RPG's live or die based on their action-sequence mechanics. Even if the game is not about combat or it rarely comes up. These are situations when the greatest number of rules come into play in the shortest amount of time. Even if there is no intended fighting, you have to be prepared for it just in case. Or it bogs everything down.
1 Like
Ars is hardly not a paradigm of cool combat, though. For the matter neither is D&D.
It doesn't need to be cool. Just functional. And I suppose I get a point. How "cool" it is should be a reflection of how combat focused the game is inteded to be. For Ars Magica, it is set at "Medium". Which is perhaps where it should be. I've managed to make it work. Even in 4th edition.
For D&D, it is an excellent system for managing combat and action. I do not know what that game looks like now, but back in the day it was state of the art.
The best combat system (imho) was Cyberpunk 2020. Their "magic system" (netrunning) was the worst !
As for Ars Magica and Parma Magica, there is a fun bit of strategy planning for how to deal with Penetration and working around it. It is really up to the storyguide and troupe to metagame the intensity of such. If you don't want pink dots, just say No pink dots, but invisible swords are resistible. And let it be at that. Make it a new Greater Limit. The Law of Pink Dots. Remind players just how silly the are if they do this.
Opting for a spell that circumvent MR is exactly what a magi would do. Players doing this may just be playing their characters not exploiting the game. Pink swords unresisted and invisible swords resisted is exactly where ArM feels gamey and not a about "medieval magic". It feels more D&D than D&D, actually. With "cool" I first and most mean a setting where magical combat does not feel like Yatsi.
FYI, Ramius and Vilano, founders of schools that focus in direct non-magical attacks and indirect spells that bypass magic resistance respectively, were active around the 9th-10th century.
At this point, I think we should perhaps agree to disagree.
We clearly want different things from our combat systems.
I'd rather keep debating 
Keep in mund that I have not played that other game in many many years, I am just going by what I remember from my youth. The only two games I have pllayed for many years now are this one (Ars Magica) and Mage the Sorcerers Crusade. In comparison, Ars has the better systems for everything. For MtSC, I have a group of live gamers in my town and they play a mixed old world of darkness game that goes back decades.
So I am all ears for opinions on what RPG system has the best rules for action and combat. I prefer to think in terms of action sequences. It isn't always about fighting. I have been reading other games, and I am intrigued by new ideas and wonder how they would work out in actual play. Feng Sui for example. It does read over the top cinematic, which is what it intends to do. I love it, but I know it is not for everyone. Just as the gritty blood and guts system of Cyberpunk is not for everyone. It is very subjective.
I'd rather keep debating
I know Marko. I know.
I may be alone in this, but I actually rather like the ArM5 combat system.
Damage is dependent on how well you hit. Probability of making a successful attack depends on your ability to move and control your movement. Defense ties back to quickness.
It's not perfect, but it is among the best combat systems out there - assuming you can live with the fairly low level of detail. Interestingly, it also handles damage (multiple wounds of same severity possible, wounds do not add, but penalties do) in about the best way I've seen.
If you want a really detailed combat system, GURPS Martial Arts would like to help you, but it still has a lot of ballast (HP, being GURPS).
I've had positive experienced with the combat systems of Shadowrun (2nd-3rd edition, haven't touched the newer ones) and Legend of the 5 Rings (Interestingly both the 1st and 5th edition ones). And I've recently started playing Battletech (again, some ancient version). It has certain ideas about how to do a combat system that are ... interesting.
Or have you tried Earthdawn? It's a bit HP-y, but it does have a 'Wounds' mechanic that makes it better than eg. That Other Game.
It all depends on what you want your combat system to do.
That said, IIRC the combat system in CP2020 left me frustrated with its feeling of randomness and poorly researched martial styles (if you can't be arsed to do proper research on the various MA styles, why bother including them?). It has nice ideas, elements that I liked, but again, AFAICR, the best parts were actually looted^M^M^M^M^M^M adopted by Ars Magica.
You are not alone! I like it too. It has a unique and realistic system for dealing with injury. It pains me in other games to think of hit-points and health-levels. And it has a scaling level of complexity. I use the options in Lords of Men, but it works fine without them. I may be the one that is alone in liking the Group Combat rules. It is a system I can work with as a player and a GM suiting a variety of tastes and preferences.
I do get into debates about Fast Casting more than I would like though 
No one seems yet to have addressed that "other" defense. Fast casting.
To me fast casting is the classic mages duel method of defense. Fast casting a spell to deflect a boulder hovering above your head is level 5. (base 2, +1 stone, +2 voice). Or 10 if the rock is particularly big. Thats really really easy for most mages to manage and doesn't need to follow the general rule about having to be half the spell levels effect to deflect because you aren't working against a spell. The spell has ceased and you are merely working against gravity. Against something nasty like Ball of Abyssal flame you need to counteract the spell itself. Level 20 and using either spont fast cast or a specifically prepared and mastered formulaic spell. Much harder to stop.
3 Likes
I admit to being a system snob for RPGs. The best background does not forgive a horrible system( 1st Ed Deadlands, I am looking at you).
Best 1:1 sword combat I ever saw was Lace & Steel. I imagine their group combat was just an expansion of the single combat. Most of it was duels as it was a 3 musketeers style game.
Ars has the best magic system ( duh).
I would have to think about combat system. Twilight 2000 was pretty good and not too heavy.
@Marko - I will not wrap my head around the fast cast rules again. It hurt the last time and was not very satisfying.
2 Likes
My favourite for one-on-one combat is The Riddle of Steel. It has fewer different tricks than GURPS MA, but it is about intiative and tactical choices.
And as for Parma Magica, it can work if you want it it - or it can break if that is the choice.
What realy bugs me is trying to balance encounters with supernatural opponents. If one magus has PM5 and the others only 1-2...I don't mind that the specialized magus gets a free pass, but I don't want to cripple the others, nor do I want to leave the PM5 magus without any challenges, ever.
Is ArM abour combat? IMHO no, not per se. I mean, why then spend so much time and space in books on the organization of magi, politics etc?
And why do so many people have a focus on attacking other magi? I often find myself thinking about how poor Penetration my spells have, and then I think "why does this matter, I don't intend to fight magi"? Sure, one might face supernatural creatures, but hopefully their Mights isn't through the roof, and this limits their MR. But magi - paranoid/very well prepared ones may train PM a lot and have Resistance Mastery for PoF and the likely threats.
IMHO ArM5 has the best combat system of all editions. And in itself it is very good, simple but streamlined. If I played a campaign of kung fu masters og 3 musketeers I'd go for GURPS MA, but for all else ArM offers I think it's fine.
I'm working on some expanded combat options, where attacks can utilize other methods like observationanbd precision, acrobatic moves, stealth, branw and mass etc. With options for geints, disarm etc. Where movement and senses work differently. Where psychology plays a part in a round to round basis, if characters are taunted, afraid, confused etc. Where weapon types have different advantages to utilize. It is going to be too complex I'm afraid.
1 Like
Fighting magi with PM is like fighting supernatural entities with high MR. It is much more vital to be able to do that than to fight critters that can be handled by grogs.
GURPS is a congenial system. It's fixation on the d6 is a flaw, though (that can be said about ArM d10 as well but less so given the higher range of the dice).
Also, RPG martial art rules are made by people who don't know anything about martials arts or overrate its value.
Actually, grogs can be pretty useful when fighting something with high MR.
As the lead-pushers say: "Dakka da choppas and chappa da dakkas".
... and the main fixes for the ArM use of the d10, use groups of d6s, to generate a bellcurve.
What would you prefer? The d20?
I would generally agree that ArM needs a functional combat system, not an in-depth and engaging combat system. I kind of appreciate that a fight in Ars Magica is bloody, dangerous, and pretty quick. Though when two heavily armored units fight, it does kind of turn into 'see who botches first'.
This went from PM to Combat but ok. Botching is another problem I have in ArM. One would think that experience would make you botch less but that is not the case. I think someone suggested that one should be allowed to take a "5" instead of rolling. That would make a higher skill work better in a contest.
I think a discussion of the combat system should merit a thread of it's own.
But if experience should reduce Boitch chance, why not allow -1 Botch die per full 3 or 5 of Ability score?
Yes, but this is not a beautiful solution.
We had a one of those magi with a focus on «injury through moving objects». He lasted 2½ sessions. Then he botched, the finesse roll I think, and was killed by his own moving object.
This is a significant illustration. If you put your efforts into (say) Pilum of Fire, you can avoid botching through spell mastery. I have not seen such way around the Finesse botches.
The current balance between finesse and penetration is fair and balanced. You can choose either concept, and have fun with it, and whichever you choose experience your shortcomings from time time. A magic system which cannot create silliness, probably isn't advanced enough to be fun for the whole saga, and generally it is the narration which decides how silly it is.
I am not arguing that the system is perfect, just that it works.
There are two obvious issues. The pink dot loophole has been mentioned. You needn't do more than agree in the troupe tIhat it is too silly for us, and don't use it. The other was more subtly addressed, as the confrontation between Flambeau and Trianoma. While Trianoma may not have been that bold in reality, it is not easy to narrate the story of the founding consistently using the current MR rules. How much power did PM have in the «join or die» strategy? It does not matter much to a typical saga, but it matters to theorists and deep thinkers like myself.
I buy it though, since it is a huge improvement over 4ed, where PM was too weak to matter (penetration was calculated without subtracting the level), and PM did not protect against the effects of the Gift. These two changes makes the story of the founding significantly more narratable than it used to be.
1 Like