[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

One of my rules of thumb for evaluating RPG combat systems is the number of times you have to roll to resolve an attempt to hit, on average. For example, in D&D, you have to roll twice — once to hit, and once for damage. In Vampire, you roll at least three and often four times — once to hit, maybe once to dodge, once for damage, and once for soak. In Feng Shui, you roll once — the roll to hit is also the roll for damage.

My assumption is that (assuming a standard combat system, rather than something more narrativist) fewer is better, because it make combat flow more quickly. There’s an orthagonal concern, which is getting the feel of combat right; for most games, you don’t want to say “roll 1d6 and if you get a 4 you hit, and if you get a 5 you hit and kill.” That’s quick and simple but most likely not satisfying.

However, I recently decided that this is too simplistic. While playing Mutants & Masterminds, I found myself getting all antsy about the combat system. Which is weird, because it’s simple: one roll to hit, one roll for defense.

But it’s a different person for each roll!

So, the addendum: you have to take information transfer into account. Go back to D&D. Roll to hit, tell your opponent what you rolled, roll for damage, tell your opponent what you rolled. Compare and contrast to M&M — roll to hit, tell your opponent what you rolled, tell your opponent what your Damage bonus is, your opponent rolls a Damage save, your opponent tells you if you did damage.

Same number of rolls, but you keep having to pass information back and forth. Feng Shui, the ruling champion of quick combat systems, is way simple: roll to hit, tell your opponent what you rolled, opponent tells you if you did damage. Hero is on par with D&D — roll to hit, tell your opponent what you rolled, roll for damage, tell your opponent what you rolled.

Of course, you really ought to figure in math complexity. It’s easier to do the math in Feng Shui than it is in Hero, and Hero is noticably more complex than D&D (since you’re counting BODY and STUN from the same roll, and adding a lot more dice).

The key observation, though, is that information transfer matters. I’ve heard more than one game designer talk about giving the defender a chance to roll to “involve him in the game” and so on, but I begin to think that’s a misguided concept.

Comments

t.rev

[(Anonymous)]

To quote myself from the same thread on popone:

You're also forgetting RuneQuest, where the attacker made a weapon skill (minus the defender's Defense) roll, and the defender then rolled to parry; you then had a list of success levels (critical, special, success, failure, fumble) to compare, and THEN you rolled damage. So this approach has a long and honorable history.

HeroQuest, for that matter, has a similar mechanic--opposed rolls, with a list of relative success levels to compare--with the interesting twist that 'damage' isn't rolled directly, but *bid* before dice are rolled--it's an abstraction of how much risk the character takes. Haven't played HQ yet so I don't know how well this works in practice.

Unknown Armies, of course, hybridizes RuneQuest's success levels with Feng Shui's one-roll philosophy.

To which I add: That UA's engine works pretty darn well (if not perfectly) in actual play suggests that there's quite a lot of room to tinker with these settings while leaving a game otherwise mostly intact.

Re: t.rev

[bryant]

Hm.

I wonder how well Heroquest rules would work in the UA setting? Pretty well, I suspect, although you'd lose the gritty nature.

There's an interesting idea in there, something about switching systems from UA to HQ when the PCs advance from street level to global level.

t.rev

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, now THAT'S an interesting idea. The more I think about that the more I like it. Why is Alex Abel such a badass? Because `Leader of New Inquisition: 10W3' is probably the highest stat any NPC in the game has in any ability; just as powerful as something like `Cut You Up: 10W3' would be--but even someone like Eponymous probably maxes out at `Cut You Up: 1W2'.

I tried getting a discussion of grafting over some of the ideas of Gloranthan heroquesting (as a source of examples of archetypal story-frames linking embodied archetypes) into UA on the UA-list a few years ago, but nobody picked up on it, maybe because Hero Wars hadn't come out at that point.

Re: t.rev

[bryant]

The scaling is very elegant. It would work for pulp, too -- Doc Savage has 10W3 in everything, whereas his sidekicks only have 5W2 in their specialities, and so on.

t.rev

[(Anonymous)]

My understanding is that Hero-level characters will have scores of about 10W2 in their best abilities, Superhero-levels (e.g. Harrek the Berserk) around the 10W3 mark: demigod-level power. I was going to argue that Doc Savage doesn't hit that power level, but the more I think about it...

Something about HeroQuest that I'm still trying to fully absorb is the way a character's stats represent the character's inherent abilities, plus the character's access to magic, plus artifacts/tools/technology, plus supporting characters, plus social connections the character can call on. In other words, Doc Savage's sidekicks ARE one of his abilities.

Re: t.rev

[bryant]

Doc Savage can, in fact, do anything.

And you're right; you could model the sidekicks as abilities in HeroQuest just as easily. Perhaps more so. Interesting.

t.rev

[(Anonymous)]

My first thought regarding Doc Savage was, well, RPGs have traditionally modeled pulps as lying on the low end of the power curve.

But then I remembered that Harrek the Berserk is the Gloranthan analogue of Conan the Barbarian (a magic-using Conan who beat a god in single combat, skinned it, and wears it as a cloak, mind you), and realized that any fight between Doc Savage and Conan would have to end in a draw, after which they would team up against evil. Because that's the law.