This 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.

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.

I generally like that sort of thing if it's making a strong statement that combat is not the focus of the game.

I remember playing HeroQuest the Glorantha RPG. Resolving everything with one skill roll, including combat, seemed to work fine. It was when we were forced to do some kind of horrible abstract bidding game as an 'extended contest' to do the more important fights, that it fell apart.

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.

Everything else about your game should be based on one-rolls as well. Don't just do one-roll because you think it will speed up combat -- it doesn't, it just removes options and complexity for certain character archetype. You probably won't want very many (if any) stats, either.

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.

I strongly dislike it.  Though in fairness to the idea, the kind of games where it would seem to work well, don't usually appeal to me.

I too would strongly dislike that in an RPG. I want the combat system not only to tell me who won, but something about how they won. One of the reasons that the Herowars/HeroQuest system just didn't work for me.

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.

It has potential; for instance, in a samurai Iajitsu duel, you'd probably only want one roll. I think you'd want to retain lots of options post-roll; maybe the roll generates like, points you can spend on different tactics or something?

Oooh actually that's neat, let me write that down...

It sounds brutal. I feel like it's a good fit for a de-protagonizing game, like horror

I think one roll is too broad. However, I also respect that combat can just drag out. Instead, it should probably answer some basic questions in a handful of rolls... Opposed rolls would be best so everyone's involved and both parties capabilities are factored in.  Maybe something like:

5 rolls - assembling "facts" that will be detailed in the combat summary.

1. The Outset - who had the initiative / advantage? Why?
2. Early Stages - did one side gain advantage from the outset? Injuries? Casualties?
3. The Regrouping - what side can rally? What resources can they bring in? New tactics or secret plans?
4. Final Stages - how desperate is the losing side? What are you willing to sacrifice to be victorious?
5. The Outcome - who was victorious? What did it cost each side? What were the conditions of defeat?

Once you make the rolls and collect the facts, the GM solicits opinions about what happened. Then the GM assembles their ideas and describes the combat, weaving a tale from the results. The GM doesn't have to use ANY of the collected opinions, but it can serve as a nice "what we wanted" interview without having the interview.

Savage Worlds recently introduced a system for one-roll quick combat that can be used alongside its traditional combat system and I think it works great. It's the best of both worlds, really. The GM can use the full rules for significant fights or any time they feel like spending some time on combat, and if they're rushed for time or need to put their players through a series of smaller fights quickly the simple rules can help speed things up. Plus, those who don't like simplified combat can just ignore those rules.

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.

There is an older thread where we discussed this. Quite a few RPGs resolve combats in one or two rolls. Usually a to hit roll and a damage roll. If that is "too many rolls" then I am sorry those players arent wanting a game they are wanting a story and you might as well just remove rolls all together.

Albedo is my go-to example for resolving combat in one or two rolls with a very deadly system.

As I noted in the other thread for example. The attacker makes a roll to hit which also determines where the target was it. Then roll damage based on the weapon and any other factors.

QuoteI also like the original Albedo's system which was a single attack roll and then a damage roll if the attack hit. Armour could both stop the attack penetrating and distribute damage to mitigate if it stopped the penetration.

So say my diplomat is in standard ConFed flak armour which has penetration resistance 8 and impact distribution 3 and just got shot in the chest with a standard ILR assault rifle using 8mm rounds at med range. The ILR shooter needs to get a result of 9 or better after mods to penetrate the vest. If they got a 5 then unarmoured that would have been a light wound and the PC is stunned. But with armour the result is reduced to no wound and the PC is just staggered. If the shooter got a 9 then that goes right through the vest and my poor diplomat just took a massive chest wound, and was knocked down and out of it 6 rounds, AND he is bleeding out fast. If the shooter got an 11 then with a chest hit - sorry - Im rolling up a new character.

All that with just 2 rolls.

Addendum: Technically 3 as there may be a hit location roll.

Tunnels & Trolls did it one group roll for both sides I believe. Don't have the rulebook handy at the moment.

Tried it with a fudge variant* and it felt too abstract. Hobbyists really like to roll to hit and then for damage.

1) Roll skill vs. skill
2) High roll wins the exchange.
3) Use the difference
4) subtract armor
5) Reference the result to a short table. That it is the level of injury suffered. (minor, serious, grievous, kill).

One-roll combat sounds likely to be an attempt by a designer to appeal to people who think rolling a low number of dice is appealing enough to be a major design consideration.

That very much does not describe me.

However I can imagine a system that could be ok or even interesting, especially if there is the possibility of follow-up rolls, and the system is very very well designed.

And/or if the game really wants to de-emphasize combat details, and is interesting in other ways.

As I've mentioned in the past on other threads, I have used some homebrew systems where one die determines what happens between two minor NPC combatants, but I tend to put a ton of research into figuring out exactly what the results should be, taking the full GURPS system and all their stats and likely behavior into account. And it's so I can run combats with many NPCs fighting each other, so I end up rolling many dice for the battle. And of course it's all mapped out. And I do not use it for PCs or important NPCs, because I am interested in games about combat details and decisions, and do not want to fudge it down to an abstract one-die roll.

I think discussions like this stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of why dice are rolled in the first place. They're the points at which a player surrenders agency, and pretty much define what your game is about.

For example, in a traditional RPG a player cannot simply declare when they hit and how much damage they do. Both of those must be rolled. They do however have agency over where they're positioned, who they're attacking, what feats they're using, etc. So when you're saying combat is resolved in one roll, you're also saying that all those things they previously had agency over are now randomly determined. So what meaningful choices does that leave players with when it comes to combat?

Quote from: S'mon;1056512I generally like that sort of thing if it's making a strong statement that combat is not the focus of the game.

Indeed.

Quote from: PrometheanVigil;1056515Everything else about your game should be based on one-rolls as well.

But then what's the focus of the game?

Quote from: Azraele;1056537It has potential; for instance, in a samurai Iajitsu duel, you'd probably only want one roll. I think you'd want to retain lots of options post-roll; maybe the roll generates like, points you can spend on different tactics or something?

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.

Quote from: estar;1056557Tried it with a fudge variant* and it felt too abstract. Hobbyists really like to roll to hit and then for damage.

Its not just "hobbyists". It also makes sense in most context because just because you hit someone in absolutely no way means you did alot of damage. You might wing someone as they dodge or some other effect or abstraction.

Quote from: S'mon;1056512I remember playing HeroQuest the Glorantha RPG. Resolving everything with one skill roll, including combat, seemed to work fine. It was when we were forced to do some kind of horrible abstract bidding game as an 'extended contest' to do the more important fights, that it fell apart.

Note that HQ 2nd edition and HeroQuest Glorantha have simplified extended contests and removed the bidding aspect.

I don't like it; combats need to drag out into multiple rounds so that players have the chance to change their tactics before it's over.

I can see it working if the game is really not about combat. But if the players have control over even just preparations (attacks and defenses in use when combat begins) that affect the outcome then the game will turn into extensive planning over things like whether each character marches into potential danger with a shield and smaller weapon or a large polearm with better reach and no shield.