Combat as a single roll

[Reynard]

I think a single roll combat system could be very interesting in a crunchy game, too, if you built it as a "culmination" system. That is to say, each side or participant in the combat takes turns, describing actions and counter actions, just as normal but no rolls are involved in these. Instead each action or counteraction applies a different modifier to the final die or pool roll. Essentially the narrative of the combat plays out with participant using abilities and performing moves until it finally reaches a point where it requires a resolution, at which point the opposed roll or whatever takes place. You could probably use a form of graded outcome where at the extreme end the winner gets to determine the outcome ("I kill the BBEG!" or "I tell him I'd rather destroy a stained glass window than an artist like him, and knock him out.") to partial successes where each gains something while also suffering loss.

 

[sneazzy95]

So in this case we have to re-configure from the beginning ?
Appvalley TutuApp Tweakbox

 

[dragoner]

Depends on what you want, I think building from the ground up is easier than trying to fix something. The table serves only as an example of how it could be done, different dice, such as a d20 or d00 would give more granularity of results.

 

[Morrus]

So in this case we have to re-configure from the beginning ?

Well I design games. I'm always starting from the beginning!

 

[Guest 6801328]

Rather than have an entire set of rules with armor and hit points and attack rolls and movement and stuff, I was musing over the idea of combat being just a single roll. The loser is defeated.

It would need to be in a rules-lite game, and one which doesn't have a combat focus. And defeat would have to be defined as not necessarily being death - it could be surrender, KO, fleeing, etc.

Conceptually it's easy to say, of course; in practice there would be challenges to making such a system. But it would certainly help those who find combat in RPGs a bit on the boring side. A fight is no more involved than picking a lock or climbing a wall.

It does mean PCs might lose very quickly though. Needs thought!

This is genius!

Instead of going through all the trouble of making social and exploration pillars as fun and interesting as combat, make combat as boring as exploration and social!

My god, in one swell foop you've solved the hardest problem in RPGs!

 

[Morrus]

This is genius!

Instead of going through all the trouble of making social and exploration pillars as fun and interesting as combat, make combat as boring as exploration and social!

My god, in one swell foop you've solved the hardest problem in RPGs!

Wow, aren't we snide today?

The idea is that some games are much more focused on the improv rules-lite style of play, and don't have "social and exploration" pillars. While the idea might not be perfect, the dripping sarcasm isn't really needed, is it?

 

[Guest 6801328]

Wow, aren't we snide today?

The idea is that some games are much more focused on the improv rules-lite style of play, and don't have "social and exploration" pillars. While the idea might not be perfect, the dripping sarcasm isn't really needed, is it?

That was 100% intended just to be funny, not snide. Sorry. (But, yeah, re-reading I can see how it sounds that way.)

Sigh. Teh interweb is hard sometimes.

 

[MarkB]

How involved do you want the dice roll to be? Blades in the Dark often uses a single dice roll to resolve a conflict - but each dice roll can be a discussion, a negotiation and a collaboration, with the player setting out the intended action, the GM determining how hazardous and effective that action is likely to be, other players possibly chipping in to provide assistance, the player choosing whether to commit resources of stress or equipment to improving their odds, the dice roll determining the basic outcome, and the GM narrating the results and potential consequences after which the player (and/or their fellow players) chooses whether to attempt to mitigate them.

It's just one check, but it feels meaty and involved and collaborative, which is satisfying. Just making a single roll against a set DC may feel too boring and incidental, even in a non-combat-focused game, and it may also mean that it feels like only one player is participating in the scene.

 

[GrahamWills]

I think it might work in a fail-forward type system. Not so much if the results are "you lost this one die roll and thus all your characters die."

Yup. Anytime a bad roll makes the game hugely unfun, it’s a bad plan.

I have run a lot of convention games. And sometimes, despite my best efforts at pacing, I need to get through a combat scene. Or sometimes the group is having more fun doing non-combat things.

What I do is to have each character make a roll of some form, usually an attack roll. If they are very successful, they win through unscathed. If barely successful, they lose a resource to do so. If unsuccessful, they lose multiple resources. In D&D4E, for example, if you make the hard difficulty or beat the opponent’s defense by 5, no lose. Otherwise one surge for a simple success and two surges for a fail.

Most crunchy systems have resources you can reduce like this. In Savage Worlds, I’d go with wounded / fatigued. In Rolemaster I’d roll on the C or A crit table (because it’s RM — you have to roll on a table!). Non-crunchy systems like Fate typically already have mechanisms in place for simple resolution, so we can just use them.

 

[GMMichael]

Yup. Anytime a bad roll makes the game hugely unfun, it’s a bad plan. . .

What I do is to have each character make a roll of some form, usually an attack roll. If they are very successful, they win through unscathed. If barely successful, they lose a resource to do so. If unsuccessful, they lose multiple resources. In D&D4E, for example, if you make the hard difficulty or beat the opponent’s defense by 5, no lose. Otherwise one surge for a simple success and two surges for a fail.

I'm questioning your first assertion. I had a lot of fun playing AD&D 2nd ed. but it was pretty easy to fail a saving throw and effectively get kicked out of the game. Not sure it matters though, since you were responding to a straw-man argument that didn't fully account for the OP.

I like the resource-use approach, though I'm not sure I like the evaluation of the roll in the Forry example. One could use hit points, too. Roll high, gain 5 HP. Roll low, lose 5 HP. What if a PC is out of resources, and he fails his Let's-Move-Along roll?

Morrus's hypothetical system, with several real-world examples here, needs to be able to accommodate bosses, too. Does PC death become a possibility when fighting bosses in a one-roll-combat game? What about TPK? (That would be a stressful roll!) If I couldn't use an alternate combat system (read: crunchier) for boss fights, I'd at least increase the number of rolls in such a fight.

Not only would this mean re-configuring how attack/defense factors are typically done in RPG's, but also transparency in what the players are attacking so they can make an informed choice.

How are attack/defense factors typically done in RPGs?