Opposed Rolls?

[ren1999]

If a player wants to roll a 1d20 instead of accepting a base 10, I will always allow that.

If I, the GM, don't want to roll to oppose the player character, I'll just go with the static base 10.

In my game, I am testing opposed ability checks for every attack and save and it really is interesting and fun. (1d20+str mod(1/2 level too)+feat mod+magic mod+etc..) vs ac, 1d20+dex mod vs 1d20+dex mod just clarifies everything.

This is what I wanted for 4th edition but the idea was not well received.

My Dungeons & Dragons Hybrid Game for Firefox and Chrome kira3696.tripod.com/CombatTracker.rar

 

[Sunseeker]

I like to think there should be variety.

Some things should be represented by opposed roles.
Some things should just be a "I roll to try to hit you."
Some things should be a "You roll to try and avoid my attack."

Ex:
Two swordsmen locked in a duel might make opposed disarm rolls when I attempt to disarm my opponent. If I win the highroll, he is disarmed. If I lose the highroll, I'm diarmed.

A ranger shoots an arrow at a target, they are attempting to hit it.

A wizard casts Grasping Tentacles around where I'm standing, I attempt to quickly jump away to avoid being grabbed by the tentacles.

Each form of roll represents a unique situation. The game should be able to present them all without too greatly confusing players. Perhaps there could be some streamlined breakdown. Opposed rolls for melee combat maneuvers. Attack rolls for ranged single-target attacks. Saving throws for non-specific area of affect things. IE: reflex save to avoid an explosion, will save against a psychic blast, fort save against a cloud of acid.

 

[delericho]

Here's how I picture it with opposed combat rolls.

- - Three goblins attack Lee. I roll a d20 and add +5. He rolls his d20 and takes about 5 seconds to figure out what his total is. We compare rolls. I roll another d20 as does he; another 5 seconds passes while we calculate. Repeat once more.

Please feel free to supply the necessary counter-argument.

Well... you're probably exaggerating just how bad the impact on the game is. Other than that, I got nothing.

There is one reason I can see for using opposed rolls - if it's not just a simple defense roll, but there are 3e-style Action Points (or similar) you can choose to employ, or a whole new set of defensive powers, or stances, or something you can use. Of course, that then adds a whole new layer of complexity, and another source of slow-down.

If the idea is to speed up combat, this is precisely the WRONG way to go.

Agreed. In fact, if their goal was to speed up combat, they would be better served by having most monsters do one of three damage levels - hit the AC exactly = minimum damage; beat the AC = average damage; critical hit = max damage.

I'm not sure I'm absolutely against opposed rolls. I think they have their place. But their use should be minimised as far as possible - every die you roll slows the game down.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Your goblins are scary!

But... but... it's true. I am fallible! Nooooooooooooo!

But being serious, opposed rolls work superbly in Dogs in the Vineyard, but I've never seen them do much outside narrative games of direct confrontation. And they definitely slow things down.

Yeah, like I said, since we roll simultaneously, it doesn't really slow my group down. Maybe it's because they don't necessarily know the target AC they're trying to hit (they only know that if they use the Assess skill successfully, or if they learn through trial and error)? And, even if a natural 15 hit last time, they know that they don't just roll damage (in case conditions they're not aware of changed); they just pick of their dice and say "hit?" most of the time, and are ready to roll on my reluctant, defeated approval.

But my players tend to like opposed rolls. I use it for melee attack vs. melee defense, and for spells vs. saving throws. Both of those mechanics are liked. This isn't to attempt to discredit you or your experience, just merely say that mine has differed. I think, however, that most people side with you, in that they think opposed rolls add little and take longer, even if neither holds true for me. As always, play what you like

 

[ren1999]

I don't see how opposed rolls slow the game down.
If the GM chooses to always have static defenses but the player is bored and wants to roll some dice when he or she is being attacked, why would that slow the game down? The player just quickly adds the 1d20 result to his or her own defense modifiers and tells the group. The GM announces his or her attack roll. They are compared. The player is doing all the extra work, not the GM. It is just as fast for the GM to take the player's defense roll as it is for the GM to take the player's dynamic opposed defense roll.

Now if the GM had to do all the rolls, or the player had to do all the rolls, that would slow the game down. I only see opposed rolls as giving players more fun things to do when it isn't his or her turn! It keeps everybody alert and interested. Now if a player has to go to the bathroom, then a static base 10 can be used with the defense mods and the game can go on.

 

[ren1999]

Here is an idea to satisfy both the opposed rolls and static rolls groups.

Take 10 or Roll 20
In all rolls, you can chose to have a base 10 added to your modifiers or roll a 1d20.

 

[drothgery]

I don't see how opposed rolls slow the game down.

Any additional role takes additional time. If you're comparing modified rolls, not strict dice results (which is likely), then two people have to roll and add/subtract] modifiers instead of one. Heck, attacks which do buckets of dice of damage take longer (especially if they take more dice than the player has on hand), too.

 

[Sunseeker]

Any additional role takes additional time. If you're comparing modified rolls, not strict dice results (which is likely), then two people have to roll and add/subtract] modifiers instead of one. Heck, attacks which do buckets of dice of damage take longer (especially if they take more dice than the player has on hand), too.

True, but the argument that "anything that takes time is slowing the game down and that's bad" is a very slippery slope(note: I'm not saying you're saying this.)

A good encounter(combat, exploration, social, w/e) will seem to go quickly if it is fun and engaging, regardless of the number of dice rolls. But perception of time is a rather subjective issue. Some people feel a 10-minute combat is too long, some folks are happy with hour-long fights. What is important is less how much time it takes to do something(which is relative to the skill of the players and the power of their characters and the overall cunning of everyone involved), and more how engaging the involvement is.

Quick games, ie: ones with few rolls, can be just as boring as long ones. When more things are solved with fewer rolls, it leaves less room for player creativity and ingenuity and focuses more on random number generation. The action can become very stop-motiony as the turn-based nature of the game is emphasized when you cannot take actions or reactions outside of your turn.

Long games, ie: ones with lots of rolls, can be highly engaging by allowing players many opportunities to participate, especially outside of the box of "their turn".

Quickness in rolling will come much more from players understanding how the game works, and less from giving them fewer options. A player who knows that when the enemy shifts near them they get an AoO will roll one quickly. A Player who doesn't will likely have to be reminded by their fellows or the DM, and then ask what they need to roll and so forth.

So as long as understanding what you need to do, when you can do it, and how it is done is clear and easy to grasp, then encounters will go quickly regardless of the number of dice thrown.