Forked Thread: Eliminating the "Miss"

[Raven Crowking]

It's because talking about the slaughter of sacred cows is flame bait.

Hrm.

To everybody so far who has actually contributed to the discussion in some meaningful way: hey, thanks!

To everybody who has taken the time to post some bit of reactionary nonsense that boils down to, "the OP doesn't like missing his attack rolls, and that makes him a whiney-baby," thanks for being so thoughtful and "mature."

I believe that (in this case, at least) discussing motive is essential to discussing merits, personally. And that is contributing to the discussion in a meaningful way.

The "highs" and "lows" of the game system are tied together, rather like a teeter-totter. You can move the fulcrum point, but to some degree, how disappointed a player can be by failure is intrinsically tied to how wowwed a player can be by success. Removing one automatically devalues the other.

You cannot devalue the effects of randomness in one direction only. If you don't want the disappointment of missing, you are better off dispensing with randomness altogether and going with the thrill of clever strategy using fixed resources.

IMHO, at least.


RC

 

[LostSoul]

I don't think the problem is a miss. I think the problem is this:

I attack.
You miss.
I attack.
You miss.
I attack.
You miss. He attacks. He misses.

etc.

The problem isn't the miss, it's the fact that nothing has happened. It's boring.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think the problem is a miss. I think the problem is this:

I attack.
You miss.
I attack.
You miss.
I attack.
You miss. He attacks. He misses.

etc.

The problem isn't the miss, it's the fact that nothing has happened. It's boring.

Unlike the "I don't like to miss" effect, I think this can definitely be affected by having "graded hits" instead of miss or hits.

Even if you just deal just 7 points of damage instead of 21, you had a measurable effect this round. The action was definitely not a waste.

If there was a dice that would not reroll any number until he has had rolled all numbers on the dice, a miss could have the same effect. "Okay, a rolled 3 doesn't hit, but now that that roll is out, my likelihood of hitting next round is better!"
So again, you have a measurable effect. You got closer to roll a dice result that will lead to you hit again. Of course, this approach has a big flaw - once you know that only 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 are in your possible dice and you can be certain those won't hit, you are off to 5 rounds of guaranteed suckage. So a "graded" hit approach is certainly better.

 

[Crothian]

I don't think the problem is a miss. I think the problem is this:

I attack.
You miss.
I attack.
You miss.
I attack.
You miss. He attacks. He misses.

etc.

The problem isn't the miss, it's the fact that nothing has happened. It's boring.

You could easily add some flair to the encounter to make it sound better even with all those misses. And changing it to this

I attack.
You miss. Half damage.
I attack.
You miss. Half damage.
I attack.
You miss. Half damage.
He attacks. He misses. Half damage.

Doesn't make it any less boring.

 

[ggroy]

How much is this different than having a losing streak in a card game or board game?

 

[phloog]

I should also note that I would never use any of these in my group...I can absolutely understand how someone might be disheartened/bored by misses, even a string of misses...but for us it becomes part of the fun - - how long can Sandy continue to roll no higher than a three....in narrative terms, it's a losing streak - a run of bad luck, and the PC must , wonder if he offended some god, annoyed some witch, etc.

I am fundamentally opposed, though, to ANY system which grants damage on a miss, because even though hit points are an abstraction, the fact remains that sometimes people just miss, or they swing without having any real impact. The number of additional rules or exceptions you'd need to generate in such a system would seem to be daunting (unless you want a group of villagers missing the great warrior to death)

 

[Raven Crowking]

As another possibility, check out the Weapon Skills in RCFG (you can download the Skills & Combat preview on my website, link below). In this system, you can use your skill ranks to increase the possibility of a hit, your AC, your damage, or your chance of a critical. Not only do you get to make strategic decisions that don't involve moving minis about a board, but you get to make decisions that can increase your likelihood to hit a tough opponent.

The system could be modified to, say, allow you to do bonus damage off your ranks even in the event of a miss (to a maximum, because eventually the damage you can do with the bonus exceeds average weapon damage), so that you are making a strategic decision (and hence engaged in the game). Up your automatic damage, or increase your chances to do more (but possibly fail)?

Or, give each player a set of Hearts and Clubs (or Diamonds and Spades) from Ace to 10. Red cards are base numbers, and black cards are base number +10. When you've used all your cards, you get to pick them up again & start over. No randomness, but you have to choose to fail from time to time. NOTE: Using this system, it is incumbent upon the GM to not allow the players to "dump" bad cards on meaningless "rolls"!


RC

 

[LostSoul]

Unlike the "I don't like to miss" effect, I think this can definitely be affected by having "graded hits" instead of miss or hits.

That's an interesting approach.

You could easily add some flair to the encounter to make it sound better even with all those misses. And changing it to this

I attack.
You miss. Half damage.
I attack.
You miss. Half damage.
I attack.
You miss. Half damage.
He attacks. He misses. Half damage.

Doesn't make it any less boring.

It's slightly less boring because you are getting closer to resolving the combat - something is changing. Maybe after all those "misses" the bad guy will surrender or run away or change his tactics.

You could flair it up but there's no reason to, and it's kind of pointless when that flair doesn't have any effect. That's why it's only slightly less boring.

Now if you give that flair an effect in the game... each action is going to have an impact, hit or miss, and that's not boring.


RC, that is a neat idea.

 

[Stalker0]

Overall, I think 3e actually handled this problem better than 4e. Lets take a look at what 3e did.

1) Multiple attacks. In 3e, the fighter is going to hit pretty regularly on his first attack, but misses more on his iterative ones. However, overall, his chance of complete missing is pretty low. Instead he has though rare times he hits with everything (BIG DAMAGE!!!), the times he misses completely (hey it happens), and the majority of time being he hits once maybe twice (still good!)

2) Big finishers. For wizards, the name of the game was often one spell and your out. Sure you are going to miss most of the time, but you know that once one of your good spells hits, well that's just game over for that guy. So in this instance, the disappointment of misses was often overshadowed by the huge thrill of getting a success and having a huge impact on the battle.

3) Buffs. Buffs don't require attack rolls to activate, and they often give you and even better chance of hitting next time. Its helps in two ways....helps players who fear attack rolls still feel useful and it allows those who feel they miss too often to overcome that with their own power.

 

[thedungeondelver]

dammit, I wrote a well thought out and reasoned response to this and the forum software ate it

Suffice to say I would never, ever do this in AD&D (of either stripe) or original D&D. It seems to me to work against the design philosophy of the game, regardless of what it does or does not in "4e".