have different information.

But it isn't. It is the same information, it just happens to have multiple layers of meaning. What your character is aware of and personally capable of interacting with is the same situation that you, the player, are aware of. But while they are aware of a physical reality, you are aware of mechanics that represent that physical reality in a way that is actually enjoyable to engage with.

Are the actions you take as a player one to one representations of the actions your character takes? No... But in D&D they never were. An attack roll is always described as an abstraction representing the general flow of combat between engaged parties. The entire concept of initiative and turn order is nonsensical if you try to interpret it in any literal sense.

Not to mention the entire nature of tactical combat itself is abstracted. You, as a player, somehow look down from high and are always aware of the relative positions of everyone else in combat. How the hell is that anything close to what your character would be aware of, caught up in the chaotic mess of a melee?

These abstractions always exist in pretty much every roleplaying game that exists. The difference is that 4e made no attempt to obfuscate them- It was actually honest with its players, telling them what it was and how things worked.

>>51825995

>I'd say 4e players do roleplay, even if it's more focused on what the mechanics do (what would my character do in this combat vs. how would I ask the barmaid out)

As someone who plays 4e (it's far from the only game I play, but it's my favourite version of D&D) I don't really draw the distinction between what the mechanics do and the roleplaying side of the system.

The way combat works in the system is an extension of my character. Granted, this likely only works in low-optimisation games, but those are the ones I prefer. The actions I choose to take are rooted in my characters personality, their beliefs and connections with others. Their powers are tangible expressions of that, extensions of who they are and what they can do that let them sway a conflict in their favour.

I do wish 4e had more out of combat powers and that rituals weren't such a damp squib, but the way the combat works is still an extremely satisfying and tangible way of expressing a character through their actions. The only system I know which does it better is Legends of the Wulin, that beautifully broken masterpiece of a game.

>>51826221
It's not a very clear threshold, I just meant that since the system focuses mostly on combat it will result in players focusing in combat in how they roleplay their character as well. Games are meant to be gamed IMO, like I just started an Apocalypse World campaign with a waterbearer and the reason I chose sex as a feature for my water source was to trigger more sex moves, and while some Weird-reliant moves may be cool and more in-character I'm likely going to take ones I see mechanically working out and that rely on stats I predict being highlighted. When you highlight stats that's meant to make players use those stats more than they otherwise would, mechanics shaping what you do in-character, and kind of dislike the idea that you're supposed to ignore mechanics or overall story when making a decision in character. Not so say munchkins and powergamers are great, but optimization is a natural part of almost every game in existence.

>>51826563

I completely agree. A well designed game will make the mechanical options available to you both in game and in character creation and development logical extensions and representations of what your character would do IC and how they would grow as a person. It's not easy to do, but the best kind of elegant design is when you can ensure they line up in interesting and evocative ways.

>>51804290
>>51806886
>Legend of the Wulin

I tried legend of the wulin but I didn't like how shallow the status effects (called "conditions" in this game) you could apply to your opponents were.
Like, you describe doing some awesome shit and do a ultimate attack, roll really well, opponent rolls shittly, and the result?

Oh the enemy has a minor penalty on some rolls if he doesn't describe suffering from the penalty.
There's no stuns, no knockdowns, no slows, no poison, no blinding, no immobilizing, nothing, it's all just numbers.

Considering the entire combat system revolves around giving and taking ripples which all lead to taking minor and major conditions, having nearly all of the example injuries in the book end with "if you want to ignore this limitation, you suffer an Action Penalty for all actions" is boring.

Like you take a stunning blow to the head on any game, that's crippling. Lose an entire action or just can't attack?
Meanwhile, the worst you'll suffer is a -10 penalty (which is big but not that big in the games numbers) which you can ignore by being properly flowery on your attack description.

>>51829474

The point of Chi Conditions is that they're a narrative clause tied to a mechanical bonus or penalty.

If you want Chi Conditions to be effective? Make the narrative just as bad as the mechanical penalty.

Fluff matters in LotW. How you fluff your attacks can have a lot of influence on them mechanically, and the ability to restrict the enemies fluff with the narrative clause on a Chi Condition can sometimes be even nastier than the mechanical penalty. Plus you get things like Elemental conditions which have more severe or secondary effects.

Between Chi Conditions, Disrupts and Disorients I've done all the things you described the system lacking, and all of them have had tangible mechanical effects on the combat.

But I can understand not liking it. As much as I love the system, it's very much not something for everyone. The combat is a lot more abstract and less granular than you'd expect from a crunchy system, but I fucking love the different dynamic it creates and how much depth there is in every encounter.

>>51802780
This is such a terrible idea I can't even...

>>51808269
>My last session of Dungeon World my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window.

I should thank this pasta
I was fighting a vampire in my last 3.5 game and did just that due to vaguely remembering this pasta.

did you know that vampire spawns don't really have great grapple bonuses? I do now.

>>51825265
late reply but if you think combat is done better in computer games then why the fuck are you in a thread about having meaningful and fun mechanical combat in tabletop rpgs

>>51801671
Fantasycraft is kinda okay. It certainly gives martials (and non-combat machines) more options and reins in spellcasting a little.

My barbarian at any point can
>make a round attack against everything in melee (courtesy of a three feat chain that did, primarily, other stuff)
>grapple (courtesy of a maxed Athletics skill)
>disarm (greatswords are pretty good for it because the rules are dumb)
>punch things really hard (for nonlethal damage, which is at times better than lethal; no feats really necessary to capture people alive or nonlethally subdue)
>fly (two feats, combines great with grapple)
>breath fire (same two)
>wing attack (air-blast kind of thing, make save or be knocked down and blown back 1d4 squares, which is pretty radical, especially against the kobold chaff my GM is fond of)
>challenge an opponent to single combat (3-feat chain, though it was available after the first. Based off Sense Motive, so I had to invest a skill in this)
>Enter rage stance, for muh str and muh con boosting
>Enter 'fuck you' stance for auto-max damage against people who have spent a full turn without moving near me

...just please don't trip me.

System requires a little more bookkeeping than I like though.

>>51801671
fuck fantasy rpgs

go cyberpunk/shadowrun

>>51830261

Shadowrun is fun, but its combat is very unusual. You'll spend hours planning and then the actual fight will last a handful of seconds, and if you've not already won before you start fighting you're probably fucked.

That's my experience of it, at least.

File: 24ba90c1cca63fba86604b69f0128735.png (837KB, 841x943px) Image search: [Google]

837KB, 841x943px

>>51830261
>Wanting good combat
>Going to Shadowrun
Fuck no.
Twilight 2000 for those sweet sweet tank battles