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.
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. (http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/smiles/emo-emot-smug.gif)
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(8) 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.
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. (http://www.rpgcodex.net/forums/smiles/emo-emot-smug.gif)
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(8) 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.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058641Well, I could see a one-roll combat working for very very specific things. Like, for example, a duel between samurais.
That was the starting point that caused us to think a one-roll approach would be a good idea. It isn't a samurai game but the style of dueling in our source material is much more samurai-like (or at least very much inspired by Samurai movies and gunslinger duels). Basically we wanted a game that had that suspenseful build up as people are deciding to fight one another and assessing their foes before striking. But the more we tried to work with it, the less we liked it (everything had to revolve around that single roll-off working). It just felt like other parts of the combat system were being compromised in order to have this one-roll approach. It wasn't necessarily true one roll combat. But combat was potentially 1-3 roll offs between all involved, with each roll-off having the possibility of enormous consequences. What I may do is develop it on the side as we continue to develop the core system, and if it ends up being workable with everything else in the system by the end of the project, include it as an option in the appendix.
For me combat should be an enjoyable part of the game and not something to be done and over with as quick as possible.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1058640Well yes, but that was a mass-combat system. That's different than a personal combat system.
S'mon was talking about one roll to resolve an entire battle. Either one per side or one period. Like how Tunnels and Trolls handles group combat.
Quote from: Omega;1058739S'mon was talking about one roll to resolve an entire battle. Either one per side or one period. Like how Tunnels and Trolls handles group combat.
Maybe, but mass combat was not what the OP was about.