I have tried in my game a system where you roll a d10(or d6 I don't recall) vs enemy roll d10(or d6) then see who has higher number after applied bonuses.
I think this kind of roll is bad in general. Since rolling 2 dies against each other will have a more similar to Gaussian distribution as opposed to a 1d10 vs 5 + bonsues.
That means a lot more mutual misses as the rolls are closer to the average, in case there are bonuses.
It's less decisive.

This is in a computer RPG, so it gets extremely annoying when you have to wait so many attacks for something to happen.
Or maybe it's the standard Random number in PCs that make it worse?

In any case, is me hypothesis true? Do you have other ways to test for hitting a target in a melee attack?

You could try using Anydice to model the probabilities: https://anydice.com/

If you are a developer/coder the syntax is pretty easy to pick up and you can model dn vs dn attack/defence rolls pretty easily as well as the probabilities of success vs a difficulty number etc.

Hope that helps.

I think the kind of roll that annoys me most is the roll to hit, followed by the roll to parry, where each is independent of the opponent's abilities. As characters get more skilled, combats grind to a halt between equally skilled opponents (and in a particularly annoying way; it depends on the defender failing for a hit to get through).

d10 vs d10 is effectively the same as 2d10 versus a fixed number (with some arithmetic juggling to get the correct fixed number). There is a difference in a tabletop game because each player gets to roll one of the dice versus one player rolling both, but that's mostly a safeguard against one player cheating. In a computer game there would be no difference.

I slightly prefer a two dice roll because the extreme results become less probable, but in fairness I mostly play d20 games. If the critical hits or fumbles (e.g., 20 or 1 on a d20) are too extreme then a single d20 roll would feel wrong - extreme stuff would happen too routinely.

Quote from: PompiPompi;1094740This is in a computer RPG, so it gets extremely annoying when you have to wait so many attacks for something to happen.

I think this is probably the solution approach that will be most helpful.  It's less about the odds and more about what's been called "the pace of decision", which is, basically, how quickly can somebody lose.  If a fight against a matched foe can take forever and wind up going either way without any investment from the player in the result, that's the kiss of death for excitement.

I would do two things, if possible:

1) Give the player an input choice that regularly makes a difference to the outcome of an individual clash, even if this is just boosting defense at the expense of attack -- you could also put in choices of manoeuvre that provide different numerical bonuses based on what the opponent chooses, give options for tactical actions or movements that can help, and so on.

2) Put in an absolute time limit on each fight, so that every round takes you closer to the end -- set up a trait that functions like a reserve of fatigue which drops a tiny bit with each Round, and maybe drops a little more with powerful manoeuvres, then start hitting a combatant with penalties once it drops below 25% or so.

This will not only make fights shorter but will increase player investment in them when they happen.

"dice derbies " are much more tolerable in CRPGs than tabletop, since the computer can make lots of rolls very quickly.

If you're really worried about it taking too long, introduce a "defensive tiredness" factor, so that eventually hits will be administered, which should speed up the fights or at least have them end soon enough for your taste (assuming finite hit points).

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser;1094888I think this is probably the solution approach that will be most helpful.  It's less about the odds and more about what's been called "the pace of decision", which is, basically, how quickly can somebody lose.  If a fight against a matched foe can take forever and wind up going either way without any investment from the player in the result, that's the kiss of death for excitement.

I think this is more true if the mechanics are more visible to the players. The first D&D campaign I played in, the DM rolled every character's hit points at the start of an expedition, and the players did not know how many hit points they had. Even if the odds were very good you would survive that weak attack, it still generated some excitement.

QuoteI would do two things, if possible:

1) Give the player an input choice that regularly makes a difference to the outcome of an individual clash, even if this is just boosting defense at the expense of attack -- you could also put in choices of manoeuvre that provide different numerical bonuses based on what the opponent chooses, give options for tactical actions or movements that can help, and so on.

2) Put in an absolute time limit on each fight, so that every round takes you closer to the end -- set up a trait that functions like a reserve of fatigue which drops a tiny bit with each Round, and maybe drops a little more with powerful manoeuvres, then start hitting a combatant with penalties once it drops below 25% or so.

This will not only make fights shorter but will increase player investment in them when they happen.

Without meaningful player choices, the fight should be over immediately (from the player's point of view); either from a table of results indexed by a single roll, or by the computer crunching all of the attack rolls and announcing the result. There has to be a balance between the too-slow battle (in which the PCs and opponents who settle on a good strategy grind it out to a result over many turns) and the too-quick battle (in which a decision on the first turn dooms you if it's a bad one - you need some room to change tactics based on the outcome of your first decision).

I do like the idea of increasing chances of hitting if the fight drags on, and I would encourage more thoughtful play by having it penalize the aggressors* more, which would give some encouragement to negotiating first and choosing fights wisely, and give players some assurance that letting the opponents strike first won't give away every advantage.

* OK, that's subjective, but I know the murderhoboes when I see 'em.

Quote from: rawma;1094944I would encourage more thoughtful play by having it penalize the aggressors more, which would give some encouragement to negotiating first and choosing fights wisely, and give players some assurance that letting the opponents strike first won't give away every advantage.

This is a good point.  All-out attack is a popular tactic in real life because it very often works, especially against people caught by surprise or who haven't had the training or experience to not be thrown by it; the trick is, of course, that if you try it on somebody who does know how to deal with it, it can open you up to getting taken down right there.

From a game perspective, all-out immediate aggression should be at best a high-risk medium-reward approach, and PCs should be able to learn how to counter it fairly quickly.