Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1056508This is related to the thread I started on scale. Working on a new game. It is too early to give any details, but the possibility of having combat resolved by a single roll from all participants was raised. This might not solve the entire combat, but the idea is to have it determine significant outcome to all the outcome (so it may just be the first of three rolls, or it could be the only roll). Curious how many would be irked by this sort of approach, how many would like it.

My first thought is: add up the combat skill of each character on one side of the battle and roll 3D6. Then do the same for the other side. The side that won is the side that rolled above their combat skill total the most. Something like that. The trick is then how do the players describe what happened to their characters during combat, or how badly their characters lost, etc. Would need some effects charts to x-ref with maybe.

Doh! Totally forgot this.

But way back TSR actually came out with effectively a "one roll" system for D&D. It was in the Cardmaster accessory as a quickplay system.

Basics was. Your to hit roll was also your damage roll. The dice you rolled depended on your class and the number you rolled was equal to your level.

Fighter uses a d10 and hits on a 7-10
Cleric uses a d8 and hits on a 6-8
Rogue uses a d6 and hits on a 5-6
Wizard uses a d4 and hits on a 4
Monsters use a d8 and hits on a 6-8. One roll per HD.

Spells worked much the same and were simplified down to damage or healing. Also rolling as many dice as they have levels.
Spells level 1 used a d6, level 2 a d8, level 3 a d10, level 4 a d12 and level 5+ a d20.

Damage or healing was based on the roll result of each die.
1-3 = 0 damage or healing
4-7 = 1 damage or 2 healing
8-11 = 2 damage or 4 healing
12-15 = 3 damage or 6 healing
16-19 = 4 damage or 8 healing
20 = 5 damage or 10 healing

Monsters could take as much damage as they had HD. Characters had HP as normal. for example one of the NPC/Pregen fighters level 4 has 14 HP.

My feelings on a one roll combat system vary greatly depending on the rest of the game. I want a game to have an interesting and fun mechanic somewhere in it. That interesting and fun mechanic doesn't need to reside in the combat system. So, take your average RPG and mod it to have a one roll combat system, I probably think that's a bad idea. Take a universal system that does one roll for everything, just to resolve fictional situations but there are no interesting mechanical choices to be made, and I tend to find that bland and boring as well. If you have a game about solving mysteries and the rules focus on that, then a one roll combat system might be OK, for example.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1056559But then what's the focus of the game?

What was the point of introducing a one-roll mechanic into the system in the first place?

Quote from: NeonAce;1056620My feelings on a one roll combat system vary greatly depending on the rest of the game.

"Depends" is the Swiss position. I'm sure you have a much stronger position than that if it was put to the test at the table. When designers just shove one-rolls or similar types of mechanics into a game, it usually just ends up similar to the NWOD 2nd Ed/COFD one roll resolve implementation -- it completely diminishes certain kinds of builds in the game and makes it very clear only the designers proscribed gameplay shall be carried out at the table (which is, for lack of a better phrase, pissing on purchasers of your game). And based on what you've said, I suspect you wouldn't be happy with ill-advised mechanics.

Quote from: rawma;1056575combats need to drag out into multiple rounds so that players have the chance to change their tactics before it's over.

This applies to any game worth playing, and it's not unique to combat.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056681What was the point of introducing a one-roll mechanic into the system in the first place?

They're all one roll mechanics. They only differ in what they resolve.

And despite talking about resolving combat in one roll, I'm still unsure of what that actually means.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056681"Depends" is the Swiss position. I'm sure you have a much stronger position than that if it was put to the test at the table. When designers just shove one-rolls or similar types of mechanics into a game, it usually just ends up similar to the NWOD 2nd Ed/COFD one roll resolve implementation -- it completely diminishes certain kinds of builds in the game and makes it very clear only the designers proscribed gameplay shall be carried out at the table (which is, for lack of a better phrase, pissing on purchasers of your game). And based on what you've said, I suspect you wouldn't be happy with ill-advised mechanics.

I think I explained my position pretty well. It depends what the game is about and how it goes about it. I don't need an RPG to support all kinds of play, and don't consider an RPG taking a position on how it be played to be "pissing on the purchasers of your game". There are cases where I think a one roll combat system is not suitable, cases where it would be bland, and cases where it would be acceptable (maybe even preferred), which I expressed in my post. There is nothing "Swiss position" about that, and to say so is to suggest I should express an uninformed opinion, which doesn't seem helpful. Basically, I don't think "one roll combat" has a good or bad to it independent of the rest of the system. It's like... is mustard good? It's fine on a hotdog, not on ice cream.

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1056559...

Which is exactly how 7th Sea 2e works.

Or rather doesn't because it fails to specify what each point can actually be used for, which leads to actions being arbitrarily divided. Points spent to achieve result systems only work when those results are clearly defined.

Totally agree.  I was actually flabbergasted to see that a game that came out years beforehand (Apocalypse World) and games derived from it succeeded in this regard but was completely overlooked and/or disregarded by John Wick.

Ive only seen one, one-roll mechanic I liked, and that was in the skirmish game Bladestorm by ICE...

for those unfamiliar, take a quarterstaff, you roll 2d6+2 and that number rolled determines if you hit, damage is low x2+2 so if you roll a 6 and 1, you will inflict 4 points... if you rolled 6 and 6, you would inflict 26 points. a battle axe is 2d6+d10-4 to hit, damage is high +low+1... etc...

in fact the only complaint I had about Hollow Earth Expedition was the one roll mechanic

Quote from: Omega;1056599Doh! Totally forgot this.

But way back TSR actually came out with effectively a "one roll" system for D&D. It was in the Cardmaster accessory as a quickplay system.

Basics was. Your to hit roll was also your damage roll. The dice you rolled depended on your class and the number you rolled was equal to your level.

Fighter uses a d10 and hits on a 7-10
Cleric uses a d8 and hits on a 6-8
Rogue uses a d6 and hits on a 5-6
Wizard uses a d4 and hits on a 4
Monsters use a d8 and hits on a 6-8. One roll per HD.

Interesting. How did AC work? Or did they just ignore it?

I'm very much FOR single combat rolls, and i'm a bit disheartened at how many discards them on misunderstanding how to use them best, or even on how to use them at all.
The idea is to put in the hit roll into the damage, because hits that fail to do damage is in several systems the same as a failed hit.

Also, i like combats, i want them to be longer at times, but i do not want to waste that time on multiple rolls that could have been avoided!

Also, no, the characters still chooses what attacks to use, so that player agency remains.

One may argue that different attacks becomes too similar, but there is a difference between 2D6 and D12, and there is also a difference in hitting three opponents for D8 or one for D12.
Or ranged for D10 or close for D12, and so on.

I also see the notion of some that "if it is more important, it takes longer time".
I beg to differ.
Combat can be fast and furious, and still be hugely important.

Quote from: Aglondir;1056776Interesting. How did AC work? Or did they just ignore it?

Ignored it. Technically. There were treasures that altered the rolls.
Quick examples.
Morning Star: Cleric only item: +2 attack dice. Same for the Dragonslayer sword, warrior only.
Great Helm: Warrior only item. While worn hit only on an 8. Bracers of protection are the same, but can be worn by any class.
Large Shield: Warrior only: Hit only on a 7 or 8

Quote from: Catelf;1056781I'm very much FOR single combat rolls, and i'm a bit disheartened at how many discards them on misunderstanding how to use them best, or even on how to use them at all.
The idea is to put in the hit roll into the damage, because hits that fail to do damage is in several systems the same as a failed hit.

Also, i like combats, i want them to be longer at times, but i do not want to waste that time on multiple rolls that could have been avoided!

Also, no, the characters still chooses what attacks to use, so that player agency remains.

One may argue that different attacks becomes too similar, but there is a difference between 2D6 and D12, and there is also a difference in hitting three opponents for D8 or one for D12.
Or ranged for D10 or close for D12, and so on.

No-one is misunderstanding them. The problem is that there's been no good implementations of it in top-tier systems (or even mid-tier systems, for that matter) where it doesn't fundamentally shift the RPG paradigm to Storygameville or into incohesive, proscribed gameplay.

We know about cohabiting DMG with HTC -- NWOD attack system is literally that. I've had to preside over more NWOD attack rolls than any other GM you can think of (baring the really hardcore muthas who've been hosting NWOD since 2004). It worked well becuase of how it was integrated into the greater combat sub-system

The point of the OP, from my reading, was that choosing attacks is irrelevant. You just take all abilities and equipment into account before the roll and that's it. This is the ballpark for what a true one-roll system aims for.

Using different dice to represent stronger characters is for inbreds who like Savage Worlds.

On a serious note, no-one has a problem with dice denominations. I know instinctively the difference between 1d12 and 2d6 but that's because: one, I'm a bit of mathy person (and could never understood people not understanding success chance on a TN( with 1d10); two, using different dice to represent different styles of attack and active defense is just bad design and shows a serious lack of understanding in how to execute a cohesive system overall.

One roll combat is an interesting concept, but it goes beyond the level of simplification I'm looking for in an RPG.

I do want some simplification though.  I think the spread of Armor Class and To Hit numbers found in some d20 systems / editions is ridiculous.  Armor Classes from say 7 to 46, and every number in between?  That's a crazy level of detail, right there.  I'm rolling with:

10 Somewhat Challenging
12 Challenging
14 Difficult
16 Very Difficult
18 Crazy Difficult

And I allow / use very Small Modifiers to Attack Rolls, when applicable.

I also use "Roll At Or Under" Ability Checks and Saving Throws.  It makes those 6 Ability Scores really matter.

Quote from: Omega;1056791Ignored it. Technically. There were treasures that altered the rolls.
Quick examples.
Morning Star: Cleric only item: +2 attack dice. Same for the Dragonslayer sword, warrior only.
Great Helm: Warrior only item. While worn hit only on an 8. Bracers of protection are the same, but can be worn by any class.
Large Shield: Warrior only: Hit only on a 7 or 8

What's the name of this product? I'd like to pick it up.

I like what they did with the magical weapons,  but I'd probably make armor soak damage (and keep the HP low.) Would probably feel more like Gurps than D&D, though.

Quote from: Aglondir;1056915What's the name of this product? I'd like to pick it up.

I like what they did with the magical weapons,  but I'd probably make armor soak damage (and keep the HP low.) Would probably feel more like Gurps than D&D, though.

Cardmaster: Adventure Design Deck

I have a review up of it. In some ways it plays like Dungeon! the board game except using a freeform card system for halls and rooms. Its a dual purpose set, being both a tool for regular AD&D/2e play and as a standalone board game. Even playable solo.

As for armour. Id say leave armour out of the game aside from magic ones that have the listed above effects. Otherwise its likely to clutter up what is a very streamlined system. Making armour absorb damage instead would not fit the system but you could likely work out say three classes and each class soaks X amount of damage. Light, Medium and Heavy. Keeping it abstract like the rest. so light absorbs 1 hit, med 2 and heavy 3.

Then shift the PCs and NPCs to the same system as the monsters. 1 level = 1 hit can take.