Combat as Failstate

01 Jul, 2026

Violence sucks, kids.

COMBAT AS PILLAR

This post won't dare to go in depth on the conditions that birthed TTRPGs, or even its premises of the so called "Pillars of Play", because those concepts won't be challenged here at all.

Besides some drastic measure such as Wanderhome RPG, where engaging in combat retires your character entirely, the usual dungeon crawling, mystery solving, world exploring, dice rolling roleplaying game considers Combat a Pillar; which is to say, in some way, shape, form or volume, it is an expectation.

In some moment, be it for Sport, War, Art, or Balls, combat is a part of the game that the rules prepare you for.

Even the inherent societal violence of that fantasy land, or that naturalistic diminute mouse world, or even that hypercapitalistic space ship premeditates combat; this game has guns, or clubs, or a Kick some Ass story move that kick asses [yours and/or theirs]. It lists enemies, monsters, beasts and Things to kick the aforementioned ass of.

And even beyond: that expectation of violence inside the game world and rules also presumes an expectation of violence outside of the game.

It's not called a Pillar for nothing.

COMBAT AS DESIRED

In my current Daggerheart campaign, combat is the best part.

Once, the Players defused a combat with a demigod by rolling a spectacular roll. The result was deflated surprise. We didn't know it at that moment, but just look at all these abilities that do things that hurt, and this big bad in this map the GM suddenly had ready.

Combat was not optional. Choices and rolls should've changed it, but not removed it. It was wanted.

You sit down to play, and the rules tell you how to hit and and get hit. Damn be eliding or abstracting; if it's there, let me build my character to hit well, and get hurt less.

"Well," Jimmy says, "the best way to not get hurt must be to run away every time or hide all the time. That has to be a better line."

Curse you Jimmy, didn't you read above?! It's a Pillar! Someone is getting stabbed eventually,-

WE HAVE TO COMBAT!

Combat is heroic! Combat is thrilling! Combat is a central part of a lot of stories!

It is one of three parts of what makes a game, after all. You talk, you explore, you kill.

But who the hell goes out looking for fights?

COMBAT AS DANGER

Whenever I read over a system, a single point that always highlights its potential is:

Your character can be absolutely incompetent in combat.

That immediately shows two things:

1. Some sense of variety, because why yes, some people do suck at physical activities in general; but most importantly
2. That combat is not going to be expected from everyone.

After all, that game wouldn't have entire sessions without the participation of that Player, right?

"But," reminds Timmy, "there was that session of full exploration, and my fighter also didn't have anything to kill or combat."

Not quite, Timmy. A combatant can use any item, and try any skill check anyway. At worst, a combatant can just stand there, if they feel their only contribution in any given situation is bonking. What separates Timmy from helping is lack of system support at best and creativity at worst.

On the other hand, a character that sucks at combat risks getting erased completely for that. More often than not, they won't have an item or skill check to try and combat even against odds. They must pray for a secondary objective, a mission to complete, a door to open, a terminal to access, and they must pray for protection. Similarly, the system could limit this character to be any useful; but creativity can lead to death all the same.

A combatant risks boredom, a non combatant risks death.

That is because in normal circunstances, everyone in combat risks death. The combat oriented character is simply better prepared to deal with it. By expecting the Pillar to come into Play, Timmy made a character that was more useful for that Pillar. That also means that character now also have, in a game with expected combats, a better shot at living through the game and the dangers. So Timmy gets rewarded with permanence for his choices. Consequently, that means Timmy now kind of wants to fight, otherwise why did he bother? The machine has self fed. He would even be happy if he got stabbed once or twice, since his character is better equipped for it.

What if every character of a party actually sucked at combat? Not because of any incompetence of build or lower HP, but because of a inherent fragility.

OSR games returns to this format plenty. Characters can drop like flies. But even then, this fragility is usually a matter of circunstance, not self: the self remains ready, sword and shield and helm at hand, traps laids. It's the overwhelming circunstance that gives them unfavored chances. None of them are much scared of getting a stab or two to get through this alive, because most of them still can take a stab or two and walk out of here.

But, the truth is-

GETTING STABBED SUCKS, ACTUALLY

People die from one (1) unit of stabbing. You rip organs, tore muscles and tendons.

That is not usually well translated in TTRPGs.

Wounds just close, organs glue together, HP as representation of evading keep a character perfectly quick and strong for the next dodge and block as long as you take a minute.

Mechanically, healing is almost always effortless. At worst, it requires peace. Even Mythic Bastionland establishes healing on any full day of hospitality. Combat as entropy to hell, all you need is a good night of sleep.

So, let's instead consider a world. In this world, every hit on you is a pain in the ass that requires resources to heal. That resource could make your attributes better, but now they are going towards healing your HP. In this world, attacks always hit, which is also awful. That means any fight means losing precious long term resources, because every fight means getting hit. So maybe, in this world, fighting is not expected. Actually, that sounds like the opposite of it: combat is undesired, it's better avoided at all.

Maybe Jimmy had the right idea. Maybe combat should only exist as a last resource, the final measure,-

COMBAT AS FAILSTATE

In a past Alien RPG campaign, combat was despair.

They had enemies with nailguns while using spacesuits. Vaccuum of space outside of ships. Aliens that instantly kill a Character.

Combat, in every instance it happened, was a result of miserable failures. A sequence of bad choices, bad rolls, or a combination of both, that led to the last measure.

It tasted bitter. It was anxiety inducing. The cost was always too high, even if not permanent since its rest mechanics are very forgiving (like most).

But it was somber. And real. It had the weight of a gun being pulled in a bar; you don't need to get shot to realize you already are in a bad situation.

Chairs shifted. Silence raised. How did we let this get to this? What could we have done differently? God, I have a punctured suit already.

DUDE, ISN'T THAT JUST COMBAT AS WAR?

Combat as War expects you to win. It's about cheating the conditions to have overwhelming, purely operational victories. It's about combating in a state of victory before the first shot.

There are no good combats in failstate. Because every single resource spent is less resource to survive. Because every point of HP lost won't get healed by itself eventually.

And in the core of Combat, lies another truth. Not only is getting stabbed a bad deal, the opposite is also true. Even if you do everything perfect. Even if you don't take a single point of damage and your enemies lie flat and dead. Even if you win by massacre, or ambush.

There are no good combats because-

STABBING SOMEONE IS SAD, ACTUALLY

Yes, years of films and games and series say the opposite. But short of stabbing nazis and zombies, the act of combat in real life is a downer. Hearing someone say they got into a fight [excited] is a fast ick. Soldiers that see action can suffer for years from the effect.

Which means, for this concept, that whenever you have a situation that failed so miserably you find yourself in combat against a foe, Combat as Failstate proposes the following thought process: "well this sucks, we are two sacks of trash stabbing each other for a pile of gold in this damp hole. Someone is going to probably die, someone is going to be injured, and now my character will have to consider what it means to take a life, even if in self defense."

So not only you are now losing mechanical resources, there is a diagetic loss at play? Isn't that just a bummer of a game? Why in the world would I want to play that?

Because these questions are more interesting in this day and age than just stabbing another goblin. Because taking a life should be a considered act. And because that's a game that treats combat as a failure, which it always is.

FAILURE AS PILLAR

For Combat as Failstate to exist, it requires a series of conditions we explored above:

1. Combat has to actually exist in the game, usually in rules.
2. It always has to be a bad deal.
3. It needs lasting consequences, mechanically and/or diagetically.
4. It needs to be a last measure.
5. The game must be prepared to succeed in never getting into combat.

And, like any other,

6. Failing is part of the game.

In cramOS¹, every point of healing costs you "experience points" to heal back up. Every dead Bot gives you pieces to salvage and fix yourself, but both of you took shots and stabs at each other and the net game is zero at best.

And worse of all, another Robot is dead, and you are nothing better for it. No one is. Entropy won, and faster than usual pace.

But for whatever circunstances, for survival, or miscommunication, or for bad rolls that could have avoided this, there was a combat. There were no victors.

Next time, it's possible you are the one to be dead. It's possible you will fail again. But what you can do is try not to, and maybe two Robots win.