Which came first: the damage or the protection?

[DeviousQuail]

I chose the first option. Generally speaking I prefer whoever instigated the action to act first and then those affected act second.

 

[dragoner]

Other: Roll to hit, and then damage. AC or DR is fine.

 

[GMMichael]

Other: Roll to hit, and then damage. AC or DR is fine.

But does the defender decide A) whether to roll protection or take half B) before or after that damage?

The defender is already compromised with the choice of: use an action to defend successfully, otherwise take some damage. Using an action to defend means losing an attack. What if the defender's choice affected the attacker's choice? As in, the defender choosing to take half means the attacker must roll, or choosing to roll means the attacker must take half?

 

[dragoner]

But does the defender decide A) whether to roll protection or take half B) before or after that damage?

The defender is already compromised with the choice of: use an action to defend successfully, otherwise take some damage. Using an action to defend means losing an attack. What if the defender's choice affected the attacker's choice? As in, the defender choosing to take half means the attacker must roll, or choosing to roll means the attacker must take half?

Why does the defender choose at all? Plus it sounds like with the extra rolls, and half damage, this is going to slow down combat.

 

[FrogReaver]

1. Attacker and Defender declare at start of attack before any dice are rolled.
2. Have Attacker Declare first since he’s declaring the attack. Defender declares immediately after.
3. Give more option than you do. Variable DR. Flat DR is fine but boring. Boost to chance to be missed. Chance to buff your next attack roll or damage roll if missed. Attacker can choose to give himself damage boost, accuracy boost or next turn defensive boost. Might can even do something for extra movement.

On second thought I’d probably drop the flat dr or roll and just do the dr. But the concept of picking a particular way to fight each attack sounds fun.

 

[Deset Gled]

It’s also extremely gamist:
...
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.

You make it seem like "gamist" or "strategic" are bad things. I'm quite fond of them, personally.

 

[FrogReaver]

You make it seem like "gamist" or "strategic" are bad things. I'm quite fond of them, personally.

Every thread doesn’t have to be this discussion.

 

[Deset Gled]

Every thread doesn’t have to be this discussion.

I didn't realize every thread was? Sorry. I haven't been hanging out in many of the "design" threads lately; I'm just responding to the accusations that were being made here.

 

[Sir Brennen]

You make it seem like "gamist" or "strategic" are bad things. I'm quite fond of them, personally.

You’ll note I put “strategic“ in quotes. It’s not even quite as strategic as tic-tac-toe, where, if both players understand the game, will always end in a draw.

I’m not opposed to some gamey elements in my RPGs, but they should have a purpose and still have something to do with the narrative. This ”half or roll” mechanic doesn’t reall seem to accomplish either for me.

 

[Deset Gled]

.