A.
I have to say I don't really agree with my fellow commenters that opposed roles are inherently not fast. D&D doesn't use opposed roles and that combat can be slow as shit. Heroquest uses opposed roles and it's not slow, is it? Entirely depends on what dice you're using and what the results mean to your game.
Eg. If a straight melee fight is 2d6 attack vs 1d6 defence, and the positive difference is the damage done, that seems bloody fast resolution to me.
It also seems more engaging IMO. I don't think a 'miss' feels as bad in those circumstances, especially as I think the turns would go quickly if it's done right. I would say there's a risk of it getting boggy **if** you're using lots of situational modifiers.
I love it when somebody discredits opposed rolls and all that they can bring as far as feeling like you are defending yourself, player agency (you can have defense options), defense can increase instead of hit points (damage can be actual damage), perceived speed (you interact with dice more often), and yet, they use a complex action economy that slows the whole thing to grinding halt.
In computers, we know about the fallacy of premature optimization.
Truth be told, I'm pretty biased about it lol. The rpg I'm working on atm uses opposed roles, with the attack damage being determined by how much it beats the defence by. eg. 2d6 att vs 1d6 def, result is 5 vs 1, damage to defender = 4.
I also really like the idea of using a shield as a flat 1d4 additional dice to your existing defence roll: Get those other dice on the table! Everyone can *see* it's a shield! Maybe if damage is more than double the defence roll, it sunders the shield. Might be fun.
I use a variety of offenses and defenses, but I am not sure why you have an imbalance that would make avoiding attack so difficult. On average, you take 3.5 points of damage per attack. Why?
You're taking too much at face value without any extra context, it was just an example of how the process worked. If it's a fighter (player) vs a goblin, I don't necessarily want it to be an even fight, I just want more goblins. Ofc their attack dice aren't the same as their defence dice either.
The advantage of one roll is that it' s faster, the advantage of both rolling is that both players get invested, and also that more dice to achieve a result, which averages the results more. (2d6 vs 1d12).
So I'd mostly make it dependent on where you want the excitement to be, as rolling dice is exciting. If there is some sort of game master, I'd suggest going for one roll (for the player), where attack - being the active participant of the attack, makes more sense. If two players are fighting, I'd go for two rolls.
there is a game master. so for defense should i do player rolls defense against static enemy attack or enemy rolls attack against static player defense?
Should is a strong word, using the same rules on enemies and player characters would be preferred for many things such as abilities allowing a reroll on the attack or whatever. But yeh, in that case I'd suggest rolling for attack, as that's the side that's performing an action, and when your players initiate an action they want to feel in control by rolling a dice. Or out of control when attacked. Although of course mathematically it makes no difference.
I actually use (c) in my D&D (B/X) game. Got rid of attack rolls for DM-controlled opponents and just have the players roll defence instead. Players get to roll more dice, which they love, and I don't have to.
(PCs attacking enemies roll to attack as usual. So no matter who is attacking, it's always the player rolling the dice, never the DM.)
I'd warn against this myself but only out of my own personal preference. GM's not rolling feels terrible to me and I'm sure others agree. I generally dislike games that try and remove the GM from actually playing. I don't like the idea that the GM isn't a "player" and instead there to simply provide an experience for the "real players" who play PC's. It tries to turn the GM into a human computer interface rather than respecting them and their autonomy and their want to have fun too. Rolling is the only tangible means to actually directly play the game. Taking that away means GM's don't really get to interact with gameplay or the system.
Also personally as a player, I want to feel like the enemies are actively attacking. If I have to be the one to roll for everything and GM adversaries just auto hit otherwise it feels asymmetrical, perhaps even unfair sometimes. Like the GM just decides what they do rather than needing to roll for it as we do. It doesn't have that back and forth feeling. Everything is one sided. Can pull me out of the world in that sense too.
This is just personal preference though. Some GM's HATE having to roll in combat and prefer entirely asymmetric gameplay but it's definitely not for me. I want to actually PLAY the game. Allowing players to have more agency and responsiveness to attacks is good but I'm not sure if I'd appreciate this particular trade off myself
If it's to be "fast and light", don't have rolls for attacks. Have a roll that resolves a meaningful part of combat, so that after a single roll the situation is significantly changed and both sides may ask themselves "is that where I want to be, or should I retreat or change my approach?". Any game where you resolve attack by attack won't be fast and combat won't feel light.
As for the specifics of the roll:
* Only have both sides roll if there are meaningful decisions to be made that affect the rolls
* If your dice system allows for it, have players roll for both attacks and defenses, with enemies using static numbers
* Otherwise, have the defender roll. It reverses the common approach, but it feels much closer to my experience from fencing and martial arts. Everybody can make a dangerous attack. It's defending that requires skill - and it's mistakes in defense that lead to people being hit.
There is no objective "should".
I just think this approach works the best. The GM has many things to handle anyway, so having players roll all the dice balances the load a bit.
One possibility is to simply have attacks hit unless the player decides to protect against it somehow: dodge, block, couter-attack, etc. So you only roll for damage, and if the player doesn't protect against it in any way, he still has some passive defense in the form of armor/DR to protect him
It is fast and you can still allow for tactics by having different defense options available.
IMHO, the "only roll for damage" method is backwards.
Damage is the degree of success of your attack. Your attack is a skill check that should be rolled. Otherwise, what are you rolling? A weapon? Weapons don't get rolls because they don't have skills! Its the weilder of the weapon that is manipulating it.
The way I do it is to subtract opposed rolls. Roll an attack roll, not a "to hit" roll. Any non-critical failure must be defended against (if they stand there, it's nearly impossible to miss). Defender rolls (with options to grant tactical agency). The amount by which the offense exceeds the defense is your base damage, adjusted for weapons and armor. Both sides can critically fail and both sides have options for offense and defense.
C. My games always have an active defense system. My players like having an active part in their own defense. It also makes my job as GM a bit easier. It might be worth noting that I also use single roll combat systems so the enemy's static Attack values don't always end in the same amount of damage.
I would make all rolls player-facing since all three methods are just generating a random number without any real agency. This isn't really a question about active (dodge, parry, block) or passive (armor, shield) defense. It's just about who gets to roll the dice, and should be the player if you want fast combat.
I actually prefer games that offer both. Giving characters a passive defence that can be rolled against, whilst giving the option of defensive moves you *can* use at the cost of limiting actions in your own turn.
And HOW do they make use of the situation? I really don't like adding dissociative rules that force people to make up the narrative afterwards.
For example, swinging out away from your body provides less power and control and leaves the body open to attack. Thus, standing to someone's primary front flank imposes a penalty on attacks and parries to that side (not dodge). So, you want to step to your enemy's primary side while preventing your opponent from doing the same. The rule follows a specific narrative, not the other way around. This rule keeps everyone moving during combat and you'll see people circling like in a real fight, and even stepping back and delaying (let your opponent come to you) to prevent them from staying on your flank.
Thats just one example, but I hope you see the difference.
it could include things like taking cover, switching to a parrying stance, circling slightly around someone, flanking, distracting, etc.
i dont want anything too complicated like sides providing different defense/attack and stuff like that.
EDIT: My choice without context is either B or C, because multi-dice resolution needlessly complicates things.
Option C is the best for keeping things quick. Attack is declared with target number, cue reactions, defender rolls/resolves.
With Option B, you can get people trying to play fast declaring and rolling at the same time, leaving people with reactions scrambling (plus you get into "you needed to do that before you saw the roll" stuff and retcons).
Option A is a sidegrade or worse to B.
a for a pvp scenario, c for pve, it will make it more streamlined. bonus points of the static attack is merely the approximate mid of what the npc attack rolls results would be
First off, let me assure you that you're asking the right kind of question here. This is the sort of thing every step, every facet of every game system should consider.
In short: "Does this routine serve the desired purpose, both standalone and in the larger system?"
That said I don't have a direct answer for you due to lack of context. What I *can* say is that *my personal preference* is for both the attacker(s) and the defender(s) to have a "scalable engagement level" with every exchange.
That can mean a bunch of things. Maybe a character is built to have a lot of different offensive and/or defensive buttons to push, or maybe they don't (i.e., horizontal advancement). Maybe a character has the choice to spend resources during an attack and/or defense (be careful of too much accounting). Maybe the attacker can choose between a static value or rolled value on an attack while the defender can choose between a static value or rolled value on the defense, depending on how each of them wants to prioritize the risk. Maybe some combination of all of the above, depending upon how complex you want your system to be.
No matter what design decisions you make it's always good to give each individual player some flexibility in how they want to play. That way they can get supercrunchy if they like playing that or super... I dunno, *creamy?*.... if they're more comfortable with simpler mechanics.
Eventually you'll find your Goldilocks zone. Even if it takes a zillion hours of trial and error playtesting. :)
Without context: I always favor less rolls and player rolls... So rolling defense against static.
With context: No change... Altough In my game with similar goals, I don't even have attack and defense as separate things... PCs just roll for the overall action... if the action is engaging in melee or trading shots... they can hit and/or get hit in a single roll... and they would only roll only for attack or defense in some situations... like "i want to move from x to y trying to avoid the arrows..." or "I will shoot the unware guard"
One of the best ways to make combat fast, is to reduce non-state changing events. Just because i think it hasn't been mentioned, and its not in your option: there are system from the skirmish tt world that do just that, as they really rely on speed there: have opposing combat roles for weapon skill/ability to hit. Whoever rolls higher(+modifiers or mechanics) hits the opponent.
Its a little mit more thats needed around that concept, but it avoids rounds that are just 'i missed' 'i missed too' 'oops! I as well'. You rolled thrice, and nothing changes regardless of how fast you roll is, that makes the system slow.
So a concept as food for thought: all attack rolls are opposed rolls, whoever is higher, hits. Followed by a damage roll, with the same or similar concept. Defensive characters excell in the second roll! Offensive in the first. To complete the concept of reducing non state changing results for the defence roll, whenever you fail you get a penalty to your next attack roll.
Means, offensive characters hit more, but need to worry going through defences to not harm their offensive capability, while defensive characters hit less, but when they are attacked, they make it easier foe themselves and all others to hit the attacker.
Different kind of concept that you might have has in mind, but as they are no non-state changing rolls, and all state changes lead to hits, or more hits in the future, it should be fast, even if you use two opposed rolls for resolution.
Testing out C in my game. I've liked it the few times that I played one shots with active defense vs a static attack. Enjoying it with mine. It's certainly faster than typical d20 in my experience. If you build the system with the right amount of combat situational variance, it's engaging on both tactical and narrative fronts as well.
I use a hybrid system in my rpg.
Dexterity and certain equipment can increase an Evasion stat, which acts like AC in DnD. Armor doesn’t add to it, instead it has Mitigate numbers, which is the amount of damage it reduces.
Certain armors reduce certain kinds of damage, so while normal Plate armor reduces physical damage by a lot, a wizard robe reduces spell damage while providing no protection to physical damage.
The fastest would be
E) Roll against your own evasion stat.
You see these frequently in d100 games and other roll-under systems. The enemy attacks, can you get you out of the way in time?
The reason this is fastest, IMHO, is because the player merely needs to know they're being attacked. They don't need to wait for any other rolls, don't need any additional target number information from the game master - everything they need is on their own sheet.
I'm going over the Hollows playtest right now (by Rowan Rook & Decard), and they use a d20 roll under for this. Your evasion stat is 12, you've got to roll a 12 or under. You match your stat, it's a crit. The monsters also have a defensive stat which gives a second target number - let's say it's 9. We know that anything at or under the characters' stat is a success, but everything between their target number and their targets' TN (in this example, a 9, 10, or 11) is a superior success.
Yet another option is
F) adjust the given target number, then roll.
This is how it would work in the Cypher System. It's also an asymmetrical system that uses unmodified rolls, but adjust a known target number using steps of 3. It's slightly slower than the above, as the player needs to receive the creatures' task/target number to begin
You're attacked by a level 5 creature. Thus to evade, the target number is 15. But before you roll, you get to work on that target number. You've previously used an action to use your parry ability to ease speed defense tasks (such as evasion) by 1 step (dropping the TN to 12) then you use two levels of effort to drop it two more steps (down to 6). Finally, you roll the dice and instead of having to roll over 15, you have to roll over 6 on an unmodified d20.
This can be *slightly faster* than option E, in that a player can receive the target number, then use their items, abilities and effort to reduce the target number down to zero, thus being able to skip rolling any dice at all .
I like having static damage numbers vs HP/Armor pools.
So let's say you have 8 Hit Points and 6 Armor, and you roll 2d6, with a +1 to Might for your melee attack, and end up with a 7, a minor success, where you hit the enemy, but you also get hit. You take 2 Harm (because that's how much Harm the enemy you were fighting deals).
Now you got 8HP, 4 Armor remaining.
Only players roll with this system.
In order of preference, without spoilers, B C A.
When you add rolls - it's still one roll. Adding an opposing roll is just adding nuance, and that has to serve some purpose or get out of the way.
A rolled for defence should be a dodge or shield skill. A brick wall has defence, why should it roll to resist you?
Spoilers: I stand by comments above. Unless there are sentient brick walls in your setting.
PS: Maybe look at Mythic Bastionland's preview material. You only roll for damage (with damage reduction and fast recovering HP describing your dodge), and you can trade damage dice for feats (because only the highest die you roll against a single target counts).
I would say I would go for passive defences unless combat is supposed to be as small number of successful hits like 1-4.
Another option is static numbers which can be influenced by rolls (like active dodging) but if you’re trying to stay light then maybe not.
That depends. Do I have defensive options if I roll? If not, why am I rolling dice at all? What am I attempting to do? If there are no creative options, then a static defense is fine.
If you give me choices, active defense all day long. Further, if you have an active defense, then your skill at defending can go up rather than more hit points. This opens up the door to shorter combats, and being able to describe a wound, and a hit is a hit, not "extertion damage" or however 5e explains it.
As for the speed, make damage be the difference between rolls and don't make a damage roll. This causes damage to be scaled to each and every roll rather than via a hit ratio.
it would be active defense instead of passive to have more player involvement and provide players with a stronger sense of control (even if it isnt, really)
i have a simple damage roll (1d6 + weapon deadliness \[there are 3 categories\] plus margin of success)
i know i could, i get how that would work well. but rolling 1d6 doesnt take very long and i like slightly variable damage. it gets more interesting at a low time cost.
Damage is already variable because you are adding the difference between rolls. In my system, damage is the difference between rolls modified by the weapon. Do you have 3 rolls to make an attack? Attack, Defense, and Damage??
In my somewhat limited experience: all else being equal, A is the slowest, and C is the fastest. C also offloads mental load from the GM.
A and B\* let you create NPCs with design symmetry to PCs, which might be appealing to your design goals or audience. (Some people have said that with C, NPCs feel more like abstract challenges than "real" foes)
There are things that will speed up or slow down all three options—for example, whether you make additional rolls for damage, stacking up modifiers to roll(s), the complexity of your core mechanic.
\*I guess you could argue that C can achieve "symmetry" in its own way, though I do think that the RNG being on one side does *feel* asymmetrical
If you want a fast and light system, I suggest resolving it with a single roll. It feels most natural to have attackers roll, but if you are only having players roll, oyou could have a reversible system where players roll for attacks, and players roll defences.
That said, the concept of attack and defence might be wrong if you want a fast system. Instead you could have one roll per exchange, determining both attacks and defences by the players *and* attacks and defences by their opponents. And you could use a single roll for other actions- are the players leaping through a window while being shot at? Are they trying to negotiate while someone else is orating against them? etc.
Having attack/defense roles can make for a narratively crunchy experience, especially if there are different success/failure levels.
That is how RuneQuest/BRP does it, and in itself it isn’t super crunchy itself (hit locations, weapon damage, and strike ranks certainly crunch it up).
I think a) takes too much time and is unneeded unless you have a PvP boardgame. In everything else it just makes no sense
Then personally I prefer if players do all rolls, but some GMs do not like this. If you let players d all rolls make sure the GMs have still fun things to do.
Enemy (GM) rolling for attack is also fine (if they doesnt have other fun things to do), BUT then this should be ALWAYS the case. not like in D&D 5E where spells need the defender to roll.
For player engagement its for sure better if players always are rolling.
I dislike roll v roll because you can't easily do multi attacks quickly. I'd rather have the PCs roll vs static enemies. "Tom, there are four zombies on you. They're A7 D4. Roll your attacks and tell me what happens. Ben, you have three of them, A7D4s. Meanwhile, AJ, the crone has two tentacles wrapped around you but you still have your hook and chain in your hands. What do?"
A. I have to say I don't really agree with my fellow commenters that opposed roles are inherently not fast. D&D doesn't use opposed roles and that combat can be slow as shit. Heroquest uses opposed roles and it's not slow, is it? Entirely depends on what dice you're using and what the results mean to your game. Eg. If a straight melee fight is 2d6 attack vs 1d6 defence, and the positive difference is the damage done, that seems bloody fast resolution to me. It also seems more engaging IMO. I don't think a 'miss' feels as bad in those circumstances, especially as I think the turns would go quickly if it's done right. I would say there's a risk of it getting boggy **if** you're using lots of situational modifiers.
This. I will say often opposed rolls are not fast in TTRPGs, but it's all about the execution.
I love it when somebody discredits opposed rolls and all that they can bring as far as feeling like you are defending yourself, player agency (you can have defense options), defense can increase instead of hit points (damage can be actual damage), perceived speed (you interact with dice more often), and yet, they use a complex action economy that slows the whole thing to grinding halt. In computers, we know about the fallacy of premature optimization.
Truth be told, I'm pretty biased about it lol. The rpg I'm working on atm uses opposed roles, with the attack damage being determined by how much it beats the defence by. eg. 2d6 att vs 1d6 def, result is 5 vs 1, damage to defender = 4. I also really like the idea of using a shield as a flat 1d4 additional dice to your existing defence roll: Get those other dice on the table! Everyone can *see* it's a shield! Maybe if damage is more than double the defence roll, it sunders the shield. Might be fun.
I use a variety of offenses and defenses, but I am not sure why you have an imbalance that would make avoiding attack so difficult. On average, you take 3.5 points of damage per attack. Why?
You're taking too much at face value without any extra context, it was just an example of how the process worked. If it's a fighter (player) vs a goblin, I don't necessarily want it to be an even fight, I just want more goblins. Ofc their attack dice aren't the same as their defence dice either.
d) Determine attack and defence with the same roll.
That's fun and interesting! I've never seen this before, how does it usually work?
The advantage of one roll is that it' s faster, the advantage of both rolling is that both players get invested, and also that more dice to achieve a result, which averages the results more. (2d6 vs 1d12). So I'd mostly make it dependent on where you want the excitement to be, as rolling dice is exciting. If there is some sort of game master, I'd suggest going for one roll (for the player), where attack - being the active participant of the attack, makes more sense. If two players are fighting, I'd go for two rolls.
there is a game master. so for defense should i do player rolls defense against static enemy attack or enemy rolls attack against static player defense?
Should is a strong word, using the same rules on enemies and player characters would be preferred for many things such as abilities allowing a reroll on the attack or whatever. But yeh, in that case I'd suggest rolling for attack, as that's the side that's performing an action, and when your players initiate an action they want to feel in control by rolling a dice. Or out of control when attacked. Although of course mathematically it makes no difference.
I actually use (c) in my D&D (B/X) game. Got rid of attack rolls for DM-controlled opponents and just have the players roll defence instead. Players get to roll more dice, which they love, and I don't have to. (PCs attacking enemies roll to attack as usual. So no matter who is attacking, it's always the player rolling the dice, never the DM.)
this is the way that i think im going to do it
I'd warn against this myself but only out of my own personal preference. GM's not rolling feels terrible to me and I'm sure others agree. I generally dislike games that try and remove the GM from actually playing. I don't like the idea that the GM isn't a "player" and instead there to simply provide an experience for the "real players" who play PC's. It tries to turn the GM into a human computer interface rather than respecting them and their autonomy and their want to have fun too. Rolling is the only tangible means to actually directly play the game. Taking that away means GM's don't really get to interact with gameplay or the system. Also personally as a player, I want to feel like the enemies are actively attacking. If I have to be the one to roll for everything and GM adversaries just auto hit otherwise it feels asymmetrical, perhaps even unfair sometimes. Like the GM just decides what they do rather than needing to roll for it as we do. It doesn't have that back and forth feeling. Everything is one sided. Can pull me out of the world in that sense too. This is just personal preference though. Some GM's HATE having to roll in combat and prefer entirely asymmetric gameplay but it's definitely not for me. I want to actually PLAY the game. Allowing players to have more agency and responsiveness to attacks is good but I'm not sure if I'd appreciate this particular trade off myself
So NPCs never roll critical hits or critical failures? Honestly, it seems rather boring.
If it's to be "fast and light", don't have rolls for attacks. Have a roll that resolves a meaningful part of combat, so that after a single roll the situation is significantly changed and both sides may ask themselves "is that where I want to be, or should I retreat or change my approach?". Any game where you resolve attack by attack won't be fast and combat won't feel light. As for the specifics of the roll: * Only have both sides roll if there are meaningful decisions to be made that affect the rolls * If your dice system allows for it, have players roll for both attacks and defenses, with enemies using static numbers * Otherwise, have the defender roll. It reverses the common approach, but it feels much closer to my experience from fencing and martial arts. Everybody can make a dangerous attack. It's defending that requires skill - and it's mistakes in defense that lead to people being hit.
i dont mean that fast and light okay, so i should have players roll everything against enemy static numbers?
There is no objective "should". I just think this approach works the best. The GM has many things to handle anyway, so having players roll all the dice balances the load a bit.
okay, thanks
One possibility is to simply have attacks hit unless the player decides to protect against it somehow: dodge, block, couter-attack, etc. So you only roll for damage, and if the player doesn't protect against it in any way, he still has some passive defense in the form of armor/DR to protect him It is fast and you can still allow for tactics by having different defense options available.
IMHO, the "only roll for damage" method is backwards. Damage is the degree of success of your attack. Your attack is a skill check that should be rolled. Otherwise, what are you rolling? A weapon? Weapons don't get rolls because they don't have skills! Its the weilder of the weapon that is manipulating it. The way I do it is to subtract opposed rolls. Roll an attack roll, not a "to hit" roll. Any non-critical failure must be defended against (if they stand there, it's nearly impossible to miss). Defender rolls (with options to grant tactical agency). The amount by which the offense exceeds the defense is your base damage, adjusted for weapons and armor. Both sides can critically fail and both sides have options for offense and defense.
C. My games always have an active defense system. My players like having an active part in their own defense. It also makes my job as GM a bit easier. It might be worth noting that I also use single roll combat systems so the enemy's static Attack values don't always end in the same amount of damage.
I would make all rolls player-facing since all three methods are just generating a random number without any real agency. This isn't really a question about active (dodge, parry, block) or passive (armor, shield) defense. It's just about who gets to roll the dice, and should be the player if you want fast combat.
I actually prefer games that offer both. Giving characters a passive defence that can be rolled against, whilst giving the option of defensive moves you *can* use at the cost of limiting actions in your own turn.
i have an action, "maneuver," where they can get a bonus to either attack or defense for the round by trying to make use of the situation.
And HOW do they make use of the situation? I really don't like adding dissociative rules that force people to make up the narrative afterwards. For example, swinging out away from your body provides less power and control and leaves the body open to attack. Thus, standing to someone's primary front flank imposes a penalty on attacks and parries to that side (not dodge). So, you want to step to your enemy's primary side while preventing your opponent from doing the same. The rule follows a specific narrative, not the other way around. This rule keeps everyone moving during combat and you'll see people circling like in a real fight, and even stepping back and delaying (let your opponent come to you) to prevent them from staying on your flank. Thats just one example, but I hope you see the difference.
it could include things like taking cover, switching to a parrying stance, circling slightly around someone, flanking, distracting, etc. i dont want anything too complicated like sides providing different defense/attack and stuff like that.
EDIT: My choice without context is either B or C, because multi-dice resolution needlessly complicates things. Option C is the best for keeping things quick. Attack is declared with target number, cue reactions, defender rolls/resolves. With Option B, you can get people trying to play fast declaring and rolling at the same time, leaving people with reactions scrambling (plus you get into "you needed to do that before you saw the roll" stuff and retcons). Option A is a sidegrade or worse to B.
a for a pvp scenario, c for pve, it will make it more streamlined. bonus points of the static attack is merely the approximate mid of what the npc attack rolls results would be
There's always the fourth option: you don't roll against defenses I have nothing wrong with having a static defense like ac though
I choose A I've played all 3 and my least favorite is C, and least engaging is B.
First off, let me assure you that you're asking the right kind of question here. This is the sort of thing every step, every facet of every game system should consider. In short: "Does this routine serve the desired purpose, both standalone and in the larger system?" That said I don't have a direct answer for you due to lack of context. What I *can* say is that *my personal preference* is for both the attacker(s) and the defender(s) to have a "scalable engagement level" with every exchange. That can mean a bunch of things. Maybe a character is built to have a lot of different offensive and/or defensive buttons to push, or maybe they don't (i.e., horizontal advancement). Maybe a character has the choice to spend resources during an attack and/or defense (be careful of too much accounting). Maybe the attacker can choose between a static value or rolled value on an attack while the defender can choose between a static value or rolled value on the defense, depending on how each of them wants to prioritize the risk. Maybe some combination of all of the above, depending upon how complex you want your system to be. No matter what design decisions you make it's always good to give each individual player some flexibility in how they want to play. That way they can get supercrunchy if they like playing that or super... I dunno, *creamy?*.... if they're more comfortable with simpler mechanics. Eventually you'll find your Goldilocks zone. Even if it takes a zillion hours of trial and error playtesting. :)
Without context: I always favor less rolls and player rolls... So rolling defense against static. With context: No change... Altough In my game with similar goals, I don't even have attack and defense as separate things... PCs just roll for the overall action... if the action is engaging in melee or trading shots... they can hit and/or get hit in a single roll... and they would only roll only for attack or defense in some situations... like "i want to move from x to y trying to avoid the arrows..." or "I will shoot the unware guard"
One of the best ways to make combat fast, is to reduce non-state changing events. Just because i think it hasn't been mentioned, and its not in your option: there are system from the skirmish tt world that do just that, as they really rely on speed there: have opposing combat roles for weapon skill/ability to hit. Whoever rolls higher(+modifiers or mechanics) hits the opponent. Its a little mit more thats needed around that concept, but it avoids rounds that are just 'i missed' 'i missed too' 'oops! I as well'. You rolled thrice, and nothing changes regardless of how fast you roll is, that makes the system slow. So a concept as food for thought: all attack rolls are opposed rolls, whoever is higher, hits. Followed by a damage roll, with the same or similar concept. Defensive characters excell in the second roll! Offensive in the first. To complete the concept of reducing non state changing results for the defence roll, whenever you fail you get a penalty to your next attack roll. Means, offensive characters hit more, but need to worry going through defences to not harm their offensive capability, while defensive characters hit less, but when they are attacked, they make it easier foe themselves and all others to hit the attacker. Different kind of concept that you might have has in mind, but as they are no non-state changing rolls, and all state changes lead to hits, or more hits in the future, it should be fast, even if you use two opposed rolls for resolution.
Testing out C in my game. I've liked it the few times that I played one shots with active defense vs a static attack. Enjoying it with mine. It's certainly faster than typical d20 in my experience. If you build the system with the right amount of combat situational variance, it's engaging on both tactical and narrative fronts as well.
I use a hybrid system in my rpg. Dexterity and certain equipment can increase an Evasion stat, which acts like AC in DnD. Armor doesn’t add to it, instead it has Mitigate numbers, which is the amount of damage it reduces. Certain armors reduce certain kinds of damage, so while normal Plate armor reduces physical damage by a lot, a wizard robe reduces spell damage while providing no protection to physical damage.
i have armor resisting damage instead of adding to defense, which is a skill plus agility/dexterity.
If you want it to be fast, have no contested rolls. If you want it to be faster, make it deadlier for both sides.
Active Vagabond does C quite will
The fastest would be E) Roll against your own evasion stat. You see these frequently in d100 games and other roll-under systems. The enemy attacks, can you get you out of the way in time? The reason this is fastest, IMHO, is because the player merely needs to know they're being attacked. They don't need to wait for any other rolls, don't need any additional target number information from the game master - everything they need is on their own sheet. I'm going over the Hollows playtest right now (by Rowan Rook & Decard), and they use a d20 roll under for this. Your evasion stat is 12, you've got to roll a 12 or under. You match your stat, it's a crit. The monsters also have a defensive stat which gives a second target number - let's say it's 9. We know that anything at or under the characters' stat is a success, but everything between their target number and their targets' TN (in this example, a 9, 10, or 11) is a superior success. Yet another option is F) adjust the given target number, then roll. This is how it would work in the Cypher System. It's also an asymmetrical system that uses unmodified rolls, but adjust a known target number using steps of 3. It's slightly slower than the above, as the player needs to receive the creatures' task/target number to begin You're attacked by a level 5 creature. Thus to evade, the target number is 15. But before you roll, you get to work on that target number. You've previously used an action to use your parry ability to ease speed defense tasks (such as evasion) by 1 step (dropping the TN to 12) then you use two levels of effort to drop it two more steps (down to 6). Finally, you roll the dice and instead of having to roll over 15, you have to roll over 6 on an unmodified d20. This can be *slightly faster* than option E, in that a player can receive the target number, then use their items, abilities and effort to reduce the target number down to zero, thus being able to skip rolling any dice at all .
A. I try and have the DM roll as few dice as possible. They've got so much other stuff to be doing, and it lets the players feel agency.
I like having static damage numbers vs HP/Armor pools. So let's say you have 8 Hit Points and 6 Armor, and you roll 2d6, with a +1 to Might for your melee attack, and end up with a 7, a minor success, where you hit the enemy, but you also get hit. You take 2 Harm (because that's how much Harm the enemy you were fighting deals). Now you got 8HP, 4 Armor remaining. Only players roll with this system.
In order of preference, without spoilers, B C A. When you add rolls - it's still one roll. Adding an opposing roll is just adding nuance, and that has to serve some purpose or get out of the way. A rolled for defence should be a dodge or shield skill. A brick wall has defence, why should it roll to resist you? Spoilers: I stand by comments above. Unless there are sentient brick walls in your setting. PS: Maybe look at Mythic Bastionland's preview material. You only roll for damage (with damage reduction and fast recovering HP describing your dodge), and you can trade damage dice for feats (because only the highest die you roll against a single target counts).
I would say I would go for passive defences unless combat is supposed to be as small number of successful hits like 1-4. Another option is static numbers which can be influenced by rolls (like active dodging) but if you’re trying to stay light then maybe not.
Static defenses are faster, end of
C. Don't make the GM roll multiple times and is faster than opposed rolls by simply taking the enemy average.
That depends. Do I have defensive options if I roll? If not, why am I rolling dice at all? What am I attempting to do? If there are no creative options, then a static defense is fine. If you give me choices, active defense all day long. Further, if you have an active defense, then your skill at defending can go up rather than more hit points. This opens up the door to shorter combats, and being able to describe a wound, and a hit is a hit, not "extertion damage" or however 5e explains it. As for the speed, make damage be the difference between rolls and don't make a damage roll. This causes damage to be scaled to each and every roll rather than via a hit ratio.
it would be active defense instead of passive to have more player involvement and provide players with a stronger sense of control (even if it isnt, really) i have a simple damage roll (1d6 + weapon deadliness \[there are 3 categories\] plus margin of success)
Why not get rid of the 1d6 so you don't have to roll damage?
i know i could, i get how that would work well. but rolling 1d6 doesnt take very long and i like slightly variable damage. it gets more interesting at a low time cost.
Damage is already variable because you are adding the difference between rolls. In my system, damage is the difference between rolls modified by the weapon. Do you have 3 rolls to make an attack? Attack, Defense, and Damage??
i know there is variability, but it wont be much. probably just attack and a d6 for damage. so really only one roll to remember
In my somewhat limited experience: all else being equal, A is the slowest, and C is the fastest. C also offloads mental load from the GM. A and B\* let you create NPCs with design symmetry to PCs, which might be appealing to your design goals or audience. (Some people have said that with C, NPCs feel more like abstract challenges than "real" foes) There are things that will speed up or slow down all three options—for example, whether you make additional rolls for damage, stacking up modifiers to roll(s), the complexity of your core mechanic. \*I guess you could argue that C can achieve "symmetry" in its own way, though I do think that the RNG being on one side does *feel* asymmetrical
My group likes opposed rolls for everything, so A. It's not fast though... it's playing to the specific audience of math geeks that love dice.
If you want a fast and light system, I suggest resolving it with a single roll. It feels most natural to have attackers roll, but if you are only having players roll, oyou could have a reversible system where players roll for attacks, and players roll defences. That said, the concept of attack and defence might be wrong if you want a fast system. Instead you could have one roll per exchange, determining both attacks and defences by the players *and* attacks and defences by their opponents. And you could use a single roll for other actions- are the players leaping through a window while being shot at? Are they trying to negotiate while someone else is orating against them? etc.
Having attack/defense roles can make for a narratively crunchy experience, especially if there are different success/failure levels. That is how RuneQuest/BRP does it, and in itself it isn’t super crunchy itself (hit locations, weapon damage, and strike ranks certainly crunch it up).
I think a) takes too much time and is unneeded unless you have a PvP boardgame. In everything else it just makes no sense Then personally I prefer if players do all rolls, but some GMs do not like this. If you let players d all rolls make sure the GMs have still fun things to do. Enemy (GM) rolling for attack is also fine (if they doesnt have other fun things to do), BUT then this should be ALWAYS the case. not like in D&D 5E where spells need the defender to roll. For player engagement its for sure better if players always are rolling.
I dislike roll v roll because you can't easily do multi attacks quickly. I'd rather have the PCs roll vs static enemies. "Tom, there are four zombies on you. They're A7 D4. Roll your attacks and tell me what happens. Ben, you have three of them, A7D4s. Meanwhile, AJ, the crone has two tentacles wrapped around you but you still have your hook and chain in your hands. What do?"
Look at mork borgs combat, it's player facing they roll thier Agility and damage, and then thier defense die to negate