Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056863No-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.

I can agree that there really hasn't been any good implementations of one-roll combat systems, because the few i have seen has indeed focused on "take all abilities and equipment into account before the roll and that's it", and i say that that is the wrong way to use it.
The player still needs choice, distilling things down to one roll is to make the choice clearer, and to make individual combat attacks faster, not to reduce combat in general!
If one does that ... all that is left is narrative choices, essentially, and i know that I don't like that.

As for why i like that kind of one-roll approach, i essentially like miniature-based wargames (especially the few one-roll ones), but i also like things like WW's Streetfighter and WoD Combat - approach.
Combine those two styles, and you got cinematics and speed.

In Arneson's original campaign, combat was resolved with one roll - whoever rolled highest won, the other guy died. The players found this... unsatisfactory. So it was changed to "you have 1d6 hit points, and you do 1d6 damage." Statistically it's much the same, but it doesn't feel the same, if only because there's a chance you get to take some damage and then flee...

I think that unless the game is absolutely not combat oriented at all, one-roll combat is highly undesirable.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057369I think that unless the game is absolutely not combat oriented at all, one-roll combat is highly undesirable.

That or if combat is secondary to things like exploration or other endeavors.

I generally play RPGs mainly for fun combat, and cool moments. I probably wouldnt enjoy a one roll combat game. Far too simple. There's no time to get into the combat, or see it swing, or decide whether to use limited abilities, etc.

For me one roll combat = something you do to skip past it quickly and get to the real game.

Quote from: Omega;1057471That or if combat is secondary to things like exploration or other endeavors.

Yeah, but even if combat isn't as central to a game as, say, D&D, you still want it to be resolved by more than one single roll for the entire combat.

The only case where I think the latter would be preferable would be in a game where combat was so totally rare that it would be a really freak occurrence.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057887Yeah, but even if combat isn't as central to a game as, say, D&D, you still want it to be resolved by more than one single roll for the entire combat.

The only case where I think the latter would be preferable would be in a game where combat was so totally rare that it would be a really freak occurrence.

This subject actually came up over on BGG in yet another tired "The eeeevils of random!" threads.

I think the optimal is around 2 rolls per combat action. A hit and a damage. Possibly 3 if you want to add in a hit location too. Past that and you get more and more fiddly. But as I like to point out. High simulation games might thrive on that. Roll to check jam, roll to hit, roll location, check armour, roll damage, check wound. and so on. But that is rarely fun if you have to do it alot.

I think usually one roll is just too little to get a good feel. But that said my own system had just one roll, the to hit one. Damage was a set factor. But the target rolls to either dodge to evade, or use defense to deflect. You could try both if you went full defensive.

Quote from: Omega;1057916This subject actually came up over on BGG in yet another tired "The eeeevils of random!" threads.

I think the optimal is around 2 rolls per combat action. A hit and a damage. Possibly 3 if you want to add in a hit location too. Past that and you get more and more fiddly. But as I like to point out. High simulation games might thrive on that. Roll to check jam, roll to hit, roll location, check armour, roll damage, check wound. and so on. But that is rarely fun if you have to do it alot.

I think usually one roll is just too little to get a good feel. But that said my own system had just one roll, the to hit one. Damage was a set factor. But the target rolls to either dodge to evade, or use defense to deflect. You could try both if you went full defensive.

We're talking about one roll for the entire battle.

Among other things, for most systems it would just be too random.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1057887Yeah, but even if combat isn't as central to a game as, say, D&D, you still want it to be resolved by more than one single roll for the entire combat.

The only case where I think the latter would be preferable would be in a game where combat was so totally rare that it would be a really freak occurrence.

We ended up not going with this idea (it was one among may). It is sort of a gray area with the importance of combat because combat is kind of central to the game, but more in a 'one-stroke and you die' kind of way (I am more interested in the build up to combat and combat always presenting the risk of a highly consequential outcome very quickly. Going with a much more standard approach to the individual combat rolls and just keeping combat on the deadly side.

Quote from: S'mon;1057924We're talking about one roll for the entire battle.

And it still applies.

There are several systems that boil it down to one roll though. Others in 2. Do not have the rules handy but I am pretty sure Risk resolves battles with one roll for each side. Possibly Supremacy too.

Mighty Empires resolves it in 2, one single roll to determine which side wins, then another to determine how many points of units one or both sides lose.

BECMI's War Machine mass battle system also resolved it in one roll per side. Casualties are a % of units lost. Didn't Birthright use a similar system?

Quote from: RPGPundit;1058166Among other things, for most systems it would just be too random.

Depends on the system. Mighty Empires and especially War Machine for BECMI D&D use various systems of modifiers to determine things. Especially War Machine. It gets the job done wham bam as it is mass combat rather than smaller unit or scirmish combat like in say Warhammer.

Quote from: Omega;1058406BECMI's War Machine mass battle system also resolved it in one roll per side. Casualties are a % of units lost. Didn't Birthright use a similar system?

Birthright has individual unit stats and looks more like Battlesystem AFAICT.

I love BECM War Machine, use it a lot.

Quote from: Omega;1058406BECMI's War Machine mass battle system also resolved it in one roll per side.

Well yes, but that was a mass-combat system. That's different than a personal combat system.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1058188We ended up not going with this idea (it was one among may). It is sort of a gray area with the importance of combat because combat is kind of central to the game, but more in a 'one-stroke and you die' kind of way (I am more interested in the build up to combat and combat always presenting the risk of a highly consequential outcome very quickly. Going with a much more standard approach to the individual combat rolls and just keeping combat on the deadly side.

Well, I could see a one-roll combat working for very very specific things. Like, for example, a duel between samurais.