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

I hate Dodge Rolls, especially when Dodge Rolls apply to bullets. I guess Dodge Rolls would be appropriate for a Superman or Flash character but no one else.

Quote from: JohnnyWannabeI hate Dodge Rolls, especially when Dodge Rolls apply to bullets. I guess Dodge Rolls would be appropriate for a Superman or Flash character but no one else.

Now, see, this is where I can see a Dodge ability as part of a set of negative modifiers on an attacker's chance of hitting.  Like a modifier for being behind cover, an actual trained ability at dodging might involve knowing how to use erratic or unpredictable movement, utilising available cover, unnerving the attacker, whatever, to diminish the chances of a successful attack, but not to negate it entirely.  In other words, not ducking the bullet in flight, but making yourself a more difficult target.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNow, see, this is where I can see a Dodge ability as part of a set of negative modifiers on an attacker's chance of hitting.  Like a modifier for being behind cover, an actual trained ability at dodging might involve knowing how to use erratic or unpredictable movement, utilising available cover, unnerving the attacker, whatever, to diminish the chances of a successful attack, but not to negate it entirely.  In other words, not ducking the bullet in flight, but making yourself a more difficult target.

!i!

Yeah, well that's standard fire and movement isn't it. That would be reflected in the fact that a "soldier" type character is better in combat than a common shmoe. The common shmoe is just going to shriek and run away from the bullets, praying he doesn't get hit.

Quote from: JimBobOzIn 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.
in determining how fast combat is.

DnD already has the fix for the comparative system: Natural ones and natural twenties. This may vary from die size to die size... likewise for multiple dice. Not to mention possible alternatives.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNow, see, this is where I can see a Dodge ability as part of a set of negative modifiers on an attacker's chance of hitting.  Like a modifier for being behind cover, an actual trained ability at dodging might involve knowing how to use erratic or unpredictable movement, utilising available cover, unnerving the attacker, whatever, to diminish the chances of a successful attack, but not to negate it entirely.  In other words, not ducking the bullet in flight, but making yourself a more difficult target.

!i!

This reminds me of a scene in a movie, but I can't remember which one. The guys are running away from bullets, and the one guy is all "Serpentine! Serpentine!" and the other guy runs back into the bullets and runs away again, only "serpentine."

...Gah! That's going to bug me for the rest of the night.

Quote from: beejazzDnD already has the fix for the comparative system: Natural ones and natural twenties. This may vary from die size to die size... likewise for multiple dice. Not to mention possible alternatives.

I mentioned that sort of fix - the "wild die". Roll again and subtract, or roll again and add. Natural 1 or 20, fumble or critical success - it's the same thing, in effect. Still, what it means is that the attacker's roll determines everything. The defender gets no roll. That does not fix the "problem" of the defender's player feeling they have no control over the outcome of that action - because they have no roll.

I did not say it was a widespread "problem", or one which will doom a game system to obscurity. Obviously zillions of D&D players are quite happy with it. I simply said that when you don't get to roll, you'll often feel helpless, and not like it.

You didn't need to quote my entire post for a one-and-a-bit-line response. Just quote the bit you're responding to.

Quote from: JimBobOzI mentioned that sort of fix - the "wild die". Roll again and subtract, or roll again and add. Natural 1 or 20, fumble or critical success - it's the same thing, in effect. Still, what it means is that the attacker's roll determines everything. The defender gets no roll. That does not fix the "problem" of the defender's player feeling they have no control over the outcome of that action - because they have no roll.

Yeah, I prefer being able to dodge myself. I was just pointing out that one can effectively decrease the number of rolls using a comparative system. It seemed that you had implied that a second roll would be necessary to implement a wild die if you wanted uncertain outcomes... or something.

QuoteYou didn't need to quote my entire post for a one-and-a-bit-line response. Just quote the bit you're responding to.

Oops... seems I'm still in "autopilot"... just got home from work.

Quote from: James McMurrayHmmm.... 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.

On a d20 the rollers get a slight advantage (10 v.s. 10.5) but otherwise it works fine.

Personaly, I do it like this:
1) Players roll when their characters are acting or reacting. For most of combat, they get to roll the dice so they feel like their character is dodging, attacking or whatever. Players have to wait for their turn anyway so they enjoy getting the chance to roll more dice. As GM, I'm happy to let them paint Tom Sawyers fence.

2) I roll when characters are passive. There's no mechanical reason to do this but some players get freaked out when they can't roll dice. It makes them feel helpless, which is exactly what I'm going for.

3) I roll a die in a cup, slam it on the table and dare the players to make a choice knowing that their fate is already determined. If they choose to go ahead, I reveal the roll. Mainly I do this to mess with players who try to psych for good rolls.

3a) as above but I set the die instead of rolling it and I taunt them Regis style.

Quote from: malleus arianorum3) I roll a die in a cup, slam it on the table and dare the players to make a choice knowing that their fate is already determined. If they choose to go ahead, I reveal the roll. Mainly I do this to mess with players who try to psych for good rolls.

It's a side point, but I love the Dice Cup. I picked one up after hearing mention of it as a tool for fun and table suspense on Sons of Kryos, and save for "really big pools of dice" games, I've been using it almost every session I've played since I bought it.  As a player, it's just a tactile toy. But as a GM, it's a tool of suspense. Best gaming purchase I made last year, hands down.

Also, the SW game is tomorrow night. I'll implement the Vamoosin' rule, encourage folks to seek cover, and see how it goes.

-Andy

I'm pro-dodging, but also interested in speeding up combat whenever possible... thus removing dice rolls.

Had an interesting idea on it, but I'm trying to see how it plays out:

Only PC's roll.  That is, the players roll to hit the bad guys, they also roll to avoid being hit. The badguys are assumed to fire a 'static' difficulty.

Obviously this limits PvP actions, but it keeps combat down to one set of rolls while still allowing players to 'control' their defenses.  Might not be too hard to implement in existing systems, particularly those with existing defensive structures. SImply reduce the NPC 'attack' roll to an average outcome that the player has to beat.

I think I've seen something like that somewhere too...:confused:

Unearthed Arcana & Unisystem at least, Spike.

Quote from: SpikeI think I've seen something like that somewhere too...:confused:

You mean the "let PCs roll to dodge" thing?

It was a modification rule for AD&D 2E presented in an article back in DRAGON Magazine... way back when I was in High School or College or so. I used that rule for a year-long Dark Sun campaign, and it worked out well.

It is a damn fine idea then, and it remains so now. Plus, today, no THAC0 to deal with.

-Andy

As a GM and player I prefer the static defense model, with the option to roll with a bonus when taking whatever variant of the Guard action the system offers. Best of both worlds, really.

I prefer just having one roll...  The more rolls are involved in a specific action, the greater the variability will be.  This tends to obscure the characters' statistics and increases chance.  Anything that increases the degree of chance in combat will, over time, be detrimental to the PCs.

With that said, I don't mind a Unisystem variant or something of that nature where the players roll all the dice.  You need to fiddle with it in D&D to get the probabilities to match, but it works out.  If you want ties to always favor the roller, IIRC you need to use (12 + bonuses) for things like saving throws and whatnot rather than the more intuitive (10+bonuses)

Example:

Spellcaster Steve's save DCs for his 1st-level spells is 14.

Target Todd's saving throw bonus is +4

If Todd is the one rolling a saving throw, he will fail on 1-9 (45%) and succeed 10-20 (55%)

If we flip it around, Spellcaster Steve's spell roll bonus of +4 needs to equal or beat Todd's Save DC.  So, we need to find the numbers where he succeeds 45% of the time.  If we just tried to use 10 + 4, for a 14, Steve would win 55% of the time - a 10% flip.  In order to get it to be even, we need to use 12 + 4, for a 16.  Thus, Steve succeeds on a roll of 12-20.

-O

Quote from: Andy KAlso, the SW game is tomorrow night. I'll implement the Vamoosin' rule, encourage folks to seek cover, and see how it goes.

-Andy

Cool!  I've never had the chance to use it myself, so I'll be very curious to see how it goes for you