I've frequently heard the Basic Role-play system and Dark Heresy described as deadly from a combat perspective. I think those are both percentile systems. Is that typical of percentile systems or is there something statistically more dangerous?
[RPG] Is there one type of combat system considered to be more deadly than other alternatives
basic-role-playingcombatdark-heresy-1ewarhammer-40k
Related Solutions
Differences in the way they play
Dark Heresy is probably the most similar to a traditional game in this regard. Because there is no default status quo, you can pretty much go in any direction imaginable without significant hand waving.
Rogue Trader does tend to lend itself to games that have some space combat/travel/exploration component in order to allow all players to contribute (not quite as bad as deckers in Shadowrun, but a similar problem).
Deathwatch really and truly seems designed for episodic play (though you could easily work in overarching plots). A lot of the rules necessary for longer play (insanity and corruption in particular) are very weak and not well developed and the mission-based structure essentially gives you the format for each episode.
Any reason to recommend one over another
I think each game really does bring something unique to the role playing experience. To some degree, these answers are quite subjective and could be modeled in other games, but the rich backdrop of the 40K universe really helps drive these elements home.
- Dark Heresy - Really encourages the exploration of the mythos and gives a GM a lot of opportunity to develop deep, intricate (perhaps even obtuse) plots with encounters that seem truly lethal and require cunning and skill to get through.
[rich skills, winding plots, lower power level increases lethality] - Rogue Trader - Out of the systems, this is the most interesting in a lot of ways in that it delivers on the promise of roleplaying in a Star Trek style without that silly Prime Directive. Players are fairly powerful and masters of their own fate, each highly specialized with something to do. Combined with the geeky attraction of designing your ship, I think this game has quite a bit to offer.
[Star Trek-style exploration, deep character specialization, ship design!] - Deathwatch - For many, this game will be the winner simply because it's Space Marines. While it does lend itself to combat-intensive sessions, FFG has done a good job of trying to give the marines some actual personality (although this personality is often hidden and only revealed in the solace of their own rooms). However, the mission structure has a similar appeal to the job layout of Shadowrun games and can really help get players moving. And of course I would be remiss if I didn't mention the very detailed combat mechanics and options which do allow for some fairly cinematic gameplay.
[roleplaying hints for players, clear session objectives, interesting combat]
Any with a more enthusiastic following than another
I think it's safe to say that Dark Heresy has a larger following, but this is a factor of age. Otherwise, I think the vibrancy of all three games is pretty light outside of Fantasy Flight Games' own forums (though I did notice that the Deathwatch forum nearly has as many posts as the Rogue Trader forum at this point even with the year head start the game had, so it may be that Deathwatch will end up being the more popular game).
You've made two key changes:
- Allowing multiple combat half-actions per round
- allowing movement to be replaced by a non-movement half-action
The primary factors I see are:
- increase in Psyker offensive capability (Most of their offense is more powerful than their allowed weapons; it gets worse under RT or DW, due to a different psychic system)
- decreased access to defenses¹
- decreased emphasis on movement²
- increased emphasis on non-action defense (IE, cover)³
- breaks the equipment bonuses
- decreases incentives to use burst and full-auto autofire modes
- cybernetics and talents with extra half-actions become devalued⁴
- initiative becomes more important⁵
- Ganging up becomes less essential⁶
¹: Since one gets very few defenses per turn, this change of yours makes them less valuable, by allowing them to be overwhelmed faster.
²: The current system makes movement a valuable and essentially irreplaceable part of the round; take it or not, it's lost if unused or unusable. It's not terribly realistic, but is very cinematic. And DH, RT, and DW are all intended to be very cinematic in tone.
³: At present, especially for melee, active defenses (dodge and parry) are quite valuable; cover is less so, but not enough to render it useless. When one allows replaceing movement with a second attack, cover suddenly becomes MUCH more attractive, as it's an assured penalty to be hit, instead of a roll by the defender... but it also reduces drama.
⁴: At present, the only way to get a second attack is expensive talents and/or cyberware with inexpensive talents. If a character can just hole up in cover and double shoot, these talents are far less valuable, making the Assassin and Guardsman's additional combat actions less useful.
⁵: Further, by allowing the etra attacks, you can run a target out of actions sooner, as well, so initiative becomes more important to prevent having actions drained in defenses.
⁶: Ganging up is the great equalizer in RT and DH combats; it's how one overwhelms defenses. Given that every character can defend once for free, and once by aborting, if you can attack twice, you've just eaten both defenses this round, meaning you only need one attack from a buddy to get through. The norm is that you need two buddies to negate the defenses, or one buddy with a multiple attack talent.
It sounds like you made these changes with rank 1-2 characters... it's going to be more profoundly off-norm or higher rank characters, as normal slow growth of actions is made to feel even slower by providing far less of a bonus over not having them.
Best Answer
BRP is "deadly" mostly because the damage capacity is relatively low (Size+Con)/2, averaging 11 points, and damages are a significant portion of that. Weapons range from 1d4 (dagger) through 2d8 (Greatsword) damage, before accounting for damage by location limits and impaling... and head hits can only take 1/3 the total. Quite simply put, a single hit in the head with any weapon has the potential to kill the average character. Even the toughest humans only have 6 HP in the head. All damage to locations is also marked against total hit points. And a Critical hit bypasses any worn armor, and does maximum damage. If head or chest are depleted, dead. If total hit points are depleted, death also occurs. Also, even the best of normal armors (8 point full plate) is within reach of being penetrated by a broadsword's 1d8+1+DB - a strong man can do up to an additional d6, making his d4+1 dagger into d4+d6+1 - 6/24 =25% chance of getting past armor (Str+Siz>32 - 16 each is big and strong), and a slightly above average guy (13 each) gets a d4 Damage bonus for a 1/16 (=6.25%) chance of getting in. A serious fighter can be lethal to even armored knights.
Dark Heresy is far less deadly. Wounds starts between 8 and 15, most weapons do 1d10 to 1d10+5, tho' some exceed 3d10, and running out of Wounds points doesn't kill. (In fact, one has to go at least -7 to stand a chance of death.) Further, the first 2-5 points of each hit won't count, as the individual's Toughness Bonus plus armor value will be subtracted. There are no location hit points, only the general pool; the location hit determines the effects of being negative and which armor applies. Most characters can survive even a full burst from most weapons.
Looking at Rogue Trader (since it's to hand), autofire is a +20, and each 10 points made by is an extra hit (to the limit of rounds in the burst) - so, joe average is 60%, Mr. Marine is probably around 75%, and the wounds and armor are as per Dark Heresy - 8 point power armor and a typical RT character's 45 T would soak 12 points per hit, and the fairly typical mesh of 4 means they soak 8 points per hit; an autogun doing 1d10+3 per hit, and hitting up to 5 times (tho, typically, only getting 2-3 hits) is still doing only 8 points average per hit... half the hits do nothing versus even moderate (and mesh is moderate) armor. Without righteous fury, Toughness 50-60 marines in 8 point power armor are walking tanks - and ignore anything. Righteous fury is required in order to take them down. At least, until the armor ablates away. Note that any weapon that does more than the Armor Value, even if the rest is soaked by Toughness bonus, reduces armor by one in the location hit, and so eventually, Mr. Marine has no armor left. It never rises to the D&D level, but it can get pretty epic, especially in Deathwatch. Autofire isn't deadly to well armored characters, but it sure can remove that armor quickly, resulting in significant injury.
Lethality is more a function of damage mechanics and the ratio of damage capacity to damage done than skill mechanics.
pre-4E D&D, when played at low levels (1-2), is as deadly as BRP. Weapon damages up to 2d10, Hit points of 1-14 at 1st level, and as many again each level thereafter... with only 4-8 per level being typical. (Far less for wizards.) And, as written, death when below zero. Armor makes it harder to be hit, but any hit still does full damage.
At high levels, that means hit point totals up to 150 HP... but damages don't go up.
Moreover, armor is usually better at higher levels, so fewer hits are obtained.
So, at low levels, D&D is deadly; poor armor means getting hit more, and every hit matters. At high levels, it's not deadly; good armor means fewer hits, and the hits are a far lower percentage of the total, so characters can become damage sponges. And in between, it gets less deadly with every level.