OK, I vowed to myself that for every post I make in some ridiculous Pundy flamebait thread, I'd actually contribute to the site. This thread is my hot shower to wash off the stink.

So, in just about every RPG that I grew up on and love save AD&D (which you could mitigate by stacking on armor), from Ghostbusters to TORG to Call of Cthulhu to whatever, when you get shot at with arrows, shuriken or bullets, you get a dodge roll.


Recently, I've been playing a lot of Savage Worlds, which is officially now on my Short List of Favorite Games, and is one of my 2-3 Go-To games.

One thing I'm trying to reconcile is the fact that Savage Worlds has no dodge roll. Rather, there's a default difficulty to hit any target, which can be mitigated only by taking a beneficial Edge (which can raise it to a max of 2 extra points).

It's good, because it encourages you to make use of terrain. Get behind a table and you're harder to hit. None of this standing in the open, slowly firing back at the enemy.

It's also good, because it does away with extra die rolls that would bog down combat. For all I loved BESM, I've gotten in a number of "Your turn: swing? miss. My turn: swing? miss. Your turn: swing? miss. My turn: swing? miss..." exchanges.

It's bad, because... uh... I'm used to dodge rolls?

Also, I like the idea of the cinematic Die Hard Bruce Willis guy, who dodges gunfire by running away, getting lucky, etc (and, admittedly, Hiding Behind Shit, which is what SW encourages anyway).

Any ideas on how to let go of this foolish hang-up of Wanting There To Be a Dodge Roll in all my games?

Also, anyone else feel the same, or feel the opposite (Don't like Dodge Rolls)?

Thanks!

-Andy

Quote from: Andy KAny ideas on how to let go of this foolish hang-up of Wanting There To Be a Dodge Roll in all my games?

The first thought that leaps to my mind is to make a Dodge ability that acts as a negative modifier to your attacker's roll, or that somehow negates some or all of the incoming damage.  The specific application would depend upon the game mechanics used, but ne possibility would be to use the "hit point" model, whereupon your Dodge ability becomes an ablative trait that can be applied against incoming attacks.

!i!

I'd use something similar to Vamoosin' in Classic DeadLands.

If a character is caught out in the open, and has an action card, he can give up his card and make an agility roll, which would be the new TN for the shooter.  The dodging character could also move toward cover at his pace, or with a running roll, depending on how generous you are as a GM.

He won't get to go that round, but SW is fast, and the next round will come shortly.  And I think it balances well to have to give up your action "giving it your all" for the round, if you will, to get the hell out of the way of a projectile

I've played enough games that don't use active defense rolls now to appreciate the speed and tactical dynamic of those games that use static defenses.  As you said, it's cool for making players actively think about terrain and circumstances that might provide them with cover.

If you want to use static defenses in other games, you might take a page from D20, where AC is essentially "taking 10 at all times on Defense."  In other words, add half the active defense pool or bonus to the average result on the randomizer and use that.  Exalted 2nd Edition does something similar but fucks it up by having the defense number fluctuate depending on the actions you're taking.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe first thought that leaps to my mind is to make a Dodge ability that acts as a negative modifier to your attacker's roll...

That was my first impression, too. However, I noticed when I ran some sample dice that handling was increased a lot (IOW, it was no longer "Fast!" and slightly less "Fun!", too ).
Also, I noticed that the only reason I was pursuing some unholy hybrid was because of my own hangup and experience with "All Games Have Dodge Rolls". Once I got over that, I was a little better with it.

Quote from: RooksGambitIf a character is caught out in the open, and has an action card, he can give up his card and make an agility roll, which would be the new TN for the shooter. The dodging character could also move toward cover at his pace, or with a running roll, depending on how generous you are as a GM.

Wow, that is excellent... and familiar somehow.  Is it possible that this rule is also in the S-W core book and I simply missed it (mine is at home now)? Or maybe I had read something similar somewhere but forgot to try it out.

In any case, that sounds slick, and I'll try it out!

Now, couple of questions on "Vamoosin' ":
* Can you only START to Vamoose once your card comes up in initiative? That is, if I have a 6 and the shooter has a 10 and an angry mob has a 3, do I have to deal with the shooter until my turn, then give up my card and make the roll in hopes of dodging the mob? Or can I just turn in my card at the top of the turn?

* I'm assuming that Dodge roll applies to all incoming shooters, not just one? (though groups of shooters may get a Group Bonus)

Thanks!
-Andy

I don't require them, nor do I really mind them being there so long as it's not implemented in a way that does not work well with the system (oWoD, CoC are two examples that spring to ming that weren't implemented to my liking.)

In my group we always narrate anything above the touch AC as "hitting.. and then bouncing off" or getting "swatted away".

Consequently anything below touch AC can be narrated as dodged or simply missed, dependent on whatever.

My StarCluster system has no Dodge roll, because IMO it slows combat to a crawl. OTOH, there are skills available to some professions that work to mitigate damage or possibly cause a miss. I've found the same thing you did about using cover and working for advantages with no Dodge available, and I like it.

-clash

And to give an oppsing view: I like that in Exalted different actions require different amounts of effort and opening yourself to counterattack.

On the original topic: I'm clear on the other side of the fence. Dodge rolls add even more dice rolling and slow combat down. Having a static value on one side of the equation is much easier.

Hmmm.... Random thought: what would it be like in D&D to have all attackers use 10 plus their bonus, and the defenders do the rolling? It wouldn't really change anything probability-wise, but might be amusing. Maybe I'll do it if I ever have players enter some sort of mirror universe.

Quote from: Andy KAlso, anyone else feel the same, or feel the opposite (Don't like Dodge Rolls)?

You've already found the solution, I think: you gotta learn to use the terrain. Effective teamwork with someone using sustained suppressive fire also helps, as does having your teammate shoot at enemies popping up and muzzle flashes. ("Cover me!")

Having some kind of "evasive maneuver" action is a good option, though--instead of reactive evasion, you zig zag. It should take you longer than a straight run, as a tradeoff. And it's also moderately realistic.

Did I say "realistic"? Well, I've never been in a gunfight myelf, but zigzagging and...what's the word..."strafing" sideways across an opponent's line of vision work really well in video games.

So, depending on map scale, you either move at a slower rate while declaring "evasive", or you literally zig zag as you move across the map.

For more cinematic action, you might also be able to declare stuff like jumping and rolling from behind cover, sliding across well-polished floors, etc.

Quote from: Andy KWow, that is excellent... and familiar somehow.  Is it possible that this rule is also in the S-W core book and I simply missed it (mine is at home now)? Or maybe I had read something similar somewhere but forgot to try it out.

In any case, that sounds slick, and I'll try it out!

Now, couple of questions on "Vamoosin' ":
* Can you only START to Vamoose once your card comes up in initiative? That is, if I have a 6 and the shooter has a 10 and an angry mob has a 3, do I have to deal with the shooter until my turn, then give up my card and make the roll in hopes of dodging the mob? Or can I just turn in my card at the top of the turn?

* I'm assuming that Dodge roll applies to all incoming shooters, not just one? (though groups of shooters may get a Group Bonus)

Thanks!
-Andy

Hmmm...good questions.  I've never had anyone take a liking to the suggestion before, honestly.

If you have a 6, and the shooter a 10, and you're in the wide, wide open, then you have to give up your action card -and being able to take no further action that round- to make the agility roll.  It does not matter when  you're initiative is for the purposes of this maneuver, but that action card is gone afterward.  And I would only let this apply to a single attack directed at your character.

The idea is to break for cover, and that's all.  You get to make an agility roll that gives a single, temporary increased TN, and move your Pace (perhaps with the Agility roll's Wild Die determining a "Run" mod to pace?) toward cover.

I think it strikes a good balance.  You get to save your ass, but you'd better find some damn cover while you're at it.

EDIT:  I would never give a group of shooters a Gang Up bonus, as they're not physically surrounding and distracting you.  I might, however, give a group of Shooters the ability to suppressive fire without automatic weapons.

Personally, unless it's genre-driven, I'm not so keen on one form of attack being superior to another...

Seanchai

First up, I think "speed of combat" - or of all action in an rpg session - has more to do with the GM and players than it has to do with game mechanics. People vary in their temperaments and styles much more than games do.

That said, one of the basic purposes of the dice is to give the greats a chance of failure, and the useless ones a chance of success. Because players are superstitious, they feel that when they roll, they've some control over the outcome - so they often expect a roll to defend.

Okay, let's look at the possibilities. Of games with dice, you've got two basic dice mechanics - roll-under (roll under your ability to succeed), and comparative (roll and add your roll to your ability, compare with foe's roll + ability).

When you've got a roll-under system - like GURPS or RuneQuest - you pretty much have to have a dodge/parry roll. I mean, logically-speaking, your ability to do an effective strike against someone is not just from your own accuracy of hitting. A black belt karate master does not hit another master as often as they do a white belt. So, your ability to make an effective hit doesn't just come from your own raw ability, but is affected by your foe's ability.

In a roll-under system, we simulate that by having the attacker roll under their skill to hit, and having the defender roll to defend, using their own skill of dodging/parrying.

In a comparative system - like old Rolemaster -, you can possibly avoid having a dodge roll. The attacker's attack could be Attribute + Skill + 1d6 (for example), and this compared to the defender's Attribute + Skill + 3. So only the attacker rolls.

The difficulty there is that what you get is that sometimes the attacker will be certain to hit, or certain to miss, regardless of the ability of the defender. If I have Attribute 3 + Skill 4, and the other guy has got Attribute Attribute 1 and Skill 1, the other guy will never hit me no matter what he rolls, and I'll never miss him no matter what I roll. So then we start saying, like old Rolemaster did, "hey, let's make the roll open-ended - lowest roll, rolls again and subtracts, highest roll, rolls again and adds - then there's a chance of anyone hitting or missing anyone, whatever their skill." But that just moves the roll, so that instead of one attacker roll and one defender roll, you get one attacker roll and (sometimes) a second attacker roll. Combat doesn't usually proceed much faster this way.

So with roll-under or comparative systems, in both cases what you get is that to avoid having some things have certain outcomes, you've got to have more than one die roll. What's wrong with certain outcomes? Well, I find that players tend not to like them. Okay, they'll like certain success for their characters for a while, quite a while in some cases, but after a time they'll be bored with it. And no-one likes certain failure for their characters. Letting everyone roll keeps things uncertain.

Obviously everyone likes different amounts of uncertainty, so that for example I prefer the d4-d4 range of results to rolling different numbers of d6, adding them together, with one being a "wild die" - a 1 cancels out the highest other roll, a 6 means roll again and add. I find the first one more plausibly like reality, and the second just crazy in its results. But others would find the first one boring and constrictive, and the second one nice and cinematic. But most players like some degree of uncertainty, if only to give their characters a chance against the toughest villains.

As for using terrain, yes, that certainly adds life to a combat. But I don't see how it's quicker. I've often used terrain in combats, but even simple terrain takes time to describe, and more complex terrain needs a battlemap and miniatures, and those take time, too. I don't see how laying out a battlemap or describing something is any quicker than doing a dodge roll.

So I reject the idea that doing away with the dodge roll and replacing it with terrain makes things quicker - that's not been my experience at all. But to say that terrain is more fun than just a dice roll? Hey, I can buy that.

For speed of combat, to be honest I've found the main thing is the GM, and secondly the players involved. Some people are slow and indecisive, others like to look up all the rules in the midst of combat. For example, let's talk about two different GURPS games I've been in. The first one, things which people can all do if they take time to do them and keep their wits about them, the GM didn't require a dice roll. Like the PCs wanted to use the cable on their vehicle to lower themselves down a cliff. At least one PC had some skill in "climbing", so the GM reckoned that was enough to check ropes were tied properly, and so on. They were in no hurry - they couldn't fail. No roll needed.

In the second game, when the PCs went to a fallen enemy to check if he was still alive, the GM said "roll against First Aid with Perception to check." And if a character was behind a barn-sized building he needed to make a Perception roll to hear a vehicle starting up on the other side, then when he came to the side of the building to have a look at it, another Perception roll when the player asked, "how many people in the vehicle, and are they all military - wearing helmets?"

So you can see that in two games with identical mechanics and rules, in one the GM keeps things moving, and in another the GM slows things down. I've found that since people vary much more than rpg rules do, the style of the players and GMs involved matter much more in determining how fast combat is.

I used to be hardcore pro-Dodge roll, because as a player, the lack of one always made me fell sort of helpless, like my guy was jsut standing there doing nothing while some guy took pot shots at them.

But a heck of a lot of play time with 3rd edition D&D has rather shifted my attitudes in that regard, as the no-defense roll option does streamline the flow of combat a lot, basically cutting dierolls in half.

The result is that my present game project has no defense roll, jsut a stat that serves as a penalty to those trying to hit the player.

Thanks for the comments, all. I think next week (running another one-shot of SW in between games with my second gaming group, tentatively set in the Conan world) I'll really stress using the area/scenery to take cover, and also adopt that Vamoosin' mechanic to see how it flies. Getting the players more comfortable with usign scenery and cover will probably alleviate the need for it, unless they stumble into an ambush.

BTW, I figured out what was familiar about it: A number of games have a "defense roll or mod; but if you do nothing but defend that round, roll again and take the higher roll for that round" mechanic, and was blurring them together.

Thanks!

-Andy