Quote from: Spinachcat;8376504e's concept of defenses worked great because now you could have attacks vs. things other than AC. You still had the 10+ save for death saves and some other actions so players had some die rolling in the mix.

But like so many things in 4e, I found this better implemented in Gamma World. I have not GM'd enough 13th Age to know how well it works there, but for GW, it's been great.

T&T's save system is a lot of fun because of the stunting aspect, and because players got to interject "how" they saved vs. events. AKA, the ceiling is collapsing so make a Dex save. I find that in D&D, that's pretty static player action of just rolling the die. In T&T, my experience has been players more apt to describe their actions.

I doubt the more complicated method of generating a random number causes that.

QuotePerhaps that's just my T&T experience, but I find the Deadly Humorous / Nigh-Freeform aspects of T&T brings out more roleplay.

Or more narration, which might not be the same thing? We can get damned looney in D&D, too, without needing crazy swings from almost Chesslike determinism to probabilities that even the gm doesn't know.

QuoteHowever, my favorite Save system is the S&W idea of the fixed number that drops each level as the PC becomes more competent. I never enjoyed the mix of numbers from AD&D and the S&W idea has allowed me tremendous flexibility.

Also, the S&W save means there is no esclation. Instead of having to hit DC 20, DC 30, DC 40, etc, your save becomes easier as your become more powerful. FOR ME, this feels more "cinematic" and fits my view of how heroes develop because I like specialization, I prefer general competence. AKA, I like that an 8th level Fighter saves vs. Magic better than a 4th level Wizard, and the 8th level Wizards saves vs. Traps better than a 4th level Thief.

FOR ME, the escalating DC was a huge problem in 3e/4e because as John Wick once quipped, it made D20 the game of rolling over 10 because the DCs rose each level in near lockstep with PC ability so you don't really become better at what you do.

The saving throw scheme from 3e was one of the innovations I liked best from that system and would probably work to carry through whatever flavor of D&D I chose to play hereafter.  I find it simple, intuitive and flexible.

Tom

I swapped over to the single-saving-throw some time ago, it's just one (or two, or 5) less things on the character sheet.

I also inverted the tables so that the players roll saving throws for their own characters, and they roll "hazard throws"  to beat the monster's single hazard score, applying whatever modifiers they may have.

Players-roll-all-the-dice, as it were.

Quote from: Saladman;837376I find tracking or assigning the modifiers to a "single number" to be no faster than just having three or five fixed numbers written down on a character sheet.  To the extent that it invites conversation before the roll, it's sometimes even slower.

I have no particular preference among the other options.

The way I see it, it makes more sense to have a single saving-throw value.  The multiple values are either arbitrary or reflect things that could be better expressed as bonuses.

With a regular saving-throw system, after a while, you have to figure bonuses and penalties in anyways (situational, from magic items, etc.), so it isn't really like this adds any extra steps.

Quote from: RPGPundit;838119The way I see it, it makes more sense to have a single saving-throw value. The multiple values are either arbitrary or reflect things that could be better expressed as bonuses.  

With a regular saving-throw system, after a while, you have to figure bonuses and penalties in anyways (situational, from magic items, etc.), so it isn't really like this adds any extra steps.

Situational modifiers are more difficult to implement because you can't pre-calculate the total value. The problem with your "single saving throw value with differences expressed as bonuses" is that it turns everything into a situational modifier.

From a design standpoint, it makes a lot more sense to pre-divide things into major categories so that the majority of modifiers can be pre-calculated.

The other major advantage of clear, universally defined categories is that it makes it easier to quickly communicate what check needs to be made. I would much rather just say "give me a Reflex saving throw" than have an interaction like this:

GM: Make a saving throw versus the fireball.
Player 1: Do you think my +2 bonus to movement-based saves would apply?
GM: Sure, you could be dodging out of the way.

It's kludgy.

I run into this same problem with games that don't pre-define skills. At least in that case you've got the advantage of flexible character creation. But the constant negotiation for every mechanical interaction is a drag.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;838129GM: Make a saving throw versus the fireball.
Player 1: Do you think my +2 bonus to movement-based saves would apply?
GM: Sure, you could be dodging out of the way.

It's kludgy.

I prefer this exchange:

GM: There's a fireball heading straight at you.  What do you do?
Player 1:  Shit.  I jump out of the way behind the desk.
GM:  Cool.  Make a save, and take any movement based bonuses you get.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;838129I run into this same problem with games that don't pre-define skills. At least in that case you've got the advantage of flexible character creation. But the constant negotiation for every mechanical interaction is a drag.

Depends on the individuals involved, in my experience.  Some people will argue about every little thing, others will go along with stuff.

Quote from: koewn;837817I swapped over to the single-saving-throw some time ago, it's just one (or two, or 5) less things on the character sheet.

I also inverted the tables so that the players roll saving throws for their own characters, and they roll "hazard throws"  to beat the monster's single hazard score, applying whatever modifiers they may have.

Players-roll-all-the-dice, as it were.

That's clever, though I like rolling dice, as a GM.

Welcome to theRPGsite!

Quote from: RPGPundit;838295That's clever, though I like rolling dice, as a GM.

I have trouble task-switching, for whatever reason. Having to roll a die, read it, and resolve it's value is for some reason a NP-hard problem for my brain.

I inverted the attack throws (this is ACKS) as well, so the players roll defense against the monster's attack value, adding their AC to the roll.

It does tend to keep the players engaged & busy.

QuoteWelcome to theRPGsite!

Thanks!

Quote from: koewn;838345I have trouble task-switching, for whatever reason. Having to roll a die, read it, and resolve it's value is for some reason a NP-hard problem for my brain.

Hmm, well, fair enough as long as its not something you consider some kind of universal good that should be hoisted on other GMs.

I like both the 5e approach and the Swords & Wizardry approach. 5e's saving throws are simply part of the core task mechanic, albeit with different proficiencies. But if you know how to use the core mecahnic, you know how to roll saves, it all works neatly in the same compact way. S&W got a single saving throw, modified when needed - clean and simple, and could easily be coopted into a quick task/skill system (ala Crypts & Things).

I like the 5E approach fairly well but the way they've done it, there doesn't seem to be much point having 'saves' as a separate category. They've basically got the same bonus as skill checks, so may as well roll them into the skills or use skill checks instead.

Quote from: RPGPundit;838604Hmm, well, fair enough as long as its not something you consider some kind of universal good that should be hoisted on other GMs.

...well, no. Just my own personal problem. You get a lot of folks doing that?

Besides, if I had the infrastructure to enforce that, I wouldn't waste it on mere game rules

Quote from: robiswrong;838190I prefer this exchange:

GM: There's a fireball heading straight at you.  What do you do?
Player 1:  Shit.  I jump out of the way behind the desk.
GM:  Cool.  Make a save, and take any movement based bonuses you get.

Player 1: I've also got a +2 situational modifier for spells. Does that apply here? What type of fireball is it?

All you've done is start the conversation two sentences earlier. You didn't actually solve the problem of the kludgy converation. And you've still got the delay from the player needing to re-calculate their specific bonus every time they make a save.

It's ironic that RPGPundit just complained about one of his players always recalculating their attack bonus each time they used it.

The way I'd organize something like this is to have my Players know what modifies what.
So they don't have to 'recalculate' anything, at most they just have to ask "is this the magic save?"

My Appendix P rules in Dark Albion show how I do it.