[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

[mgrasso.livejournal.com]

I was wondering what was making you so antsy during M&M. :)

Yeah, I totally see your point. The biggest thing I was afraid of wasn't necessarily the information transfer but, as GM, memorizing the damage save table results. I found once I did that I was comfortable, but you're right, usually number information in an RPG flows in one direction: player -> GM. In M&M, there's more of a two-way flow.

[robotnik.livejournal.com]

In Hero Quest, *every* roll is opposed by another roll (made by the GM), even against an inanimate obstacle. Seems like that would slow things down, but since the rolls are about conflict rather than task resolution each roll "accomplishes" more. It will be interesting to see.

[kirbyk.livejournal.com]

I was feeling similarly playing Exalted for the first time last weekend. It's a neat setting, but combat goes like this:

I pick up a massive pile of dice for my attack roll (for me, 8, unless I use my charm, which could add up to 8 more dice, so 16 d10s go clattering across the table.)
I count up successes - +1 for 7, 8, and 9, +2 for 10s. If no successes and any 1s, it's a botch.
I tell my opponent my success count. They can choose to dodge or parry, and roll that dice pool, counting successes. The dodge/parry amount is subtracted from my to hit successes.
If I have any successes left, I roll that number of dice, + my strength, + the damage bonus of my weapon. Again, counting successes the same way.
Then, damage successes are subtracted by armor or various other gifts, with a minimum of 1 damage being done.

It's not that hard, but it's a _lot_ of back and forth for every attack, and there are a large number of magic effects that can complicate it. It's much harder to get narrative with such a cumbersome system, for me.

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.

t.rev

[(Anonymous)]

Apropos of nothing, some people on rpg.net appear to be in the process of transferring Exalted to the HeroQuest engine, for largely the reasons you describe.

[aquamarcia.livejournal.com]

I've been playing a lot of both Feng Shui and M&M recently and I really like both combat systems. While I don't regard Feng Shui's single roll method as any less good than M&M's two roll method, I find I like combat in M&M in that its mechanism for defense is interactive and puts some of the probability for success in the hands of the defender. While I don't disagree with your argument about fewer rolls been better for flow of combat, I like the level of interactivity in M&M well enough to compensate for any differences in flow between it and Feng Shui.

I've also been playing a lot of Exalted and it's certainly fair to say that the extra complexity of combat is more of a burden. I still enjoy playing Exalted, though, at least in part because rolling a massive double-handful of dice has a visceral quality to it that cannot be found in any game where only a single die/few dice are used. :)

[bryant]

Rolling double-handfuls is very satisfying. I just started a Hero campaign, and I got to roll 14 dice in a whack last night, which was great.

My friend Chris K. had an idea about putting probability in the hands of the defender while minimizing flow problems, posted back on the home of this journal.

[bryant]

Yep. That's more the Trollbabe approach, in which combat can be summarized into a few rolls -- which is obviously even smoother flow. I suspect the Heroquest system will still provide some tactical crunch via the aid mechanism, too -- I'm looking forward to trying it.

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.

[space-parasite.livejournal.com]

Thanks for explaining exactly why I don't want to use the native system for Exalted. :)

[head58.livejournal.com]

I would submit you also need to factor in the complexity of interpreting the die roll itself. I'll stick to supers games because it's what I know best.

V&V - Bastard child of old school D&D. Meaning of die rolls are very transparent.
DC Heroes (another system which resolves to hit and damage in one roll) - a bit more complex. Find result on chart, count column shifts, check result on table 2.
MnM - roll the die, but then there's a significant amount of basic math to bounce around (add attack value, subtract defense value of target, subtract wound modifiers, etc) before you know what happened. Moderatly complex with the potnetial to get painfully complex.
WW (Aberant, Adventure) - count how many dice are above target #. Simple enough.
Hero - Lots of basic math as you have to total up lots and lots and dice. For me, this is the hardest since I suck at basic math. Also, you then have to count up 1s and 6s and total that up as well when dealing with damage.
WEG's d6 (Star Wars, DCU, Xena & Herc) - see Hero
Godlike - the concept of determining "depth" and "breadth" (or whatever) of the roll is sufficiently intimidating that I have never even looked at this system.
Marvel SAGA - cards vs dice really bolloxes up the argument, but the ability to keep playing cards and adding value, and then you potnetially get to add in the value of a random flipped card could get messy, but is probably not all that tough.