Combat as a single roll

[Bacon Bits]

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!

I guess my reaction is: What's the goal of the design? What purpose are we serving? What is the resolution mechanic saying about our game design?

Obviously, we can talk about the effects. It means combat is going to be perceived as a coin flip to the players, and therefore could be seen as extraordinarily dangerous. If it's roll d20 and beat a target number, that's highly varied. You could mitigate the issue somewhat with a bell-curve distribution, so that the outcome of combat might feel more predictable to the players. Even, then, I think this mechanic heavily discourages the players from engaging in combat because they don't get to make decisions in combat anymore. It's a loss of player agency. In that sense, combat would feel like the last and most desperate gamble.

However, I don't think that's necessarily going to make combat be seen as too dangerous to take part in. It also has the effect of making combat very dramatic, because everything happens with one roll. I could see it working if it were a game about ruling a nation contesting with other nations. You could always choose to send in your armies, but doing so would be taking away all your ability to plan and hinging it on a die roll. If the ability to plan, prepare, and shape the outcome of combat, however, then you could use it as a mechanism to model how a king or even a general could fight a war. You can move and position your armies and supplies, choose where you want to fight. With proper planning and strategy, say you could end up in a situation where instead of rolling d6+5 vs d6+5, you're rolling d6+30 vs d6+10.

Think about combat in the Dune tabletop game. It's all down to how well you've prepared, how well you've chosen the battle, and what luck you have with the cards and leader you've chosen. I actually think the bid system in Dune might end up being a better gameplay mechanic, although I'm not opposed to the idea of a random element. And combat in Dune is all-or-nothing, and even when you win a ton of troops die. There's no die roll, but you could certainly add one. I don't know if that would be better or not.

So, what kind of purpose do we want single die combat to serve? To make combat not take time at the game table? To make combat more dramatic? To eliminate the combat optimization minigame? To reflect that the player characters themselves aren't acting in the combat themselves? And in exchange for what? What else do you want to fill the game with?

 

[GMMichael]

I guess my reaction is: What's the goal of the design? What purpose are we serving? What is the resolution mechanic saying about our game design?

Hmm. I can't speak for Morrus's intentions, but in my game:

• A simple conflict (one roll) is a means to answer a question quickly in order to get back to role-playing.
• The simple conflict rule(s) says that conflict occurs (even between Guide and Player-Character), and some minimal numbers-comparison is all that's needed to get everyone back in agreement. It's a stab at simplicity (comparing die rolls), that's also affected by the situation (the GM's bonus and the PC's bonus).

Obviously, we can talk about the effects. It means combat is going to be perceived as a coin flip to the players, and therefore could be seen as extraordinarily dangerous. If it's roll d20 and beat a target number, that's highly varied. . . . I think this mechanic heavily discourages the players from engaging in combat because they don't get to make decisions in combat anymore. It's a loss of player agency. In that sense, combat would feel like the last and most desperate gamble.

I wouldn't call d20 versus TN "highly varied." I'd call it straight-line probability. And there are only two outcomes (in D&D): succeed or fail. Not a lot of variety there. If a player can affect the TN (or the "check"), then there are still decisions to make and player agency.

I could see it working if it were a game about ruling a nation contesting with other nations. You could always choose to send in your armies, but doing so would be taking away all your ability to plan and hinging it on a die roll. If the ability to plan, prepare, and shape the outcome of combat, however, then you could use it as a mechanism to model how a king or even a general could fight a war. You can move and position your armies and supplies, choose where you want to fight. With proper planning and strategy, say you could end up in a situation where instead of rolling d6+5 vs d6+5, you're rolling d6+30 vs d6+10. . .

Risk runs battles in one roll. The attacking army gets one die per unit, up to three. Defending army gets one die per unit, up to two. The attacker's higher rolls eliminate the defender's lower rolls, with ties going to the defender. There's limited planning, which involves moving troops into different nations, and massing troops in singular nations. The combat is dramatic, but not on a visceral, individual level.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Hmm. I can't speak for Morrus's intentions, but in my game:

• A simple conflict (one roll) is a means to answer a question quickly in order to get back to role-playing.
• The simple conflict rule(s) says that conflict occurs (even between Guide and Player-Character), and some minimal numbers-comparison is all that's needed to get everyone back in agreement. It's a stab at simplicity (comparing die rolls), that's also affected by the situation (the GM's bonus and the PC's bonus).

Yes, and I'm saying that even that definition isn't precise enough to tell you how you think the mechanic should operate, how important it is in the game, or even how much the game encourages or discourages engaging in combat.

I wouldn't call d20 versus TN "highly varied." I'd call it straight-line probability. And there are only two outcomes (in D&D): succeed or fail. Not a lot of variety there. If a player can affect the TN (or the "check"), then there are still decisions to make and player agency.

Well, you cut out the next sentence which tells you the type of a die roll that is less varied: one with a bell curve distribution. Compare d20 to 2d10 to 3d8-3 to 4d6-6 to 6d4-4. These rolls have roughly the same outcome range and roughly the same mean outcome value, but they have wildly different outcome probability distributions. What that means is that the outcome of lower variance rolls is much more predictable. If we're assuming an opposed roll, then even though we have a range of roughly 1 to 20 your game will feel much more predictable running 6d4-4 than it will running 1d20. Making the entire outcome rely on a single roll has a completely different feel in this case, and accruing bonuses and penalties becomes the overriding factor even if we're looking at total modifiers much smaller than the range of outcomes (i.e., -5 to +5 on a range of 1 to 20). Depending on what we tie those bonuses and penalties to, there can be wildly different play experiences. Are bonuses tied to preparation? Strength or level? Position? What are the consequences for the player to win or lose the die roll?

It's not like a single physical die roll can't have a bell curve distribution. You could imagine a d10 that has one 1, two 2s, three 3s, and four 4s on it's face. Games that use custom dice almost always have dice like this where there's an uneven face distribution to control the probability of outcome. Other games use card decks to roll dice with unpredictable outcomes, or to generate all outcomes with an explicit distribution (if you're not reshuffling after every draw).

That's the point I'm trying to make. "Resolve with one die roll" takes dozens of mechanical forms in a game, and they all feel very differently. Morrus never says that he wants combat to be a literal coin flip. He might mean that he just wants to remove all the combat mechanics from the game. Just replace the Combat chapter with a single mechanical event. On it's face, it sounds like just making combat a coin flip and high risk with a low reward, but it doesn't need to do that at all.

Risk runs battles in one roll. The attacking army gets one die per unit, up to three. Defending army gets one die per unit, up to two. The attacker's higher rolls eliminate the defender's lower rolls, with ties going to the defender. There's limited planning, which involves moving troops into different nations, and massing troops in singular nations. The combat is dramatic, but not on a visceral, individual level.

No, Risk uses several die rolls. Regardless of the number of armies you attack with or have on a territory for defense, you can never roll more than 3 dice at once and you can never defend with more than dice at once. Then, at the end of each combat turn, the attacker can choose to press the attack (assuming they still have 1 army) or retreat. 30 armies attacking 30 armies will take a minimum of 15 turns of combat and 15 die rolls, and is much more likely to take 20 or more rounds of combat and the attacking player can choose to end the combat early if they want. That is not a single die roll combat mechanic to me.

In Dune, you'd move 30 armies into the zone with 30 armies on the movement phase. Then, during combat phase, there's a battle. Each side secretly chooses how many armies to spend in the battle from those present in the territory, then secretly chooses a leader which adds a bonus, and then secretly chooses a weapon card and a special defense card (if available) that have their own bonuses or special effects (usually killing the opposing leader or stopping that from happening). Then both sides reveal their choices. Whichever side has the highest total bonus (armies spent + leader and equipment bonuses) wins the combat. The loser is annihilated completely; equipment lost, leader killed, armies destroyed. Then, the winner loses every army they spent, so if they picked 30 to invest then the winner's army is destroyed completely, too. And that's it. The combat is then over. It's resolved entirely by a single event and one side is always totally annihilated after that event. It's a is single "die roll" combat with high consequences. The equitable uncertainty here comes from the bid system rather than a die roll, but it's still basically a die roll. Since the victory condition is controlling multiple control points on the board, combat is ostensibly necessary to a straightforward victory so this game does not de-emphasize combat at all.

The question is: how much influence to the players have on the outcome of the combat? In normal 5e, the answer is quite a lot, and it's extremely granular influence. In a single die roll system you lose the granularity, but that doesn't mean you're relying on a coin flip regardless of whether you're facing a kobold or a swarm of dragons. You don't necessarily lose the predictability or the sense of control that players have.

So, again, it comes back to what do you want the system to do? What else do you want besides a fast resolution to get back to the rest of the game? Do you want a high chance of failure? Do you want a high consequence for failure? I think you can make a single die roll combat mechanic do anything you want and feel any way you'd like. You only need one random event to add the desired equitable uncertainty that brings drama, tension, and the perception of risk. But there are countless ways to design that one mechanic. It doesn't even necessarily de-emphasize the importance of combat or the player's willingness to engage in it. It just means you don't have to stop for an hour to run one combat and roll 100 dice.

 

[pemerton]

we can talk about the effects. It means combat is going to be perceived as a coin flip to the players, and therefore could be seen as extraordinarily dangerous. If it's roll d20 and beat a target number, that's highly varied. You could mitigate the issue somewhat with a bell-curve distribution, so that the outcome of combat might feel more predictable to the players. Even, then, I think this mechanic heavily discourages the players from engaging in combat because they don't get to make decisions in combat anymore. It's a loss of player agency. In that sense, combat would feel like the last and most desperate gamble.

That's not my experience of systems that use one-roll resolution for combat.

The question is: how much influence to the players have on the outcome of the combat? In normal 5e, the answer is quite a lot, and it's extremely granular influence. In a single die roll system you lose the granularity, but that doesn't mean you're relying on a coin flip regardless of whether you're facing a kobold or a swarm of dragons. You don't necessarily lose the predictability or the sense of control that players have.

Control can take different forms. For instance: establishing what is at stake (you seem to be taking it for granted that the stakes of combat are life-or-death, but maybe I'm misreading); establishing the dice pool/modifiers (eg by equipping certain gear, establishing a certain terrain advantage, etc); intervening during the resolution process; etc.

SIngle roll combat gets rid of the last one I've mentioned, but not the first two.

 

[GMMichael]

No, Risk uses several die rolls. Regardless of the number of armies you attack with or have on a territory for defense, you can never roll more than 3 dice at once and you can never defend with more than dice at once. Then, at the end of each combat turn, the attacker can choose to press the attack (assuming they still have 1 army) or retreat. 30 armies attacking 30 armies will take a minimum of 15 turns of combat and 15 die rolls, and is much more likely to take 20 or more rounds of combat and the attacking player can choose to end the combat early if they want. That is not a single die roll combat mechanic to me. . .

So, when the attacker and defender in Risk roll dice to decide how many armies (which is the game term, I think, but I like "units" better) are destroyed, you wouldn't call that combat? Or a single roll?

I think it sheds a little light on the OP question because it shows how one roll (of dice) can resolve a significant number of one-on-one fights, cavalry charges, artillery blasts, and so on. There are no hit point countdowns, no ACs, no attributes, no skills, no feats, no grid. And it all ends in about ten seconds. From an RPG perspective, if you were the player of one of the soldiers involved in that battle (the term I used earlier), a player would quit the game if his character died. If it survived, he'd probably breathe a big sigh of relief and resolve to go AWOL from the army. So a one-roll-conflict either needs to take more character-related factors into account, or allow a player to keep playing if the roll goes poorly...

So, again, it comes back to what do you want the system to do? What else do you want besides a fast resolution to get back to the rest of the game? Do you want a high chance of failure? Do you want a high consequence for failure? I think you can make a single die roll combat mechanic do anything you want and feel any way you'd like. You only need one random event to add the desired equitable uncertainty that brings drama, tension, and the perception of risk. But there are countless ways to design that one mechanic. It doesn't even necessarily de-emphasize the importance of combat or the player's willingness to engage in it. It just means you don't have to stop for an hour to run one combat and roll 100 dice.

How would you answer these questions for Risk?

 

[Bluenose]

So a one-roll-conflict either needs to take more character-related factors into account, or allow a player to keep playing if the roll goes poorly...

The systems I'm familiar with that have options for one-roll combat resolution do take character factors into account and give GM advice that includes not making Victory or Death something you should make the stake for combat. There are consequences for losing, but it's not as if they expect you to create a new character every time your lose It's not that your concern isn't valid, but the designers thought about it too.

 

[pemerton]

It's not that your concern isn't valid, but the designers thought about it too.

RIght. This is not untrodden ground in RPG design.

 

[Bacon Bits]

So, when the attacker and defender in Risk roll dice to decide how many armies (which is the game term, I think, but I like "units" better) are destroyed, you wouldn't call that combat? Or a single roll?

I wouldn't call it single roll, no. It involves multiple die rolls as soon as the attacker presses the attack, causing a second round of combat and a second die roll.

I think it sheds a little light on the OP question because it shows how one roll (of dice) can resolve a significant number of one-on-one fights, cavalry charges, artillery blasts, and so on. There are no hit point countdowns, no ACs, no attributes, no skills, no feats, no grid. And it all ends in about ten seconds.

I think you're confusing the scale of abstraction with the number of dice being rolled.

I would call what you're describing group or aggregate combat. You're abstracting each round into one die roll, but you're still simulating each round.

To me, single die roll combat isn't about the quantity of elements you're abstracting. It's about the number of die rolls that decide the final outcome. It's single die roll if the entire abstraction is one die roll. Before that single die roll, combat has not begun. After the die roll, the combat is decided. You can't decide to "attack again" because there's no longer anything to attack; the opponent has been defeated and is either dead or fleeing.

For an analog, let's take a party of 5 PCs climbing a 100 ft wall. In both cases, we're going to use an abstraction so we don't have to roleplay out climbing or have each PC roll for everything.

In one example, you have one PC roll one Athletics check (with advantage because each PC is willing to aid the others as needed) several times. Each round they spend climbing the wall, they move however far up the wall their movement allows with a successful Athletics check. If any check fails by 5 or more, one or more party members falls. The DM determines the party member(s) who fall and they take damage appropriate to their position on the wall and must start again. Climbing a 100 ft wall, I would expect this to require 7-12 checks, depending on the party.

In another example, you have one PC roll one Athletics check (again with advantage because the PCs are working together). If the check succeeds, the PCs reach the top of the wall successfully after a reasonable amount of time. If the check fails by 5 or more, one or more party members falls at some point during the climb. The DM determines the party member(s) who fall and they take a median amount of damage. Then you advance the game to where the players at the top of the wall. Climbing a 100 ft wall (or a 1,000 ft wall, or a 10,000 ft wall) like this takes exactly one check.

The first one I would call a group check. The second one I would call a single roll check.

How would you answer these questions for Risk?

I think a single die roll system would be horrible for Risk. The whole point of the system as presented is that large battles take a long time and you have limited ability to overwhelm a smaller number of defenders. It would make the game all about creating a deathball of armies and marching them across the map (even more than that's what the game is currently about when it ends). You'd probably have to limit the number of territories a player could take in a single turn to stop that. Otherwise, the mechanic wouldn't work. Furthermore, the major benefit, speeding up the game, is a questionable one in Risk since almost the entirety of gameplay is combat (with the rest being placing armies and diplomacy).

 

[JiffyPopTart]

To me, single die roll combat isn't about the quantity of elements you're abstracting. It's about the number of die rolls that decide the final outcome. It's single die roll if the entire abstraction is one die roll. Before that single die roll, combat has not begun. After the die roll, the combat is decided. You can't decide to "attack again" because there's no longer anything to attack; the opponent has been defeated and is either dead or fleeing.

I agree with you that Risk is certainly not "single roll" combat, both in the sense that you are almost always rolling more than a single die, and also in the sense that you often find yourself rolling multiple dice multiple times to resolve one combat.

In the boardgame world there are a lot of games that use complex single rolls to achieve an entire combat action in one go. An example of this would be Imperial Assault where the toss of a few dice determines if the stormtrooper shooting at you hits, how much damage they do if they hit you, and how many extra effects they can apply to that damage that they did to you via the various symbols on the die and the fact that different die have different variations of symbols.

 

[aramis erak]

So, when the attacker and defender in Risk roll dice to decide how many armies (which is the game term, I think, but I like "units" better) are destroyed, you wouldn't call that combat? Or a single roll?

A typical Risk attack is attacker using 5-10 units, defender usually with 3-10 units...
Let's exemplify a 6 v 6 battle...
round 1: Attacker 3, 6, 1; defender 5,2. 6v5, 3v2. Defender loses 2. A =6, d=4.
Round 2: A 2, 6, 4; D 2, 3. 6v3, 4v2. Defender again loses 2. A=6, D=2
Round 3: A 2, 2, 1; D 3, 3. 2v3, 2v3. Attacker loses 2. A=4, D=2
Round 4: A 6, 3, 6; D 3, 1. 6v3, 6v1. Defender loses 2. A=4, D=0.
That's the battle; it's resolved in multiple rounds...

Risk isn't a one roll per battle system.

One can claim it's 4 separate battles within the scope of however long the term is, but it's ONE extended conflict.