Static vs active defensive rolls.

[stoutstien]

Just wondering what the general feeling is for players.

Assuming the math is the same and we are working with the common dice+value roll over/under, do players rolling of given the option?

Pros:
Spreads out the cognitive load.
Players roll more dice.
Everyone sees the "randomness" so they can react to it without stopping to add color.
Makes combat feel more dangerous

Cons:
Players have more to do.
Hard to fudge
Not as common so could be confusing.

[kieza]

Depends on exactly how it's set up.

Sometimes the attacker rolls to attack and other times the defender rolls to defend: I find this inconsistent and annoying.

The attacker always rolls to attack and the defender always rolls to defend: involves more rolling, but doesn't do anything significant to the odds of success unless you're using a resolution mechanic more complex than d20.

The attacker always rolls to attack, and the defender sometimes rolls to defend if they have set up an active defense beforehand: this, I like. There is a consistent baseline in "attacker always rolls," and players can add to that if they so choose.

[GloatingSwine]

Depends how satisfying it is to win the rolls.

I'd say for standard defence with a null outcome (you didn't get hit) then it doesn't add much. If the outcome for the defender of winning is something better than that (can make some kind of responsive action or riposte) then it does.

[Xervous]

Rolling all the dice makes me feel like I’m playing an asymmetrical video game more than I’m interacting with a world through a character who resides in it.

[stoutstien]

Depends how satisfying it is to win the rolls.

I'd say for standard defence with a null outcome (you didn't get hit) then it doesn't add much. If the outcome for the defender of winning is something better than that (can make some kind of responsive action or riposte) then it does.

Hmm good point. If the roll itself was interactive on some level it could be seen in a similar vien as attacks and saves. Roll a 20 for defense then you can do X immediately and roll a 1 the inverse occurs.

[warty goblin]

Mathematically roll d20 + mode, compare to d20 + mod2 for defense is never equivalent to compare d20 + mod to a static number.

This is easy enough to see with some simple algebra. Writing X for the d20 roll, m for the modifier, and T for the target number, the second, standard D&D case is

P(success) = P(X + m >= T) = 1 - P(X < T - M)

But, writing X1, m2 for thr first roll and modifier and X2, m2 for the second, the active defense case is

P(Success) = P(X1 + m1 >= X2 + m2) = 1 - P(X1 - X2 < m1 - m2).

Now here's the key point, the difference of two d20 rolls has the same distributional form as the sum, which is to say the PMF is a pyramid; where the sum is centered at 21, the difference is centered at zero. The PMF of a single d20 is of course flat. There is no way to get these two distributions to behave the same way, in particular the effect of a +1 to your modifier on the probability of success is constant with 1d20, but in the active defense scenario it varies based on your opponent's defense. Getting +1 against an enemy with a defense one higher than your current attack is way, way more impactful than that same +1 against somebody with a defense that's 10 higher than your attack.

So rolling active defense is probabilistically the same as a system where the attacker rolls 2d20 + mod1, and compares to a static mod2 + 21. It enjoys an at the table advantage since active defense requires adding a lot fewer double digit numbers, but the success curve is the same. All of which is to say that this isn't an aesthetic change, it's a move to a more normalized distribution, similar to (though less extremely normalized) switching to 3d6.

[stoutstien]

I never intended to use 2 rolls just flipping the roll to be made by the player(s) rather than the NPCs. It will remain Dx+ mod compared to static value.

[GloatingSwine]

So in effect "save vs sword"?

Then yeah, I think if you do that for every attack roll made against players there definitely wants to be something more on the line than the null outcome. Whilst that's the case with other saves, they're rarer than attacks and generally attached to fancy things so it doesn't become obvious that you're rolling to have nothing happen.

Players rolling their attacks NPCs rolling theirs has the advantage that the roll is made by the active doer and the outcome of success is always "something happens". Which is nice and intuitive consistency.

[warty goblin]

I never intended to use 2 rolls just flipping the roll to be made by the player(s) rather than the NPCs. It will remain Dx+ mod compared to static value.

Then I guess the only question is does your game have monster critical hits, and if so, are the players going to the change from

"The orc warlord swings its axe is a brutal arc with all its strength, hitting you for 2d12 + 4" when the orc rolls a 20, to

"You seem to have two left feet as you stumble into the oc warlord's axe for 2d12 + 4" when they roll a 1.

[kyoryu]

I think "hard to fudge" is a pro, as is "players have more to do".

"Not as common" is... meh.

Most of the games I play use active defense and it works fine. It doesn't add a lot of time, either.

[stoutstien]

So in effect "save vs sword"?

Then yeah, I think if you do that for every attack roll made against players there definitely wants to be something more on the line than the null outcome. Whilst that's the case with other saves, they're rarer than attacks and generally attached to fancy things so it doesn't become obvious that you're rolling to have nothing happen.

Players rolling their attacks NPCs rolling theirs has the advantage that the roll is made by the active doer and the outcome of success is always "something happens". Which is nice and intuitive consistency.

Is it intuitive or is it just what is? If combat is occurring relatively simultaneously the attack <action> is merely a mechanical interface nested in combat that has its own mechanicals interface (turn/ rounds).

I think we frame attacking as more active is because it's an action in the meta.


Then I guess the only question is does your game have monster critical hits, and if so, are the players going to the change from

"The orc warlord swings its axe is a brutal arc with all its strength, hitting you for 2d12 + 4" when the orc rolls a 20, to

"You seem to have two left feet as you stumble into the oc warlord's axe for 2d12 + 4" when they roll a 1.


I'm thinking on keeping the 1 and 20 as auto miss hits and adding from there. Critical hits as a general rule is out as the individual player options will dictate how that acts.

[LibraryOgre]

Which variety do you mean?

Do you mean opposed rolls... i.e. Bob rolls a d20 to hit, the orc rolls a d20 to avoid, both add their bonuses, and the higher wins?

Or do you mean Bob rolls to attack the Orc against its AC, and rolls to defend against the orc against its Attack Value?

The first provides more variety and tactics (Hackmaster does this, and your defense die varies with your gear, your stance, and how many times you've been attacked since your last action), but it is also complicated and can really slow down the game.

The second can speed things up, engage the players more, and takes some burden off the GM... but it can also slow things down as players struggle to keep up with the math.

[stoutstien]

Which variety do you mean?

Do you mean opposed rolls... i.e. Bob rolls a d20 to hit, the orc rolls a d20 to avoid, both add their bonuses, and the higher wins?

Or do you mean Bob rolls to attack the Orc against its AC, and rolls to defend against the orc against its Attack Value?

The first provides more variety and tactics (Hackmaster does this, and your defense die varies with your gear, your stance, and how many times you've been attacked since your last action), but it is also complicated and can really slow down the game.

The second can speed things up, engage the players more, and takes some burden off the GM... but it can also slow things down as players struggle to keep up with the math.

I want to like hack master but I just can't get into it.

It's the ladder. I'm not to worried about the minute differences in resolutions times as much as the "feel" from allowing the players to "see" attacks.

*You can also run simultaneous resolutions this way with multi attack or more than one npc.*

[LibraryOgre]

I want to like hack master but I just can't get into it.

As much as I like it, it's very crunchy, and tends to require a big buy-in from all your players because of it.


It's the ladder. I'm not to worried about the minute differences in resolutions times as much as the "feel" from allowing the players to "see" attacks.

*You can also run simultaneous resolutions this way with multi attack or more than one npc.*

I like the "players roll defense against attack values" well enough; it keeps them more engaged, and helps address the problem of "Why can't I do anything to defend myself" question that I hear often... you're being attacked, you want to react, and you don't like that your defensive moves are abstracted into your other choices (i.e. weapon and armor, stats, etc.)

[CarpeGuitarrem]

It's alright but adds a lot of mechanical overhead in exchange for a small bell curve (but one that doesn't create significantly more stable outcomes, especially with evenly matched characters) and the potential for really high differences between attacker and defender, which can impact the game if you use thresholds of success. (E.g., rolling at +0 against a target of 10 with a d20 means you can at most exceed the target by 10, but if your opponent also rolls with +0, you can go up to beating them by 19.)

Personally I don't necessarily love having all that extra rolling but at the end of the day I guess it's fine. I like it in Cortex games because they're all about building big pools of dice, and you don't have to bother with difficulty modifiers.

[Easy e]

I prefer to actively do something as a player, rather than be a victim to something. To me, games are fun because they force you to make decisions.

So, to use D&D as an example; I do not enjoy being attacked, getting hit, and simply removing hit points. Boring.

I would prefer an opposed roll as an in-between option.

My preferences is to get a choice or option to avoid the attack. Is it better to parry, straight up dodge, tank it, or do something else. Of course, the option I chose will impact me later by either depleting future options, reducing resources, etc.

However, I realize that this does slow things down a bit, but my engagement in a combat is so much better. I could have to make a decision at any moment.

[Pauly]

This comes down to “what is a hit?”.
The answer depends on the system, and from there the desirability of defensive rolls.
At a simplified level the attack sequence is
1) Did the attack hit the target?
2) Did the target’s defenses take effect?
3) What is the damage?

Generally speaking D&D combines steps 1 and 2 by making the target’s AC the difficulty of the attack roll. Other systems will separate steps 1 and 2 into different rolls.

Getting back to “what is a hit?”
A hit can either mean
1) the attack lands on the hit box inside of which the target resides, or
2) a blow on the target itself.
Option (1) is normally resolved by having a fixed difficulty level for an attack, followed by an active defense roll.
Option (2) is normally resolved by having a floating difficulty level with many situational modifiers.
Generally speaking in game design option (1) is preferred for games where combat is primarily ranged and (2) is more often used in melee heavy games.

Another consideration is the damage/HP relationship.
In games where combat is lethal and each hit can potentially kill the target active defenses to negate hits are highly desirable. In games where HP bloat turns targets into bullet sponges active defenses are less desirable.

[gbaji]

It's alright but adds a lot of mechanical overhead in exchange for a small bell curve (but one that doesn't create significantly more stable outcomes, especially with evenly matched characters) and the potential for really high differences between attacker and defender, which can impact the game if you use thresholds of success. (E.g., rolling at +0 against a target of 10 with a d20 means you can at most exceed the target by 10, but if your opponent also rolls with +0, you can go up to beating them by 19.)

Yeah. Was going to respond to an earlier post about the difference, but your statement is (IMO) a more clear explanation.

As long as the outcome is binary "You hit, or you missed" (which is the case for D20 systems), then there is functionally no value to having both attacker and defender roll dice. The only effect the defenders die has is to aplly a variable to-hit modifier to the attackers chance to hit. That does create a bell cuve probability outcome, and some odd effects based on relative starting points (base tohit vs base AC say), but that's a lot of extra work for the same outcome:

You either hit, or you didn't. So I'm also in the camp of "don't bother".

And yeah, someone mentioned the whole "I want to be able to do something to defend myself". Which is 100% valid. But you have to do a fair amount of modification to a D20 system to incorporate this. At the end of the day, defensive actions in those systems simply act as adjustments to effective AC which the attacker has to overcome with their roll. You *could* produce a die roll for that adjustment instead of a flat value. Or you could create some sort of skill roll attempt to get the adjustment in the first place (maybe an even better way to go). But you're still "stuck" with a game mechanic that says everything is either a hit or a miss, with nothing in between.


This comes down to “what is a hit?”.
The answer depends on the system, and from there the desirability of defensive rolls.
At a simplified level the attack sequence is
1) Did the attack hit the target?
2) Did the target’s defenses take effect?
3) What is the damage?

Generally speaking D&D combines steps 1 and 2 by making the target’s AC the difficulty of the attack roll. Other systems will separate steps 1 and 2 into different rolls.


Yup. In RQ, a hit means you hit the target. There is no concept of AC making this somehow "harder". You then roll damage and apply it to the armor points based on how much actual armor the target is wearing (and both weapon damage and armor may be enhanced via magic spells). Any damage beyond that blocked by armor, goes though as HP damage to the target. Simple.

A parry can be attempted by the target. If successful, the defender gets to add the armor points of the parrying weapon/shield to the worn armor and reduces the damage done as a result. Also very simple.

Of course, to have this level of comparison, you have to already have a system that represents "1", and "2" as discrete elements. D20 systems do not, so there's not really any value to having an extra roll.

In RQ, you can also dodge, which basically makes a successful hit into a miss. Um... There's some rules for comparing relative success levels for the hit vs the dodge though . The game system has rules for critical, special, and regular hits, plus misses, and fumbles, so a simple way to look at it is that a successful dodge subtracts its level of success from the success level of the hit. So a regular dodge reduces a regular hit into a miss. The same dodge would reduce a special hit into a regular hit, and a critical hit into a special hit. A special dodge will reduce the hit by two levels, a critical by three (a critcal dodge always dodges, since you can't get better than a critical hit). So yeah. Dodge acts a bit more like D20 systems. Sorta. But then again, when what you're trying to do is "not get hit", that's kinda part of the deal. The point is that you still get your actual worn AP to potentially block the damage just as well as if you hadn't dodged. There's just no concept of "Armor Class" as something that changes the opponents actual to hit roll.


And yeah. I suppose this does fullfil the need players might have to be more active in terms of defending themselves. D&D has this odd sort of "you're just walking around, and you take damage based on what you are wearing, and not a lot else" concept to it. It does have the benefit of being much simpler. But it does mean that for the most part, you (the player) are a passive participant when being attacked. While in other systems, you are actually allowed to "do something" in that situation.

Some players like that. Some don't. Seen it go both ways. There's lots of people who try out RQ (or other similar games), and their response is "I'm having to rolll so many dice. It's too much work. Just tell me how much damage I take this round". Different strokes and all that, right?

[stoutstien]

This comes down to “what is a hit?”.
The answer depends on the system, and from there the desirability of defensive rolls.
At a simplified level the attack sequence is
1) Did the attack hit the target?
2) Did the target’s defenses take effect?
3) What is the damage?

Generally speaking D&D combines steps 1 and 2 by making the target’s AC the difficulty of the attack roll. Other systems will separate steps 1 and 2 into different rolls.

Getting back to “what is a hit?”
A hit can either mean
1) the attack lands on the hit box inside of which the target resides, or
2) a blow on the target itself.
Option (1) is normally resolved by having a fixed difficulty level for an attack, followed by an active defense roll.
Option (2) is normally resolved by having a floating difficulty level with many situational modifiers.
Generally speaking in game design option (1) is preferred for games where combat is primarily ranged and (2) is more often used in melee heavy games.

Another consideration is the damage/HP relationship.
In games where combat is lethal and each hit can potentially kill the target active defenses to negate hits are highly desirable. In games where HP bloat turns targets into bullet sponges active defenses are less desirable.

In regards to my framing:
-combat is dangerous. Few things can weather more than a single well placed blow let alone eatting dozens of them in a single scene.
-HP are low across the board and scale slowly.
-total attacks are low. Getting more than 1 is rare.
-a portion of melee attacks deal damage even on misses ( shields can prevent this once per round).
-AC are relatively lower.
-tougher armor and avoiding attacks will be modeled to be separate but overlapping for ease of use. *Early testing*
-npcs in general are designed with ease/speed of use first. If for any reason it needs to be converted to function like the PCs it should be seamless and thier creation should be just a fast. Will Include a tabled version to have X variants of a similar theme and thanks to not needing to roll as often the GM can run them "Character" forword.

The game world doesn't have a different "maths" for the PCs compared to the NPCs it's just presented in a different format.

[animorte]

Of course, along with everything else that's been said it does depend. Active vs passive defense is basically equivalent to rolling a save vs having a static number. 5e clearly has both weaved in separately. Utilizing an active defense would require a consistent combination of the two, and preferably valuable mechanical (and perhaps flavorful) implementation. If you view attacks as something that can be actively nullified, and explain it as such, then it can certainly feel more engaging to the players.

On could even include a < 5/10 > for additional effects. Maybe reducing damage, make a counter-attack, disarming (or various other combat maneuvers) for rolling that much better than your opponent. This should work as a built in part of the equally active offense, I would think.

[Quertus]

I think "hard to fudge" is a pro, as is "players have more to do".

Pretty much this. The one con I'll add... OK, fine, there's... gosh darned Spanish Inquisition, I keep coming up with more cons! :smallbiggrin:

First off, not everyone comes to the table with 100 d20's or programs to automate all these rolls. IME, a good GM is prepared for the adventure, whereas the players don't know what the adventure is going to be. A good GM can be prepared to roll for 100 orcs throwing spears at the party or whatever; the players shouldn't be expected to be so prepared. So it's often (much) faster to just let a good GM roll for everything.

Then there's the consideration of cheaters. Gee, Bob, you got missed by everything again? How lucky for you. Shrug. I don't actually care about this one much, but some people might.

Then there's the really lucky and really unlucky players. One of my players, the one time I let them roll for enemy attacks, they nearly killed themselves in the opening salvo, whereas everyone else was barely bruised. Yeah, it really wasn't kind of me to let them touch the dice on the enemy attacks.

One last little dumb con is that everyone has to know the enemy stats in order to make the rolls. Which means that this isn't compatible with a game that involves hidden information (like, "the PCs shouldn't know that there's an Orc Shaman, who secretly cast Stilled Silent Prayer last round, boosting the attack bonus on the second round of attacks", for example).

EDIT: What's with "Makes combat feel more dangerous"? IME, the unknown usually feels more dangerous than the known, and this method is incompatible with hidden information.

So, the new lists look like this:

Pros:
Spreads out the cognitive load.
Players roll more dice.
Everyone sees the "randomness" so they can react to it without stopping to add color.
Makes combat feel more dangerous (???)
Players have more to do.
Hard to fudge.

Cons:
Not as common so could be confusing.
Players have less cause and ability to be prepared than GM.
Cheaters exist.
Some players are just unlucky.
Incompatible with hidden information.
Maybe makes combat feel less dangerous?

[gbaji]

One last little dumb con is that everyone has to know the enemy stats in order to make the rolls. Which means that this isn't compatible with a game that involves hidden information (like, "the PCs shouldn't know that there's an Orc Shaman, who secretly cast Stilled Silent Prayer last round, boosting the attack bonus on the second round of attacks", for example).?

This isn't necessary at all. The defender has a skill at say, parry, or block, or dodge, or whatever. They succeed in their skill and the result applies some adjustment to the opponents to-hit roll, or reduces damage, or whatever. No need to know anything about the other guy at all.

If we're assuming some sort of "appying adjustments back and forth, but ultimately resolving a D20 style hit/miss calculation", then it doesn't really matter whether the attacker applies their own effects after adjusting to the defenders adjustments, or before.

And if you want to add such things, the GM simply stating "make your <whatever> roll at -X, or against DC=Y" (or whatever the game system uses), is not terribly burdensome, while not informing the player of any more information than "my skill was harder to make against this opponent", whch is already something that exists with every other "roll against difficulty" calculation you might use anyway. And yes. I'd argue that if this opponent is harder to parry/block/whatever than the last one, the character (and thus the player) would/should actually notice this. In the same way you'd notice that this lock is harder to pick than the last one, or this door is harder to knock down than the last one, or well, any other sutation in a game where you're resolving a skill against variable difficulty.

[animorte]

No need to know anything about the other guy at all.

or well, any other sutation in a game where you're resolving a skill against variable difficulty.
Well said. Basically what I was going to follow up with, but much better.

AC constantly changes between enemies, just like their own saves and attack modifiers. There's really not much difference. It just has the illusion of creating more agency in the results as opposed rolling against or just watching the rolls against your own static DCs, which is not necessarily a bad thing.

[GloatingSwine]

Is it intuitive or is it just what is? If combat is occurring relatively simultaneously the attack <action> is merely a mechanical interface nested in combat that has its own mechanicals interface (turn/ rounds).

I think we frame attacking as more active is because it's an action in the meta.


Yes. "I roll when I do things, you roll when you do things" is absolutely the intuitive way to do it. It's an "action" in that it's the thing that produces a tangible outcome in the game.


I think "hard to fudge" is a pro, as is "players have more to do".

Players having more to do is fine if their characters are also doing more because of it. Just flipping the maths and having the player roll when their character doesn't do anything new as a result gives them busywork without connecting at-table actions to in-game actions.

Active defence needs to be more than "save vs. sword", there needs to be a tangible character outcome to success not the null outcome.

[MoiMagnus]

Looking at D&D, I don't like NPCs making saving throws against spell.

So what I prefer is that either you go with "attacking party is the one rolling dice" (like in D&D4e, or regular attacks in any D&D), or you go with the asymmetric "players are always the ones rolling dice" (so they roll for attack and defence while the monsters have fixed values for everything)

[Note that in the latter, I assume that you're also using average values for monster damage rolls and any other similar randomness]

[stoutstien]

Yes. "I roll when I do things, you roll when you do things" is absolutely the intuitive way to do it. It's an "action" in that it's the thing that produces a tangible outcome in the game.


Players having more to do is fine if their characters are also doing more because of it. Just flipping the maths and having the player roll when their character doesn't do anything new as a result gives them busywork without connecting at-table actions to in-game actions.

Active defence needs to be more than "save vs. sword", there needs to be a tangible character outcome to success not the null outcome.

It's only intuitive if you're framing that when you take the attack action it is resolved immediately. If turns are mostly occurring simultaneously the attack action is committing to attacking for that entire turn.
It's just as easily framed as making some sort of save or test against the enemy's attack and your attacks are making a save/test against the enemy's AC/DR.
No one ever complains when they have to make a save against an effect because most been conditioned to realize that they're different but practically are the same. You just add some different number.

Part of the reason why I'm so interested in this is it's a more tangible system for the players to interact with and in my opinion it's a lot smoother as well because I don't have to either double check against my cheat sheet for the players AC or ask them every time I make an attack with their AC is because they vary. So if an individual hero has a instant action where they can change that value there's no longer needs to be any exchange for it. They roll the dice see the dice and immediately decide what they want to do about it if they have the opposite available rather than 2-3 quips back and forth. A lot of games have grown accustomed to this back and forth as just a part of the game I just don't think it's necessary.

This entire idea came up to me because my wife asked me to make her a game that uses a single d6 for everything and the players and GM never roll that die on the same turn. It was a fun little puzzle and it ended up to be a nice little system but it got me thinking on expanding it. Could I make combat deeper by making it half as complex?

[Asmotherion]

I'm into active defensive rolls to the point of making them one of the selling points of my own system.

I like the idea that all conflict is resolved by opposed rolls.

[stoutstien]

I'm into active defensive rolls to the point of making them one of the selling points of my own system.

I like the idea that all conflict is resolved by opposed rolls.

I'm not opposed to the concept of opposing rolls but I've never seen it done well. Either it's horribly and balanced one way or the other or it is a net gain of nothing with a lot more maths. I do have an exception for solo RPGs. I think it's one of the best mechanics you can use for that design space.

I've experimented with dramatic DCs when checks are made. It kind of turns everything into an opposed roll but it never got past theoretical testing. I think it's doable for games that use dice pools because the curve is going to be more predictable.

I just don't like dice pools for anything that isn't cumulative and universal. Like I like pools that represent things like time, urgency, or threat because everyone can see and interpret a single pool rather have a bunch of individual ones.

[LibraryOgre]

I'm not opposed to the concept of opposing rolls but I've never seen it done well. Either it's horribly and balanced one way or the other or it is a net gain of nothing with a lot more maths. I do have an exception for solo RPGs. I think it's one of the best mechanics you can use for that design space.


One thing I find Hackmaster does well for its opposed combat rolls is to vary the defense die rolled.

For example, if you're "two weapons, attacking with both", your defense die is 1d10p; because of penetration (exploding), you can get a high defense, but if you're swinging two swords, you're going to be worse at defense than someone who is using the second weapon for defense. For a lot of weapons, your defense die after the first attack is d20p-4. If you're using a shield and the opponent misses by less than 10, they hit your shield, and you take less damage from the attack (because your shield's damage reduction is included, and the weapon damage is lowered on a shield hit).

Additionally, success isn't binary; there are shades of success. A 20 that beats the defender's defense (when bonuses and everything are considered) is a critical... but a 20 on defense is a "Perfect Defense", allowing you a free attack, and a 19 on defense is a "Near-Perfect Defense", which allows an unarmed attack on the opponent (and that ignores armor). If you're using two weapons, a near-perfect defense can be an off-hand weapon strike. Thieves are the masters of the NPD, getting it on an 18 or 19, and doing more damage with one.

It's a complex system, though it flows well once you've learned it.

[stoutstien]

One thing I find Hackmaster does well for its opposed combat rolls is to vary the defense die rolled.

For example, if you're "two weapons, attacking with both", your defense die is 1d10p; because of penetration (exploding), you can get a high defense, but if you're swinging two swords, you're going to be worse at defense than someone who is using the second weapon for defense. For a lot of weapons, your defense die after the first attack is d20p-4. If you're using a shield and the opponent misses by less than 10, they hit your shield, and you take less damage from the attack (because your shield's damage reduction is included, and the weapon damage is lowered on a shield hit).

Additionally, success isn't binary; there are shades of success. A 20 that beats the defender's defense (when bonuses and everything are considered) is a critical... but a 20 on defense is a "Perfect Defense", allowing you a free attack, and a 19 on defense is a "Near-Perfect Defense", which allows an unarmed attack on the opponent (and that ignores armor). If you're using two weapons, a near-perfect defense can be an off-hand weapon strike. Thieves are the masters of the NPD, getting it on an 18 or 19, and doing more damage with one.

It's a complex system, though it flows well once you've learned it.

I have a copy of 4 and both 5E hack masters on my shelf and I respect them but not for me at all. I still recommend it to people because it's actually a great system for people who want that crunch without going the full homogenized route.

Also have a soft spot for well done parodies.

[gbaji]

I've experimented with dramatic DCs when checks are made. It kind of turns everything into an opposed roll but it never got past theoretical testing. I think it's doable for games that use dice pools because the curve is going to be more predictable.

I use a system like this in my RQ game. Skills are represeted as percentile attempts. The default rules handle "one succeeds, one fails", or "both fail" situations just fine, but are a little questionable when "both succeed". So I created a pretty simple solution: For opposed checks (say hide versus scan), each side rolls their skill. If both succeed, then it comes down to who succeeded by more percentile points than the other.

A simpler way to think of this is that person A rolls their skill. However much they make it by becomes a difficulty adjustment to person B's opposed skill check. So if I make my hide skill by X percentage points, you have to make your "scan-X"% roll to see me. This works well because it basically duplicates the concept of "difficulty checks" that most skill resolution systems use anyway, but makes it dynamic and dependent on some combination of the other persons skill and how well they rolled that skill check. The same basic concept can be applied to any die roll resolution system (works perfectly in a D20 style game actually).

Combat actions could be resolved this way as well, but kinda depends on the game systems specific combat rules. Lots of games have a "full hit, or full miss" style resolution (like D&D). Some have (or could have) some graduated outcomes (hit by X, do full, by only Y, do <less>, etc). RQ actually already has some specific rules to manage "both offensive and defensive skills succeed" cases (and does so very well), so no need to do more.

Um... Having said that, I did also crib some similar rules for combat skills, such that you can choose to spend (natural, not magically enhanced) skill over 100% as a deduction to the opposing persons combat skill. You reduce your own chance to get special or critical successes, but it's usually worth it to reduce the opponents chance to succeed at their opposed action in the first place (successful parry/dodge in that game is *huge*, not the minor effects D&D provides). I kinda had to do this, because otherewise, the game just doesn't scale well to high (as in upwards of 200% or higher) skill levels. And those levels are absolutely obtainable by long running charcters in the game. Heck. Just the "experience over time" listed in the core rules grants "profession: soldiers" a 5% increase in their weapon skill per year, with that progression starting at age 15, and the first effects of aging starting at age 40. So random generic "I signed up for the miltary as a teen and am a lifer now" NPC can gain 125% to their starting skill over that time, and assuming they're using a cultural weapon (base 25%), and have modestly high physical stats (say +15 bonus), we're looking at veteran NPC soldiers sitting at 165%. The old grizzled NPC, running his squad of young recruits and thinking "I'm getting too old for this <stuff>" at say 50, is around 215%. So yeah. Had to come up with something better than the base rules have.

It does create conditions of "you just can't succeed against that person". But... um... with that level of skill difference, shouldn't that actually be the case? It also allows for highly skilled PCs to really mow through mook level NPCs, so as to not unduly drag out otherwise meaningless combats.

And yeah. It also does a great job simulating "super skilled ninja guy can get into places you wouldn't even want to attempt" things. And to bring this back to "making defensive rolls", it does provide meaningful outcomes for players when taking "defensive" actions. You just have to have a game system that actually makes such things actually "meaningful". I guarantee you, if players could make an opposed roll on their turn to "block/dodge/parry" all damage when attacked, you'd find a lot more players actively engaged for a much larger percentage of any given combat. If all they get to do is a choice of combat "stance" at the beginning of the round, whichi applies maybe minor adjustments to their to-hit and their opponents to-hit rolls, that's not really as engaging.

[stoutstien]

I use a system like this in my RQ game. Skills are represeted as percentile attempts. The default rules handle "one succeeds, one fails", or "both fail" situations just fine, but are a little questionable when "both succeed". So I created a pretty simple solution: For opposed checks (say hide versus scan), each side rolls their skill. If both succeed, then it comes down to who succeeded by more percentile points than the other.

A simpler way to think of this is that person A rolls their skill. However much they make it by becomes a difficulty adjustment to person B's opposed skill check. So if I make my hide skill by X percentage points, you have to make your "scan-X"% roll to see me. This works well because it basically duplicates the concept of "difficulty checks" that most skill resolution systems use anyway, but makes it dynamic and dependent on some combination of the other persons skill and how well they rolled that skill check. The same basic concept can be applied to any die roll resolution system (works perfectly in a D20 style game actually).

Combat actions could be resolved this way as well, but kinda depends on the game systems specific combat rules. Lots of games have a "full hit, or full miss" style resolution (like D&D). Some have (or could have) some graduated outcomes (hit by X, do full, by only Y, do <less>, etc). RQ actually already has some specific rules to manage "both offensive and defensive skills succeed" cases (and does so very well), so no need to do more.

Um... Having said that, I did also crib some similar rules for combat skills, such that you can choose to spend (natural, not magically enhanced) skill over 100% as a deduction to the opposing persons combat skill. You reduce your own chance to get special or critical successes, but it's usually worth it to reduce the opponents chance to succeed at their opposed action in the first place (successful parry/dodge in that game is *huge*, not the minor effects D&D provides). I kinda had to do this, because otherewise, the game just doesn't scale well to high (as in upwards of 200% or higher) skill levels. And those levels are absolutely obtainable by long running charcters in the game. Heck. Just the "experience over time" listed in the core rules grants "profession: soldiers" a 5% increase in their weapon skill per year, with that progression starting at age 15, and the first effects of aging starting at age 40. So random generic "I signed up for the miltary as a teen and am a lifer now" NPC can gain 125% to their starting skill over that time, and assuming they're using a cultural weapon (base 25%), and have modestly high physical stats (say +15 bonus), we're looking at veteran NPC soldiers sitting at 165%. The old grizzled NPC, running his squad of young recruits and thinking "I'm getting too old for this <stuff>" at say 50, is around 215%. So yeah. Had to come up with something better than the base rules have.

It does create conditions of "you just can't succeed against that person". But... um... with that level of skill difference, shouldn't that actually be the case? It also allows for highly skilled PCs to really mow through mook level NPCs, so as to not unduly drag out otherwise meaningless combats.

And yeah. It also does a great job simulating "super skilled ninja guy can get into places you wouldn't even want to attempt" things. And to bring this back to "making defensive rolls", it does provide meaningful outcomes for players when taking "defensive" actions. You just have to have a game system that actually makes such things actually "meaningful". I guarantee you, if players could make an opposed roll on their turn to "block/dodge/parry" all damage when attacked, you'd find a lot more players actively engaged for a much larger percentage of any given combat. If all they get to do is a choice of combat "stance" at the beginning of the round, whichi applies maybe minor adjustments to their to-hit and their opponents to-hit rolls, that's not really as engaging.

I'm needing a copy of runequest for the collection but I just did a double backing of CWN. (Some of the most gorgeous off print books in the last 20 years)

Speaking of RQ I'm seriously considering going back to a roll under system. I mostly a forever DM but if I ever get to play again in any serious context that's what I want. I don't want to chase the DC dragon or worry about treadmills.

[GloatingSwine]

It's only intuitive if you're framing that when you take the attack action it is resolved immediately. If turns are mostly occurring simultaneously the attack action is committing to attacking for that entire turn.

Yeah, because in most cases they are. In fact I would say that attack rolls feel like the most immediate type of roll because they're common and they have a rhythm of rolling and calculating significant effects that the players really care about (who is dead and who isn't).


It's just as easily framed as making some sort of save or test against the enemy's attack and your attacks are making a save/test against the enemy's AC/DR.
No one ever complains when they have to make a save against an effect because most been conditioned to realize that they're different but practically are the same. You just add some different number.

It's easily framed as "you're doing something to avoid being hit/damaged" but that doesn't necessarily translate to players feeling that if the only outcome from success is "nothing happened".

Which is why systems that involve the player in enemy attacks tend to use opposed rolls, because then there are more outcomes and especially outcomes where the character does something on a success.

Saves to prevent an effect tend to be rarer and not in response to something as tangibly understandable as an attack roll ("Hit thing with sword" is something a player can imagine themself doing without thinking about how it works, "Resist a Hold Person spell" is not).

[stoutstien]

Yeah, because in most cases they are. In fact I would say that attack rolls feel like the most immediate type of roll because they're common and they have a rhythm of rolling and calculating significant effects that the players really care about (who is dead and who isn't).



It's easily framed as "you're doing something to avoid being hit/damaged" but that doesn't necessarily translate to players feeling that if the only outcome from success is "nothing happened".

Which is why systems that involve the player in enemy attacks tend to use opposed rolls, because then there are more outcomes and especially outcomes where the character does something on a success.

Saves to prevent an effect tend to be rarer and not in response to something as tangibly understandable as an attack roll ("Hit thing with sword" is something a player can imagine themself doing without thinking about how it works, "Resist a Hold Person spell" is not).

Maybe .

That's why I inquired because I've been damning so long I don't know how to think like a player. I don't have that perspective. My tolerance for roll and decision fatigue is much higher because by necessity I roll a lot of dice and deal with NPCs. I also don't have to worry about feeling like I have nothing to do for any stretch of time because it's all getting routed through me or individual players can be left out of the loop for long stretches of time and if they do get the interact it's just a subtract some HP from their sheet.

It's almost like a conversation about wanting to give them more things to do but in return also more agency over those things in exchange for that additional cognitive load.

Just spit balling now:
What if you could allow a creature to hit you in exchange for you hitting them. This could interact with armors that are specifically designed to do this like most late period plate.

[Quertus]

This isn't necessary at all. The defender has a skill at say, parry, or block, or dodge, or whatever. They succeed in their skill and the result applies some adjustment to the opponents to-hit roll, or reduces damage, or whatever. No need to know anything about the other guy at all.

You're not even wrong - this is simply irrelevant in the context of this thread, where we explicitly aren't talking about that kind of defense.


If we're assuming some sort of "appying adjustments back and forth, but ultimately resolving a D20 style hit/miss calculation", then it doesn't really matter whether the attacker applies their own effects after adjusting to the defenders adjustments, or before.

And if you want to add such things, the GM simply stating "make your <whatever> roll at -X, or against DC=Y" (or whatever the game system uses), is not terribly burdensome, while not informing the player of any more information than "my skill was harder to make against this opponent", whch is already something that exists with every other "roll against difficulty" calculation you might use anyway. And yes. I'd argue that if this opponent is harder to parry/block/whatever than the last one, the character (and thus the player) would/should actually notice this. In the same way you'd notice that this lock is harder to pick than the last one, or this door is harder to knock down than the last one, or well, any other sutation in a game where you're resolving a skill against variable difficulty.

In the context of D&D, if I tell you that the orcs are suddenly harder to defend against this turn, I have given you information that something happened, and you might well metagame and (for example) throw a Dispel Magic that your character in character has no reason to do. In the context of a modded D&D, it makes buying Sense Motive for the purpose of properly processing that the battle has shifted (or whatever skill allows you to notice how the battle has shifted; I personally use BAB as the "skill" being rolled to make such observations) pointless, as one can simply use the information about the DC of the "AC Roll" to gain the same information.

So it's still incompatible with a hidden information based game.

[stoutstien]

You're not even wrong - this is simply irrelevant in the context of this thread, where we explicitly aren't talking about that kind of defense.



In the context of D&D, if I tell you that the orcs are suddenly harder to defend against this turn, I have given you information that something happened, and you might well metagame and (for example) throw a Dispel Magic that your character in character has no reason to do. In the context of a modded D&D, it makes buying Sense Motive for the purpose of properly processing that the battle has shifted (or whatever skill allows you to notice how the battle has shifted; I personally use BAB as the "skill" being rolled to make such observations) pointless, as one can simply use the information about the DC of the "AC Roll" to gain the same information.

So it's still incompatible with a hidden information based game.

Would this change if it's not a game that's framed like d&d? I'm at one for burying the lead when it comes to trying to hide information that's very important for a situation. The whole astute paradigm is screwed up with tabletop RPGs because the DM has full control of what information the PC and thier players and frequency misrepresent, unintentionally or not, vital information.



I'm one for giving the players all the information they need to make the decision at hand. If something can be damaged by meta gaming it probably deserves it.

[Quertus]

Would this change if it's not a game that's framed like d&d? I'm at one for burying the lead when it comes to trying to hide information that's very important for a situation. The whole astute paradigm is screwed up with tabletop RPGs because the DM has full control of what information the PC and thier players and frequency misrepresent, unintentionally or not, vital information.



I'm one for giving the players all the information they need to make the decision at hand. If something can be damaged by meta gaming it probably deserves it.

I'll admit, I may have misunderstood your question, so if it seems like I'm strawmanning you, it's just because I'm being dumb. :smallredface:

That said, changing the underlying system can change some of the compatibility points. Like, if there's nothing that interacts with X, X can possibly be known. For example, if defense rolls are uncontested (so, if you dodge/block/parry, it's based entirely on your skill), or if all large things impose a +5 bonus to parry and a -5 penalty to block, then one can attempt to Dodge a large-sized Ogre without gaining any additional information. OTOH, if the Ogre is under an illusion to appear to be a Hobbit, you won't know that your bonuses aren't what you expect until you attempt a defensive move.

Ignoring uncontested active defenses, it again depends on the system. If there are no abilities which can stealthily apply modifiers to a known value (all spells make the target sparkle with "DC 0 to identify" magic sparkles), then there's no reason that what the player needs to know to make a defense roll isn't the same as equivalent to what the character knows about the situation.

And, to look at things another way, in setting, would anyone instantly know exactly how good a fighter someone is after exchanging a single swing with one another? Because that's the information you hand out when you give players opposed target numbers for attack and defense rolls.

Ultimately, it depends on the system, and whether modifiers can be applied in ways that should not be obvious to the PCs (at least not to those who have not invested in sufficient "observational" resources).

As a general rule, I hate to give players information that their characters wouldn't have, or wouldn't have the equivalent of from their own observations. The easiest way to roleplay ignorance is to be ignorant, after all. And the proposed method is incompatible with that desire under some systems, including the one relevant to the context of this thread, but not all systems.

[Vahnavoi]

Who rolls is the least interesting part of passive versus active defenses.

Passive defenses are primarily a game conceit. They exist primarily to speed up resolution when there are a lot of possible attackers for a single target. Effectively, considering the target as passive treats one half of equation as solved, so only variables on the attacker's side need to be decided. It's worth noting that in D&D and other tabletop games, the target's passive defense scores (armor class, hit points, saving throw, etc.) often are already meant to abstractly represent various things the target might be actively doing (such as dodging, parrying etc.)

Active defenses are best reserved for games where numbers of combatants are low, such as duels. Here, what works best is some kind of rock-paper-scissors dynamic, where a pick has to be made in response to the opponent and there are no safe picks. A roll-off isn't a particularly interesting way to do this in the first place, not until you start to introduce intransitive dice or large modifiers that significantly skew the result depending on picks. Card games, actual rock-paper-scissors, reflex games etc. make for better representations of actively doing something.

[Quertus]

Who rolls is the least interesting part of passive versus active defenses.

Sure. But again, despite the title, this thread was about GM vs player rolling adversary attack rolls.

That said, if an adversary has a 35% active defense, there’s no reason that the player can’t roll that, either. And the list of pros and cons of “who rolls” is probably about the same.

But that least interesting bit, “who rolls”, is what’s under discussion.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

There is another interesting angle where a handful of games have "somebody is taking a hit" alongside opposed rolls. i.e., if the defender rolls high, they deal damage. Which makes it a lot more important for both parties to roll, but it also speeds up combat since damage is more consistently happening.

It does have the effect of making good defensive skills more important than action economy, but that could fit some genres--with the right framing it's fun for one player to be the defensive fighter who parries and defeats a mob of enemies. I think you'd probably want to give players a lot of options on their turn, so that there's still a reason to go on the offensive.

[gbaji]

You're not even wrong - this is simply irrelevant in the context of this thread, where we explicitly aren't talking about that kind of defense.

I'm not sure how that's irrelevant at all. The question being posed was about players using active defensive rolls in combat instead of just having a "passive' AC value that the attacker has to roll against. You countered that one of the problems was that varying modifiers to a defensive roll made by the PC would clue the player in that the NPC may have some special ability/spell/whatever that is adjusting their chances to make their defensive roll.

To which I basically said: "So what? The character *should* be aware that it's harder to parry/dodge/whatever against opponents who, for whatever reason are harder to parry/dodge/whatever. That's not really a problem.


In the context of D&D, if I tell you that the orcs are suddenly harder to defend against this turn, I have given you information that something happened, and you might well metagame and (for example) throw a Dispel Magic that your character in character has no reason to do.

Um... And if in D&D, you tell the players that the orcs are suddenly harder to hit with an attack this round, are you not also providing them the same information (ie: their AC changed from last round to this round, or maybe just "this orc" has a higher AC then the other ones)? The players might also speculate that these orcs are more skilled, or have activated some feat/skill that increases their AC, or have some spells up that make them harder to hit, or have otherwise via any of a number of methods, increased their AC between last round and this round.

We accept that already, right? It's part of the game system. Why is this a problem if the PC is making a defensive roll but not when making an attack roll?


So it's still incompatible with a hidden information based game.

It's no more or less hidden than adjustments to AC that are already handled by die rolls by the players. I'm simply not seeing the issue here. At the end of the day, the player has to roll a die that pits his skill at <whatever> against some difficulty value, with some die roll value needed to succeed. That equation is exactly the same whether it's rolling a hit against an opponents AC, or rolling a defensive skill against an "AV - Attack Value", or whatever.

The entire point of this conversation is to discuss the viability of having a single attack managed by two rolls instead of just one. One by the attacker to see if they can hit, and an additional one by the defender to see if they can avoid being hit (or maybe avoid taking damage, or some damage, or some other "partial effect"). And part of that discussion is the realization that the defensive action can't just be based on "can I make my skill?", for pretty much the same reason that the attack action can't just be "can I make my skill?". In the same way that the defender may have some value that the attacker has to overcome to hit (AC), the attacker must have some value that the defender has to overcome (my proposed "AV", or whatever). There's a number of game mechanic methods for doing these things in various ways, and obviously depends strongly on the surrounding combat system being used.

But it's not "irrelevant" at all. I'd argue that it's absolutely core to the question being raised. Failing to include any method for the attacker to reduce the defenders chance to defend in your combat system is similarly problematic to failing to have a method for the defender to reduce the attackers chance to hit (like having an AC value that you can affect by wearing better armor, having magic defensive stuff on, skills in play, etc). It's an apples to apples situation.

Doesn't answer whether this is a "better" way to do things. But if you are going to include active defensive rolls in your combat system, this is absolutely something you need to think about.


Sure. But again, despite the title, this thread was about GM vs player rolling adversary attack rolls.

Maybe you misunderstood (or I did)? I assumed this was about *both* the GM and the player rolling to resolve an attack (so two die rolls, not just one). Or at least, providing the defender some option to roll something to affect the outcome of an attack against them rather than just having a predetermined passive defensive value (AC) that the attacker just rolls a single die against. That's what I was talking about, at least.

I suppose we could also imagine making players roll for defending against attacks *instead* of the NPCs rolling to attack as a whole "different way to do the combat system" thing, but I didn't get that from the OPs question. I also thought that at least part of the point was to engage the players more actively when it's not "their turn", and having them be able to roll when defending instead of just when attacking is one way to do that.

[Vahnavoi]

Quertus is just wrong on the information argument. Random function versus random function does not inherently surrender players any more information than random function versus static number.

[stoutstien]

I wasn't really focused on any particular mechanics combination. I was just pondering over the feeling of defensive rolls from the player's perspective in regards to flow.

[gbaji]

Quertus is just wrong on the information argument. Random function versus random function does not inherently surrender players any more information than random function versus static number.

Actually, it arguably provides less information, since you can't know how much of the modified target is due to spells/feats/whatever or the opponents actual die roll. If my target roll for whatever was 10 last round, and it's 16 this round, in the absence of opposed rolls, I know that my opponent did something that increased the dificulty for me by 6 points. With an opposed roll, it could just be that he rolled 6 points better this round than last.

[gatorized]

I prefer attacker and defender both rolling, but I don't use d20 systems. Among others, it has the advantage that players can spend resolve and other resources to improve their defense rolls against big hits, granting interesting decisions for players even off-turn, which helps with engagement, and everyone has the auto-success option on any roll whenever they don't feel like rolling dice.

[LibraryOgre]

The Mod Ogre: That which doth eternal lie; at half a season, threads may die.