Recently there's been a thread on the RPGnet forums discussing whether (and to what degree) combat should be treated like any other task. I found the responses fascinating, informative, and occasionally inspiring, so I used it as the basis for this month's column.

There are three basic ways to approach RPG combat: conflict resolution, simple/abstracted task resolution, and complex/detailed task resolution. Each has its own uses. It is possible, however, to do any of these poorly: you could have a terribly complex task-resolution combat system that yields little realism and provides little in the way of tactical option (Rolemaster comes to mind here, as do some versions of xD&D).

Conflict Resolution

Conflict resolution typically treats combat as just another type of conflict, mechanically the same as (or very similar to) a staredown, argument, seduction, car chase, or negotiation. Examples of this include Ron Edwards's excellent Trollbabe, my 24-Hour RPG “Charon,” using the DIP-Styx system, and a host of other Narrativist RPGs.

Conflict resolution has the advantage of mechanical unity. It doesn't require the players to learn a separate “combat system,” which can be helpful for new gamers or those who entered the hobby through system-less online chat roleplaying. Lacking a big “combat” system also helps avoid giving the impression that the game is about nothing but fighting. Using the same conflict resolution system as the rest of the system uses also keeps much of the same “feel” of the rest of the game, so that the players don't feel like they're not playing the same RPG as they were before the fight started. Conflict resolution also seems to help players get into a narrative mindset. By resolving the overall scope of the conflict (or a part of the conflict) rather than having the mechanics play out blow-by-blow, gives the players a lot more leeway to narrate what's happening.

The downside to conflict resolution is that it rarely has much room for tactical play (though Anwar came up with a system that may allow both), and the level of abstraction may be too high for detail-oriented players.

Combat as conflict resolution would be fairly easy in my Tarafore System. Just use the “Special Opposed Tests (Lingering Effects)” system (why did I pick such an awkward name? Wouldn't “Conflict Resolution” have been better?) detailed in my third column, “This Is a Test. This Is Only a Test...”. Add any bonuses from weapons and armor (use their normal “Stun” and “Toughness” bonuses, respectively) and situations. A character who is just trying to escape unharmed can use Athletics(Dodge) to resist melee or ranged attacks. Otherwise, it's a contest between the respective combat skills of the two combatants. Add in a couple of rules for closing distance (from ranged to melee or from melee to grappling), and you're there.

Simple or Abstracted Task Resolution

Simple/Abstracted task resolution has the advantage of giving more information and allowing a finer degree of control over the mechanical actions of the character. It can facilitate some level of tactical thinking, but typically not much, due to its abstractness and/or simplicity (this is a bug in some groups and a feature in others. As always, your mileage may vary). One of the advantages of basic task resolution is its simplicity and familiarity – this is how most roleplaying games do it, and done right, a system like this can be pretty easy to learn.

Basic task resolution also recognizes combat's importance – its life or death stakes for the characters involved – by providing a higher degree of detail and rules-attention than would be given to, for example, a negotiation or sneak/hide attempt.

Simple or abstracted Task resolution is the way the Tarafore System presently handles combat. (See issue four.) It's more complicated than Conflict Resolution, and gives a much higher level of detail, but it's not set up for a great deal of tactical play. How well the player knows the game mechanics really doesn't have a lot of impact on how well a character does in combat. I've tried to keep things as close to reality as I could (given that we're playing a roleplaying game and not doing a high-tech computerized medical simulation), so that a certain degree of real world tactical expertise does pay off in-game. In practice, it's largely been basic stuff like “take cover or you'll get shot,” “if he's wearing a Kevlar vest, either shoot him in the head or shoot him with something the vest won't stop,” “sneak attack with overwhelming force, and hopefully we can take them out before they get a chance to hurt us much,” or “a ten foot tall what? Okay, shoot it in the head – there's no way a flintlock will hurt that thing's torso.”

Detailed or Tactical Task Resolution

Detailed task resolution is the method most preferred by tactical gamers. It has the advantage of giving a great deal of detail and many tactical options. True to roleplaying's wargame roots, player skill can greatly affect the outcome of a combat, allowing an inferior-on-paper character to defeat overwhelming odds. The Hero System, GURPS, and recent incarnations of D&D use this method for resolving combat.

There are a few potential downsides to detailed task resolution. It can be daunting to new players who have many pages of combat rules to learn on top of the setting material. If characters' stats interact, or powers “stack,” the GM can have great difficulty judging exactly how dangerous a given NPC or group of NPCs will be (cough, cough, D&D 3.5, cough, cough). The combat rules can dominate the rulebook and set a “combat heavy” lean for all games played in that system. You can get an “arms race” if future supplements or splatbooks include new, more powerful abilities, classes, and options. And last but not least, these systems often run slowly, meaning one battle can take an entire session to run (as opposed to a few minutes with a simpler task resolution system or a very few minutes with a conflict resolution system).

A tactics-friendly version of the Tarafore System would be fairly easy to do. I've already written a set of miniatures and hex-maps rules (Tarafore.net). A few more tactical options during combat would be needed, as would a greater degree of detail in some of the rules that exist.

For example, instead of simply giving a +3 bonus to hit and defend in melee to a character who has a significantly longer weapon than his opponent (a bonus that gets reversed if they're brought into grappling range), each weapon has a Reach bonus of +0 to +6, which would be added to the wielder's to-hit and defense rolls (and which would be subtracted from those rolls once they're within grappling range). I'd also include a rule about butt strikes, which have a Reach of +0, but do significantly less damage. Additional tactical options would include things like:

“Modes” of fighting

Berserk Attack: -3 to all Defenses this round, +3 to hit. (The following apply a -3 to-hit penalty)

Rushed Attack: +3 to Initiative (cannot “retcon,” so you have to call it before your initiative comes up)

Defensive Posture: +3 to Defense for this turn

Multiple Attacks: Gain a second attack 10 Initiative after the first one

Called Shot: Pick Head (Exceptional Hit), Heart (Exceptional Hit), Arm or Leg (Basic Hits) Disarm: opponent drops his weapon, but is unharmed. Melee only, except in “cinematic” genres.

Conclusions

Any style of combat system can be great, as long as it is built with intentionality and attention to the actual interplay and outcomes of the mechanics. My current gaming group is very happy with simple task resolution, and has historically been very resistant to even trying anything else. Different groups, however, will have different tastes. I've had fun experimenting with different types of games and mechanics, and I've found that the important things are: know what you're aiming for, and know what your players like.