Which came first: the damage or the protection?

[GMMichael]

You've just charged into the market square, eager to show the townsfolk that you're not afraid of the bridge troll there, and that they can count on you when needed. However, the bridge troll seems keen on keeping its career change to market troll, and its oversized forearms and blood-tipped claws are poised to neatly toss you aside once you are close enough.

You roll your attack and damage dice. The bridge troll gets a protection die to reduce your damage, due to its warty, matted hide, even if it doesn't use an action to defend. The rules allow the troll to choose to roll its die or take half of the max protection roll . . . but they don't explicitly require the attacker or defender to declare first.

Which sequence would you prefer?

Note: the default is for attacker to choose roll or half damage first, because defender rolls protection as a reaction to an attack. This allows the defender to choose taking half any time it would reduce the damage to the minimum amount, and choose rolling otherwise. The effect of this is to reduce the average amount of damage dealt (benefitting the defender) because the situations in which a low damage roll would have been met by a lower protection roll are minimized by the defender's option to take half protection after seeing the damage roll.

 

[aramis erak]

Other:

• Attacker rolls to hit
• on hit, Defender decides to defend or not.
• if defender fails a defense or doesn't use one, attacker rolls damage
• protection reduces damage. Possibly to zero.

 

[Lanefan]

Other: remove the option to choose any of this and let the dice decide both ways.

 

[GMMichael]

Other:

• Attacker rolls to hit
• on hit, attacker decides to defend or not.
• if attacker fails a defense or doesn't use one, attacker rolls damage
• protection reduces damage. Possibly to zero.

Was "defender" supposed to appear in here, somewhere?

Anyway, I'm currently leaning toward option 1 because it's fastest, and the defender's benefit might balance with a minimum damage amount for the attacker.

@Lanefan 's suggestion is fast too, but it requires the troll-user (GM?) to roll, which could become cumbersome in larger fights.

 

[The Soloist]

My players would always choose to roll damage because they like to gamble, hoping for a high score. Choosing average damage would be an unused rule.

Simultaneously, but using cards with text. The player and target reveal their choice of card at the same time. Or just regular cards using Hearts for half damage and Spades for rolling.

 

[aramis erak]

WHups.

Was "defender" supposed to appear in here, somewhere?

Anyway, I'm currently leaning toward option 1 because it's fastest, and the defender's benefit might balance with a minimum damage amount for the attacker.

@Lanefan 's suggestion is fast too, but it requires the troll-user (GM?) to roll, which could become cumbersome in larger fights.

Fixed....
Basically, the BRP sequence.

 

[Yora]

Neither. This being able to choose half the maximum seems like an unnecessary extra step.

 

[Sir Brennen]

I’m in agreement with @Yora.

It’s also extremely gamist: regardless of who goes first, once the half value of one side is known (which can be figured out even if a player chooses to roll), the opposing player knows if they can automatically beat that half value with their own, or must roll to even have a chance of defeating it.

Every round after the first, it’s easy for a player to know if they should always stick with half values or roll against this particular opponent.

It could lead to situations where it’s impossible to even damage an opponent (d4 damage vs d8 defense; the attacker can never inflict damage if the defender always chooses half, which they will do after the attacker’s first declaration.)

But what is this half value option adding to the narrative of combat? Is it simulating anything that happens in an actual fight? All I see is a “strategic” option for a dice mini-game that’s not tied to the roleplaying game experience.

 

[the Jester]

Roll dice everywhere, discard meaningless choices like "take the average/half maximum". What is the point of that? If this is a game that involves dice, involve the dice.

 

[GMMichael]

I’m in agreement with @Yora.

I'm sure @Yora was getting at some of these points But to Yora's post, yes, choosing half is unnecessary, but unnecessary does not mean without value.

It’s also extremely gamist: regardless of who goes first, once the half value of one side is known (which can be figured out even if a player chooses to roll), the opposing player knows if they can automatically beat that half value with their own, or must roll to even have a chance of defeating it.

I see the gamist side, but this argument seems like it applies only to player-vs-player (PvP) contests. A GM can roll behind a screen and announce a half value if that was the intent, regardless of what the die roll comes to. This doesn't become a pattern until the third "roll," which can easily be interrupted with an actual die roll.

It could lead to situations where it’s impossible to even damage an opponent (d4 damage vs d8 defense; the attacker can never inflict damage if the defender always chooses half, which they will do after the attacker’s first declaration.)

Hence a minimum damage requirement for defenders who don't use an action to defend. Plus, attacks that do zero damage are just boring (sloggy, if you will).

But what is this half value option adding to the narrative of combat? Is it simulating anything that happens in an actual fight? All I see is a “strategic” option for a dice mini-game that’s not tied to the roleplaying game experience.

Some of the value that Yora was possibly looking for:

• A GM who doesn't need to roll is a GM who can apply that effort elsewhere (thank you, Monte Cook).
• A PC has a play-it-safe option by taking half. This is not unlike 3&D's "fight defensively." You can go all-out, taking a risk but seeking higher reward by rolling, or take half and go slow-and-steady.
• The mini-game puts confidence in a player's weapon/armor selection. A great axe (d10) seems like a lot of weight to carry for still being capable of rolling a 1 or a 2. But since it will reliably roll 5 (by taking half), it is also reliably more deadly than a battle axe (d8).