What's an rpg that focuses much more on positioning and equipment over character stats?
So much so that good situational control is the primary aspect of combat rather than character builds. Having flanking positions, a longer weapon at distance, closer at short, the high ground, having light against low light creatures, heavy armor in a close fight, etc.
Not that stats need to be unimportant, but they are more secondary to the situation itself.
so that these sort of situational things are the main focus of gaining advantage, and what you are good and bad at effecting things more slightly.
I mean this with no hate: you might just want to go play video games if this is what you want.
?
why? there are also video games with more or less focus on stat progression. I dont think its a particularly video-game/table top dividing topic.
you're looking for something that requires an immense amount of variables and checks. if you have the patience, do wargames; if you don't, do video games, where all that stuff is calculated for you at supersonic speeds by semiconductor slaves.
>supersonic
that's one way of referring to the speed of light
AD&D
It has weapon lengths, flanking, magic items that make stats redundant. Being made by wargamers, it assumes you use shield walls etc. by default. It's great because it switch between hack-and-slash and rank-and-flank on the fly.
>if you have the patience, do wargames
Why do you think can't RPGs be more detailed than wargames? Isn't that the entire point? The only limit is detail and because of the human dungeon master it's so much easier to implement anything than in a game where the roles are strictly balanced and oppositional or where everything has to be programmed in detail. A wargame or video game can't just say "you can't swing a large club in a small hallway" but an RPG can, as easily as that. Ironically it's always guys like you who want RPGs to not be "gamey" and insist there's infinite potential but then lock them into a very rigid box anyway.
seems to me that you just have to change how heavily weighted the bonuses are for personal stuff and more external stuff.
For D&D for instance, someone with a base +4 to attack and then a +2 for being on high ground would instead have a based +2 to attack and +4 for highground.
And just continue to apply that design principle more broadly. Maybe have some kind of ruling that prevents too much external stuff from being stacked. Like you take the most signifigant situational buff/debuff, then simply add/subtract 1 for each additional relevant factor. Or some other mitigating principle.
That's an interesting response, as the systems that exist that provide this level of crunch and tactical options people avoid because they're too lazy to do mental math. It's not complex - addition and subtraction, and at most it's one or two digit numbers.
Played with plenty of folks, most of them in their early 20s, who were incapable of doing these mental additions, despite being programmers and comp sci majors. They all had to use their phone calculators to add do this shit.
Hell, the VTT will do it for you if you have the most basic understanding of how to write a simple macro.
tl;dr Lazy and stupid people
>Person is too stupid to do basic math on the fly
>Person can do basic math, but it's simple arithmetic you learn in early grade school, so it feels like baby shit b***h work that only exists to slow thw game down
Pick one. Number bloat only makes the matter worse in both cases, too.
It's too hard to add a +2 or +4, or subtract those numbers due to the combat situation? You'd be surprised at how few people are actually capable of doing it.
Such "people" should be excluded from considerations for designing games. It's bad enough they're wasting oxygen.
You're better off looking for a war game. Positioning is typically of relatively low importance in RPGs due to player characters basically always being outnumbered. If a system has positioning and equipment be the primary deciding factors in a fight over the stats of the characters you end up in a situation where the force multiplier of the number of dudes your fighting is even more dangerous as they literally have more people for putting you in a compromising position.
yah, I was thinking wargaming was probably a good start for this sort of play. I do think ive heard more wargame leaning rpgs and more rpg leaning wargames though. Like Frostfall.
Though I do think many OSR stuff has had a decent focus on henchmen and boosting your own retinue. Though I was woundering if there was something more modern and less obtuse. For example, there was an old Man-to-man combat table I always found neat for chainmail that literally describes things like engagement timing for certain weapons.
I guess on the sliding scale of things between wargaming and rpg, im looking for something thats still mostly single character focused, but has more focus on situational match ups. you dont need your rogue to through the bomb, anyone can do it with roughly the same effect, it just nedds to be done.
>Positioning is typically of relatively low importance in RPGs due to player characters basically always being outnumbered
? this makes positioning even more important. OP literally just wants to play osr
im
and just read
. yeah, i literally type od&d with chainmail rather than osr but didnt feel the need to be specific. it's not obtuse, trust me. what does "modern" mean, exactly? floundering story shit? cmon. od&d is the perfect foundation to build your own rules with.
I don't understand this argument. ok now I'm looking for a war game where each player only controls one character except for one guy who controls a bunch of npcs for players to fight. also you keep using the same character for multiple battles and in between games you can upgrade your guy with stronger skills and items. how is this not literally just describing how rpgs were invented?
Unironically Mordheim. Or 28mm Inquisitor. Or Frostgrave/Forbidden Psalm/Wyrd Wars/5 Leagues from the Borderlands/Rangers of Shadow Deep. Tabletop wargame campaigns are better for that kind of experience. There's also stuff like Kingdom Death Monster and Gloomhaven, but those are boardgames and don't have as much customization as far as the setting goes.
The Fantasy Trip. It was designed as a man-to-man combat system first and RPG elements were added on top of it. Plays on a hex grid.
Unironically try DND 4th ed.
4E has positioning and equipment matter but character build is all-important.
One thing I always thought was a bit lame in rpgs is that the dex stat or equivelent sometimes just makes you harder to hit instead of actually more nimble feeling. Having to move and find cover as a flighty type seems a lot more mechanically satisfying then just being able to save from damage because you have a high stat.
Always thought it would be cool if nimbleness's bonus to avoid damage was done proactively in a reaction roll. so that its an active process for those types rather than something that just feels "absorbed" in the math. Also balances things out more with heavier types because they might use their reaction or equivelent to do something offensive.
Just mere positioning is often too easy to gain a numerical advantage. There are also misconceptions involved, e.g. high ground is not necessarily advantageous in man-to-man combat.
And my personal experience with GMs that place high importance on positioning, moving in the wrong tile leads to you getting dogpiled and likely dying. Which slows down combat and leads to me silently cursing the idiot tank player for not moving into the right position.
Dependent on GM and players. Systems exist where positioning such as flanking is important, but they are often run as superhero simulators where the players can brute-force most encounters due to having bigger number.
The group I have for PF1e used to be minmaxing power gamers, but as I introduced combats with environmental concerns and dangerous situations that required using appropriate terrain features to protect themselves (such as taking cover, using chokepoints, setting up ambushes), they shifted focus on the tactical aspects of the game.
Unfortunately, the folks in this thread are right though - for most folks it's going to be playing a wargame.
>idiot tank player
It's not an MMO, is your GM using an aggression system to determine who foes attack?
>It's not an MMO, is your GM using an aggression system to determine who foes attack?
No, the GM actually rolls a die most of the time to determine which threatened square gets attacked or attacks the one in front if everyone is standing in a line. The heavy armor and shield PC, or "tank" in short, often goes into a square that is only threatened by one enemy, either out of laziness of cowardice.
That's really unfortunate. GMs should consider how the creature they're currently utilizing in combat would attack. Mindless or animal-intelligence creatures, those that function off of instinct, such as vermin and the like, should attack those who strike the hardest / do the most damage, or whoever is tastiest, then attempt to flee once they've suffered enough injury, or even any at all.
Intelligent creatures, if they have a leader or tactician present, would probably avoid the heavily armored 'tank' and try to flank or infiltrate the ranks. Not always - you don't want the guy who thinks it's an MMO to get pissy because enemies are avoiding him, but he definitely should not be the focus if his party is filled with squishies and his opponents have two brain cells to rub together.
Always having them attack whoever is in the front gets boring, predictable, and non-sensical.
>you don't want the guy who thinks it's an MMO to get pissy because enemies are avoiding him, but he definitely should not be the focus if his party is filled with squishies and his opponents have two brain cells to rub together.
I just use situations like that to get players to roleplay more and have fun with the game.
>why isn't anything attacking me!?!?
>why would they? Your a 6 foot 7 tall slab of walking muscle wielding a glowing 2handed ax. Have you tried not letting them have the time to think about who they want to attack?
That's a real conversation I had with a irl friend. He was upset his battle mad barbarian wasn't in the thick of the fighting all the time when he and the rest of the party mostly let npcs dictate the combat. After that he began actually playing his character like a battle crazed barbarian and had immense fun. Him jumping into the role play got the others into it as well, the guy playing the cautious priest had to tard wrangle the barbarian. The stoic *not aragorn* ranger got to do ranger stuff more because of the moronic antics. Best of all, I got to throw out my boring prescripted stuff and adlib constantly.
It's great when players respond with roleplaying and adjusting to the situation, especially considering it makes sense. Consider yourself lucky that you have a player who didn't throw a shitfit because of this and instead made an effort.
Also GMs should try to do more non direct combat stuff.
I once ran a large goblin encounter with a goblin king at the head. The goblins kept rushing in and out of combat at the players. Not doing much but being annoying. When they tried to end the encounter prematurely by focusing the goblin king I just had him use his reaction to grab a nearby goblin and toss him into the players while he screamed and ran away. Everyone had fun.
Bro the deciding difference between wargames and ttrpgs is that the character and their specific details matter in ttrpgs. I think you might want to make a custom army of Your Little Guys in a wargame with lore that appeals to you. You'll enjoy it.
>Bro the deciding difference between wargames and ttrpgs is that the character and their specific details matter in ttrpgs.
I really dont think so. A heavy infantry in combat with a light infantry in a wargame usually has that being a very major deal in wargames. often much more so than ttrpg. Often in ttrpg's characters have much more alternate ways to compensate for not being particularly suited for a specific engagement type. So that in effect, details are much less important.
GURPS
GURPS has all of this. Positioning, equipment, using the environment to your advantage and good player strategy can mean a lot more than having big numbers in your attack skill. Especially if you start using rules from the Martial Arts supplement.
Came here to post this. Fending off a skilled swordsman at a distance with a dueling halberd while your friend tries to attack him in the rear is usually a better strategy than bigger numbers. Armor and the active defense system are a big deal too as you don't have much HP or tolerance for big wounds in the first place.
have to check out more in depth on GURPS I guess
GURPS is hot garbage pushed by elitist c**ts
It's still better than D&D at actually allowing a player to come up with strategies other than "are you high enough level for this encounter?" D&D will always be turbogay for that shit, it's way too videogamey.
>GURPS is shit
>WELL D&D THE LITERAL WORST TTRPG IS EVEN WORSE
I don't debate this. Doesn't stop GURPS from being overly complicated trash.
Yeah GURPS can confirm. When you're fighting a Polygon-swordsmith with a goliath cannon-axe in the 5th dimensional gravitational wave you have to roll several times to determine o2 levels and subtract that by your combat defense modifier (divided by attack + birth star) and then factor that in to the HP pool which is a combination of all your stats divided by the amount of hours you spent wasting your time with such a fricking stupid system
¿Que?
miniature wargames, which really begs the question. When does a wargame become an RPG and if I play a wargame but the minis are persistent between games and I RP the time between battles is it an RPG?
I think the difference is in rpgs there is often more focus on out of combat systems. Skill checks, social spells/abilities etc There is also a focus on experience points or levelling so there is a feeling of your character advancing and becoming more skilled. Wargames also typically have players controlling a single character while the GM controls the world and opponents. You could play some wargames like a ttrpg, the best example would be something like Inquisitor but it will feel off. I find wargames are usually very lethal as well so you either don’t get attached to characters or have a rule where they aren’t killed when taken out of the game.
Rune, Princess wing, Icon, Strike!
Have fun
>What's an rpg that focuses much more on positioning and equipment over character stats
Any wargame. Try playing a wargame. And you still want to have RPG elements, start with smth like Warhammer fantasy 2e, or Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader.
Give me an rpg that's also good as a wargame, or just generally has robust combat.
I've heard of battletech's rpg.
Is twilight 2000 any good? What about pulp cthulhu? Wrath and glory?
I don't know if it's a good wargame, but part of the selling point of Savage Worlds was/is that it's also a wargame. It's a fairly well-designed system in its own right with engaging combat mechanics. Good for pulp.
>Flanking
>Weapon reach
>Lighting
>Higher ground (this one is super optional though)
GURPS combat has rules for all that, and if you play with realistic characters it doesn't really have character builds.
My homebrew
Football
You want to play fooball anon
Wasn't this the exact idea for the original Chainmail and then OD&D? A wargame but with fantasy figures.
Play D&D 4e.
look into wargaming and wargame adjacent RPGs. OSR games are a good place to start looking, but not OSR communities, they are filled with purist midwits.
Rune, Reap, Maleghast, VyrmHack
the first 2 are solos
enjoy and have fun