I've had to edit my post (above) to try to make it make a bit more sense (using the examples I give, for normal situations PCs need Attack Bonus and Defence Bonus, and NPCs need AC and HC; for NPC v NPC attacks they would also need Attack Bonus).

Somewhat trivially, I've also edited my above posts on realising that my maths is up the creek and if AC = Defence Bonus +10 and HC = Attack Bonus -10 then you would end up with a situation where a character with Attack Bonus 0 has a 55% chance of hitting a character with AC 10 using the normal system but 45% using the NPC v PC system... the difference should be 11, not 10, to correct this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;462553...
So the aim to marginally simplify the system has created additional complexity, and not complexity in terms of options or tactics or even a fun gimick but mere mechanical complexity for its own sake.

I agree with this statement, but more because of the importance of NPC v NPC combat than because of the importance of (frankly, avoidable) PC v PC combat.

Quote from: Omnifray;462814I agree with this statement, but more because of the importance of NPC v NPC combat than because of the importance of (frankly, avoidable) PC v PC combat.

You say tomato I say Lycopersicon esculentum

I wouldn't play in a game that a strict proscription against PvP even if I was playing a PC that would never attack anyone (and I have played pacifist PCs a few times).

Quote from: jibbajibba;462822...
I wouldn't play in a game that a strict proscription against PvP even if I was playing a PC that would never attack anyone ...

Even if all other participants were hot chicks in bikinis with a genuine passion for roleplaying games who (subject to that one proscription) loved your gaming style?

"I wouldn't play in a game..." is a promise which is meant to be broken. For instance a few years ago when someone asked me what I thought of the idea of using playing cards in a LARP to resolve combat, I laughed at it. Now, I play MET-LARP most weeks (with dice admittedly, not cards, but still - and we did use cards at first).

This is the system used in Cinematic Unisystem (Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG and Army of Darkness RPG).  NPCs have fixed numbers for hit and defense, while PCs add 1d10 to their base score.  I found that it was markedly easier to GM than most systems, simply because I didn't have to roll dice.  

PC vs. PC combat is simple: they just both roll.  (Statistics for PC vs. PC combat are slightly different than normal, but it's a rare case.)  

NPC vs. NPC combat has no roll - it is always auto-hit or auto-miss.  This was fine for me in most cases because I don't like handling much NPC-vs-NPC action.  It is odd if they're just 1 or 2 points off, but as an option you can just treat them like PCs and roll for both.

Quote from: jhkim;462892This is the system used in Cinematic Unisystem (Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG and Army of Darkness RPG).  NPCs have fixed numbers for hit and defense, while PCs add 1d10 to their base score.  I found that it was markedly easier to GM than most systems, simply because I didn't have to roll dice.  

PC vs. PC combat is simple: they just both roll.  (Statistics for PC vs. PC combat are slightly different than normal, but it's a rare case.)  

NPC vs. NPC combat has no roll - it is always auto-hit or auto-miss.  This was fine for me in most cases because I don't like handling much NPC-vs-NPC action.  It is odd if they're just 1 or 2 points off, but as an option you can just treat them like PCs and roll for both.

Okay that's a different sort of game though, as Omni pointed out above. Effectively you are saying that the only events that matter in the world and are governed by the 'physics engine' of the rules are those things that affect PCs. Everything else is determined by the GM to further the story.

SO the assasin's dart will hit the king unless you can get the assasin first or dogde the king, the heroic bowman will shoot the dragon with a single arrow if the PCs totally fuck up and release its wrath upon the unsuspecting town.
I guess its fine but as you said you still need different stats for PC v PC combat its just that it's rare enough that its not a big overhead (because the characters in Buffy never got possessed by otherworldly creatures, grew into power mad witches that needed to be stopped, turned into werewolves at night, lost their souls and became evil vampire killing machines, were always evil vampire killing machines that were just pretending to be nice, .... )

Quote from: jibbajibba;462994Okay that's a different sort of game though, as Omni pointed out above. Effectively you are saying that the only events that matter in the world and are governed by the 'physics engine' of the rules are those things that affect PCs. Everything else is determined by the GM to further the story.

While that is possible, the only thing it requires is that what happens is determined by the GM - just like it always is.  In practice, no GM ever uses the full PC rules for all NPCs.  It's just too involved.  The PC rules are designed for more detail.  Instead, GMs take short-cuts, whether in character creation, calculating modifiers, experience, or combat.  

This doesn't necessarily mean that the GM is "furthering the story" or any nonsense like that.  If a troop of NPCs fights another troop of NPCs, I'm not going to play the whole thing out by the PC combat rules.  I make up a result, which could be based on my estimation of the realistic chances,  or could be based on what I had for lunch that day, or anything else.  It depends what kind of campaign I'm running.  

Quote from: jibbajibba;462994SO the assasin's dart will hit the king unless you can get the assasin first or dogde the king, the heroic bowman will shoot the dragon with a single arrow if the PCs totally fuck up and release its wrath upon the unsuspecting town.

I guess its fine but as you said you still need different stats for PC v PC combat its just that it's rare enough that its not a big overhead

It is a real stretch to call this "different stats" when really what you're just talking about is a -5 modifier.  Would you also claim that, say, a character gets a whole new set of stats if they are prone - because there's a modifier for that?  Within the Unisystem, exact balance is easy:

1) If it's PC vs. NPC, the PC always adds 1d10 to their stat, and the NPC uses their fixed stat.

2) If it's PC vs. PC or NPC vs. NPC, the attacker adds 1d10 to their stat, and the defender uses their stat +5 (i.e. as if they rolled a 5 on their die).  

A d20 game would work the same except with 10 instead of 5.

I knew a GM who did this in 3e.  Monsters all had an Attack score of 10 + BAB and AC defense broken into a static Dodge and Parry.  PCs had their BAB and Dodge and Parry bonuses they rolled.

GOOD
It went faster. Easily the fastest 3e combat I played.

BAD
I like crits / fumbles. Using the system, the monster would never crit or fumble. My 3e GM friend did have the monster crit if you fumbled your defense roll, but monsters never fumbled.

Yes, I know 3e RAW has no fumble, but when I GM all games get a Crit / Fumble because I like them.  

Overall, my most exciting combats have been with Active Offense vs. Active Defense systems like Stormbringer and Palladium.  Sure, its slower due to more rolls on each side, but there is always a trade-off when you step away from more abstract systems like Unisystem or OD&D.

Quote from: jhkim;463340It is a real stretch to call this "different stats" when really what you're just talking about is a -5 modifier.  Would you also claim that, say, a character gets a whole new set of stats if they are prone - because there's a modifier for that?  Within the Unisystem, exact balance is easy:

1) If it's PC vs. NPC, the PC always adds 1d10 to their stat, and the NPC uses their fixed stat.

2) If it's PC vs. PC or NPC vs. NPC, the attacker adds 1d10 to their stat, and the defender uses their stat +5 (i.e. as if they rolled a 5 on their die).  

A d20 game would work the same except with 10 instead of 5.

Fair enough I have never used the system I was just going by your quote that they used different stats.

Quote from: jibbajibba;463374Fair enough I have never used the system I was just going by your quote that they used different stats.

I think we miscommunicated there.  

In the Buffy RPG as written, NPCs have different stats than PCs, because instead of doing stat + skill + 1d10, they just have a single Combat number that is equivalent to stat + skill + 5.  However, you don't need a different set of stats for PC-vs-PC combat.  

The basic rules do say that NPC-vs-NPC doesn't involve any die rolls (i.e. it's always auto-hit or auto-miss).  That would have issues if you tried to resolve a bunch of NPC-vs-NPC combats by the rules, though it's fine if you've only got a few NPC allies in mostly PC combats.  In any case, it's easy to mod that to have the NPC attacker add 1d10-5 to their score.

Quote from: Spinachcat;463359I knew a GM who did this in 3e.  Monsters all had an Attack score of 10 + BAB and AC defense broken into a static Dodge and Parry.  PCs had their BAB and Dodge and Parry bonuses they rolled.

GOOD
It went faster. Easily the fastest 3e combat I played.

BAD
I like crits / fumbles. Using the system, the monster would never crit or fumble. My 3e GM friend did have the monster crit if you fumbled your defense roll, but monsters never fumbled.

Yes, I know 3e RAW has no fumble, but when I GM all games get a Crit / Fumble because I like them.  

Overall, my most exciting combats have been with Active Offense vs. Active Defense systems like Stormbringer and Palladium.  Sure, its slower due to more rolls on each side, but there is always a trade-off when you step away from more abstract systems like Unisystem or OD&D.

Do you want monsters and enemies to critical? I suppose there's no reason why not. Could it be done by representing a critically failed evade roll represent the critical hit? So that, the pc rolling to evade the attack (as opposed to the GM rolling to attack, of course), rolls really bad, that then means he, i don't know, trips up and falls on the enemy's sword!

It's not an ideal solution, but it's not completely out of keeping with the system.

Or you could have it so that the player fails to evade and gets hit, and the GM says i'll give you a Fate point, or whatever, if you accept this as a critical hit.

Again, not to everyone's tastes.

I get that some dont' like the overall idea here, but I'm not sure I see why.