So in D&D-derivatives combat generally involves two rolls: an attack roll and a damage roll. The result of an attack roll is a simple success, failure, or a critical hit (which doubles the damage dealt). The result of the attack roll otherwise has no affect on the damage roll.
Why not remove the damage roll and have the damage be determined by the attack roll? Are there any popular optional or house rules to this effect?
The first reason I can think of is that if a low-probability roll is necessary to hit, the designer faces the problem of whether that means the good roll conveys that hard-to-hit people always take damage near the top end of what is possible for that attack, or whether they take very little.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 21, 2021, 03:36:00 PM
Why not remove the damage roll and have the damage be determined by the attack roll?
In other games, the most common approach is to have the margin of success be the damage. You need 16 to hit, you roll 17, you do 1 damage. But then you get into, well what about the different weapons? Surely a margin of 1 with a greatsword and a margin of 1 with a dagger should give different results? So then you have to fiddle with the weapons.
I'm sure I have many examples of this sort of design on my shelves, its not a new idea, but it can prove surprisingly tricky to implement.
Heavy Gear, all the Dream Pod 9 games really, use the Margin of Success as a multiplier to the damage, which can produce some absurd looking numbers at the high end (being able to shoot holes in tanks...), and it sort of contributed to their major problem of having Dexterity being the be-all, end-all of combat stats.
The White Wolf storyteller system does this sort of thing as well, at least in the nWoD... not referencing the Dream Pod 9 but the OP, anyway. Again, you see an issue where the most deadly weapons are the most accurate, a .22 caliber pea shooter being far more dangerous than an elephant gun (this is not a made up example, btw), because successes from the dice pool translate directly, and accuracy increases those successes.
I'm sure if I started ripping books off the shelves I could find a lot more examples, but they'd probably be more exotic, which isn't necessarily useful for discussion.
In the end it really comes down to what sacrifices you want to make, as no game is without flaws. I typically see games (BRTC games come to mind here, but I won't swear to it...) that have the accuracy modify the damage of the weapon, rather than utterly replace it, but this is still used to eliminate the second roll. This mitigates the Two-handed Sword vs Dagger damage problem.
Quote from: Spike on February 21, 2021, 04:31:50 PM
I'm sure I have many examples of this sort of design on my shelves, its not a new idea, but it can prove surprisingly tricky to implement.
Heavy Gear, all the Dream Pod 9 games really, use the Margin of Success as a multiplier to the damage, which can produce some absurd looking numbers at the high end (being able to shoot holes in tanks...), and it sort of contributed to their major problem of having Dexterity being the be-all, end-all of combat stats.
The White Wolf storyteller system does this sort of thing as well, at least in the nWoD... not referencing the Dream Pod 9 but the OP, anyway. Again, you see an issue where the most deadly weapons are the most accurate, a .22 caliber pea shooter being far more dangerous than an elephant gun (this is not a made up example, btw), because successes from the dice pool translate directly, and accuracy increases those successes.
I was about to post the same thing, but I was thinking oWoD. MOS adding to damage makes Dex the Uber stat. I think mongTrav does it. Fudge does it.
For d20 or OSR you could use average of the damage die (round up) plus Str mod for quicker combats. Or max damage die for really quick combats.
QuoteSurely a margin of 1 with a greatsword and a margin of 1 with a dagger should give different results? So then you have to fiddle with the weapons.
In Warhammer Fantasy 4E damage equals - Sucess Level + Weapon Modifier + Strength Modifier.
As others have said, using degrees of success as damage makes it more difficult to simulate attacks from things like giants that have a low chance to hit but do a ton of damage of they do hit. But I've also found that many players just aren't that good at subtraction in their head (you need a 8 and roll a 14, what is the difference?) that it takes longer to calculate the degree of success than to just make another die roll.
A compromise would be to give attacks a fixed damage and have a simple trigger to increase that. So a sword might do 4 damage and do double damage if you roll 10 more than you needed.
QuoteAs others have said, using degrees of success as damage makes it more difficult to simulate attacks from things like giants that have a low chance to hit but do a ton of damage of they do hit.
if you use pure levels of success then yes
Hey man, great idea for a discussion.
One attack roll that also determines damage... I have done this in AGE (Dragon Age, Fantasy Age, Modern Age) games with great success. However, despite being a d20 derivative, the AGE system is designed with enough changes in mind that make the implementation of these rules pretty easy.
So, here's how it works in AGE: rolls are 3d6 (not 1d20) + ability vs. Target Number (DC). Armor is damage reduction. One of the d6s is of a different color and the result determines how well you performed whatever check you tried. For example, you roll STR to jump a chasm and you are successful; if the different d6 is 1, it means you almost didn't make it and might be holding for your life; a 2 can mean you fell on the other side, safe, but will have to take a move to get up; a 3-4 is average, you did it ok; a 5-6 means you cleared the distance well and might get a +1 or +2 on your follow-up check to attack the dude on the other side, etc.
In combat, AGE has two rolls (attack and damage) as DnD. I always though that was stupid because... well, they have an amazing system to solve everything with one roll! So, I took the weapon damage (dagger d6+1, sword 2d6, two-handed axe 3d6) and converted to a bonus: dagger +5, sword +7, two-handed axe +10. Add your STR (AGE uses only the modifiers, not derived stats). When you attack, if you hit, add the damage bonus to that different d6 that determines how well you did and that's it! You made one roll and got the damage.
Now, in d20, admitting that you don't want to roll damage dice together with the d20 (I know, it doesn't solve the problem) my (very rough) idea is giving weapons a fixed damage (a dagger causes STR mod +2, a sword STR mod +4, etc. I'd say place it at half the die damage, rounding down as usual). When you hit, add +1 damage for every 2 points above the AC. So, my fighter (+6 attack and d8+4 damage) now deals 8 damage on each hit. If I hit the exact AC or around it, I deal average damage; on higher rolls, I deal much more damage. Hitting with a 18 against a poor AC 10 wizard would cause 12 damage; hitting with a 18 against a plate armored opponent would cause damage 8. A critical hit calculates damage as the total result was 10 points above; so, a critical hit against that wizard would cause 21 damage (26 attack, increased to 36 - AC 10 = 26/2 = 13+8 = 21).
This idea is untested and might benefit from some variants, but it is there. Hope there's something you can use. Happy gaming!
Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 21, 2021, 05:32:08 PM
QuoteAs others have said, using degrees of success as damage makes it more difficult to simulate attacks from things like giants that have a low chance to hit but do a ton of damage of they do hit.
if you use pure levels of success then yes
Since you mentioned WFRP 4e already, to continue with that, size matters much more in that game. Big creatures are not better at hitting, but it is much harder to parry (but not dodge) their blows and those blows do more damage.
Quote
Since you mentioned WFRP 4e already, to continue with that, size matters much more in that game. Big creatures are not better at hitting, but it is much harder to parry (but not dodge) their blows and those blows do more damage.
Indeed. I just pointed out that you can simulate rare, but powerful hits with success level as long as there are other modifiers.
I've been trying to figure out an attack-success-determines-damage variant for a d20 hack I've been working on for a while, and have had limited success, primarily because the d20 (or, in some version, 2d10) range of die results tends to make multiplying success margin by a base damage number (my preferred approach) rapidly generate numbers much larger than most d20 games are designed around. The only way to keep this under control has been to use very strict limits for Base Damage (generally x1/2 to x2, x3 at most), and this doesn't give much range for differentiating weapons by damage level.
(It also doesn't help that I want to try to incorporate a difference between (b)lunt, (c)utting and (p)iercing damage into weapon descriptions, as well as a Wounds/Vitality differentiation, and that I've tweaked the attributes to be flat scores of 1 to 10 instead of scores of 1-20 with an effective modifier range of -5 to +5.)
Minimum or Maximum Damage Caps may help with this, though.
Rolling dice is fun! Also, some of the most suspenseful moments in my gaming career have been waiting to see how much damage was rolled against the big baddie. "Margin of success" sort of eliminates some of that.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 21, 2021, 06:53:22 PM
I've been trying to figure out an attack-success-determines-damage variant for a d20 hack I've been working on for a while, and have had limited success, primarily because the d20 (or, in some version, 2d10) range of die results tends to make multiplying success margin by a base damage number (my preferred approach) rapidly generate numbers much larger than most d20 games are designed around. The only way to keep this under control has been to use very strict limits for Base Damage (generally x1/2 to x2, x3 at most), and this doesn't give much range for differentiating weapons by damage level.
(It also doesn't help that I want to try to incorporate a difference between (b)lunt, (c)utting and (p)iercing damage into weapon descriptions, as well as a Wounds/Vitality differentiation, and that I've tweaked the attributes to be flat scores of 1 to 10 instead of scores of 1-20 with an effective modifier range of -5 to +5.)
Minimum or Maximum Damage Caps may help with this, though.
I've never seen multiplication work, for the reason you describe. Here's an idea: Instead of x1, x2, etc. Why not multiply by decimals?
best result = x1
good result = x .50
fair result = .25
Tri-Stat DX (Silver-age Sentinels ) sort-of did this.
Quote from: Aglondir on February 21, 2021, 08:05:09 PMI've never seen multiplication work, for the reason you describe.
I've made it work for my own generic system homebrew, but that has the advantage that I stepped away from the "hit point total" model almost completely, where the multiplied totals are compared to set Wound Level thresholds instead of subtracted from a running total. If the goal is to preserve the feel of most D20 games that's less of an option.
QuoteInstead of x1, x2, etc. Why not multiply by decimals?
best result = x1
good result = x .50
fair result = .25
That might make the numbers square up but I don't think it'd go over, playability-wise. I think most players wouldn't like the idea that their rarest, best result isn't any more than what the dice directly show them; most D20 gamers are too attached to that double-/triple-damage effect. (I certainly would miss it.)
Mathematically you're right; it would work better if the most variability was in weapon base damage plus STR modifier (1-10 plus -5 to +5), and the "to hit" roll was measured in set multiplier levels -- x0.5, x1, x2, x3 perhaps. The problem there is that if you assume the most common hits are the x0.5s and the x1s, a lot of the hits start to feel much the same and some of the dynamism is lost.
It's difficult to do in such a way that it doesn't end being slower than just rolling in damage.
Margins of success works well in dicepool games but I find it slower in single dice games then just rolling the damage.
If fixed damge doesn't work you could just use an odd even flip. This allows you to distinguish damage based on swingness of weapons as well.
Eg: you determine damage based on whether the attack roll is odd or even.
Greatsword = odd 5, even 8
Great Axe = Odd 3, Even 10.
I like the idea of using margin of success for damage quite a lot; in fact that's the approach I'm using for my current design project. I like having margin of success matter, and I like speeding things up by removing a step from the process.
I've heard mentioned here and elsewhere that rolling another die is faster. That hasn't been my experience. In my game at least, totals rarely go over 20. I can subtract numbers in this range in my head faster than I can speak the result, and so can most of the folks I play with, even the kids.
As for the point about giant weapons etc, that doesn't really fit with my intuition. A blow to the neck of a totally healthy person with either a pocket-knife or a 20 foot long swords will kill that person equally dead in both cases. The giant long sword has lots of advantages - reach, ability to parry, blade speed, difficulty to parry, and so on, but in the end it doesn't kill a person any deader than the pocket knife, it just makes it easier to get that killing blow. It's not like people actually have ablative invisible armor that must be hammered to pieces before they can be hurt. AFAIAC high damage for big weapons is just a gamist artifact of hit points that I don't mind discarding.
And for just liking to roll dice ... okay, you got me there. If you like rolling more dice you should go ahead and keep your damage roll.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 21, 2021, 11:13:39 PM
I've made it work for my own generic system homebrew, but that has the advantage that I stepped away from the "hit point total" model almost completely, where the multiplied totals are compared to set Wound Level thresholds instead of subtracted from a running total. If the goal is to preserve the feel of most D20 games that's less of an option.
I've used that approach before, and found quite a lot to like about it. However it does create the possibility that a character will be taken out of action quite suddenly and unexpectedly. While this is realistic and a good fit for some genres, it is not a good fit for the preference of many groups. Have you found this to be the case as well? And if so, did you try to ameliorate this issue?
If your group likes math, combining the hit and damage via some sort of margin of success system can work; though I find it worked best with variant oWoD style mechanics where you have two axes to play with; accuracy affects difficulty, bigger attacks add dice; than a single axis system like d20 or nWoD/CoD/V5.
Actually, fixed-difficulty dice pools seem to handle it worse in my experience than die roll (be it 1d20, 2d10 or 3d6)+mod vs. TN ones as more dice in a pool at fixed difficulty increases resulting successes fairly linearly while also reducing the deviation (about two-thirds of all rolls of 10d at difficulty 6 will be between 4 and 6 successes and about 90% will be between 3 and 7 successes) meaning defense becomes rather binary too... either you have enough to avoid someone's attacks almost entirely or you're losing health every round.
The greater deviation of rolling 1-3 dice means sometimes defense will do something, sometimes it's not enough more often.
Either way though, if you're using a single-difficulty axis resolution mechanic, it will also work better if the system includes some sort of non-physical or very abstract hit points either in whole (strain in FFG Star Wars) or in part (Wounds/Vitality in d20 Star Wars) so that the ogre hitting every round represents you getting fatigued dodging his massive swings and not his clipping you with his massive club every round.
* * * *
All of the above said though, the majority of average people don't like complex math. I tested out a few such margin or success-based systems early on in developing my own system because, as someone who likes math and statistics, I didn't think something like determing margin of success would be a big deal. I similarly worked on an armor as DR based system too for similar reasons (a little subtraction is no big deal right?)
Boy was I wrong. The game slowed to a crawl because each added another operation to the resolution, but unlike a damage roll, couldn't be completed simultaneously or ahead of time.
Let's say your resolution system is one where damage is based on margin of success (lets use a basic weapon as multiplier; say x2) and is reduced by armor (i.e. armor as DR).
To resolve it you may only roll once and might do so ahead of time, but unless you know the target's defense ahead of time too you can't start calculating margin of success (subtraction) or damage (multiplication) and you have a third operation (subtracting armor DR from damage dealt) that can't be started until you know both the damage and the DR.
If your GM is keeping the defense and armor values secret, that's all math they have to do after your turn begins. If the system involves rolled defenses you can't even announce the defense value after the first hit so players can start doing the margin of success and damage multiplier math ahead of time.
Now this is something computers can calculate virtually instantaneously; which is why you see systems like this in video games all the time, but humans don't do even basic math functions nearly so quickly and that showed in my testing.
Conversely, in D&D you can roll your attack and damage die at the same time, then add your modifier to each. Then determining a hit is the most basic math function; comparison... if the attack result is greater or equal to defense number, you hit. Similarly if the hit check passes the damage is already known and is just subtracted once from the hit points.
If you're playing with adults whom you have reasonable trust of, then the rolling and addition can even be performed just ahead of the actual turn (as the previous action is being resolved) so that when the turn comes up you can just announce your attack roll. The GM then does the comparison operation (16 is greater than 14) and announces a hit or miss. If it's a hit then you announce your damage and the GM subtracts it from hit points and its on to the next action.
As glorious as damage based on margin of success could be in theory, in practice D&D's resolution is pretty much the sweet spot on the complexity scale for a general audience if my testing is any indication.
Now if your particular group enjoys MoS with damage multipliers and armor as DR, that's awesome. But if you're looking at releasing a commercial product, you need to be aware that you're marketing to a smaller niche and that complexity is a big part of the reason those systems never achieve the reach of something like D&D and that will limit your customer base to a level that may or may not be profitable for you.
Cue the story told in film-writing class about a successful indie film producer who only made films with mini- or anti-plots. He had a hard rule that his films could not exceed a budget of $2 million because at that level or less there would be enough of an audience (mini- and anti-plot are enjoyable to less than 10% of the population while more than 95% enjoy classical plot construction) that he would be able to return a profit to his investors and keep making more films... every dollar over $2 million increased the odds of it being a finacial failure which would mean investors would dry up.
Though the percentages aren't as extreme as the differences between mini/anti-plot and classical plot, math more complex than D&D is basically the game mechanical equivalent (the greater the complexity the smaller the audience).
You can do it, and there is a small audience for it, but keep an eye on your budgets if you hope to even break even.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 22, 2021, 04:20:38 AMBoy was I wrong. The game slowed to a crawl because each added another operation to the resolution, but unlike a damage roll, couldn't be completed simultaneously or ahead of time.
This was my experience as well. And it didn't matter if 90% of the players could do the math quickly, all it took was one player that struggled with it (or couldn't care less) for the whole system to break down.
But there's another disadvantage that hasn't been discussed. Using a degree of success system forces the GM to tell the players the exact number the players need to roll for success. This adds another step in the process for the GM and requires the GM to run the game with a specific level of precision. The best systems are those where the GM doesn't need decide the exact number the players need to roll except in those cases where the player's roll is near the target number.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on February 22, 2021, 08:27:17 AM
But there's another disadvantage that hasn't been discussed. Using a degree of success system forces the GM to tell the players the exact number the players need to roll for success. This adds another step in the process for the GM and requires the GM to run the game with a specific level of precision. The best systems are those where the GM doesn't need decide the exact number the players need to roll except in those cases where the player's roll is near the target number.
Well, and I'd left it out because the specific topic is RPGs, but MoS systems also work fine in tactical wargames; which is probably why it worked okay in Heavy Gear, which from my experience was rarely played as anything but a wargame.
Another option that works well from wargames with fixed damage is systems like Battletech with specific hit locations. 10 points to an arm probably wouldn't penetrate the armor, 10 points to the head would not only punch the armor, but get a roll to see if equipment has been hit.
Hit locations could function even better in an RPG context if margin of success was used to narrow in on where you wanted to hit.
Say a base hit is a random roll for location, but you can add or subtract your margin of success from the location roll such that, at a wide enough margin, you could hit any location you choose.
Such a system would allow the base hit location to be rolled at the same time as the attack check too. The main drawback would be that everyone would need to fairly familiar with the hit location table so they know what sort of range their margin opens up. So, still more work than roll hit and damage separately, but would be a bit faster in that there's just figuring the margin and then deciding from the location range.
Another variant of that would be how the Western game Aces & Eights handled it. You had a silohette of a man with hit locations and a clear overlay with a targeting reticle denoted with rings of increasing numbers going in and the cards of a full deck going round the circle.
To attack you placed the overlay over the target, rolled the dice (2d6 if I recall), added your bonus and drew a card from a full deck. The hit occurred at the intersection of the number ring and line in determined by the card drawn. Better the roll the closer to your chosen bullseye while the card drawn randomized the direction of a miss.
It was definitely thematic, but I don't know that the resolution was particularly fast either as I only saw demonstrations of its use in the dealer room at Origins the year it came out and am largely going off memory on the resolution.
QuoteThis was my experience as well. And it didn't matter if 90% of the players could do the math quickly, all it took was one player that struggled with it (or could care less) for the whole system to break down.
TBH in such situation - it's best if GM does maths good.
Let's say you use percentage opposite rolls like in Warhammer. You say DM what is your result compared to your skill in melee, rest is DM's job to check result in such situation and announce result - not necessary in numeric value. And you have your Weapon + Strenght bonus to damage written down on CS.
QuoteUsing a degree of success system forces the GM to tell the players the exact number the players need to roll for success.
Not really. He just need to know it - he doesn't have to tell them.
QuoteThis adds another step in the process for the GM and requires the GM to run the game with a specific level of precision. The best systems are those where the GM doesn't need decide the exact number the players need to roll except in those cases where the player's roll is near the target number.
That's sort of ridiculous for me - it's way easier to take precise AC 23 let's say and judge rolls than... what? taking vague level of precision - how on Earth is vague math more useful?
The problem with putting all the work on the DM is that it puts all the work on the DM. They're already designing the adventure and running all the NPCs, now you want to add "rapidly perfrom multiple math operations per attack" to the required talent stack?
Few DMs are masochists; they're playing to have a good time too. If the system also requires them to speed run through an ((A-D)*W)-A=X equation to resolve an attack on each target*, then you're limiting your audience for your system to "groups with a GM who enjoys timed math challenges" and that's a pretty limited pool.
* Yeah, that's versus one target; multi-target attacks typically use a separate check (attack roll or save) for each target or else some sort of "divide successes between targets" (dice pool system) or "reduce check by X for each extra target" (some burst fire attacks) or "reduce damage value by distance" (some systems with explosions).
Any of above will result in the equation needing to be performed multiple times to resolve it. More power to you if you can find a GM who enjoys that, but you'd have to pay me to run a system like that.
Well that depends of system.
Considering D&D 3,5 yeah nope. But within limits of Warhammer - especially considering well way less HP and quite a lot options for nasty injuries beyond HP loss, I think I'd go for it.
But then I'd also gladly use Burning Wheel method of fight resolution, so I may be a bit of insane.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 22, 2021, 04:16:13 AMI've used that approach before, and found quite a lot to like about it. However it does create the possibility that a character will be taken out of action quite suddenly and unexpectedly. While this is realistic and a good fit for some genres, it is not a good fit for the preference of many groups. Have you found this to be the case as well? And if so, did you try to ameliorate this issue?
For me the issue was solved by putting in an option where people can dial the Wound Threshold levels up and down depending on the desired deadliness of their game. At the "Wildly Cinematic" level, for example, the threshold for a Critical Wound is equal to Vitality (a score from 1-10) x 16, which given a typical PC VTL of 6 means you have to achieve a DV (Damage Value) of 96. This is, needless to say, very difficult to do with Base Damages generally ranging from 2 to 10 and Impacts (vs. an equally skilled foe) rarely over 6 at worst. (There is also an option where you basically don't bother applying action penalties for any wound below Critical, which reproduces the "grind them down" feel of most hit-point-based systems.)
At the "Grittily Realistic" level, on the other hand, a Mortal Wound only has a threshold of (VTL x 10), meaning you only have to achieve DV 40 to take an average VTL 4 unarmoured man out in one blow, which happens about 25% of the time in a fight between equally skilled combatants, and also makes it quite mechanically feasible (if morally appalling) to beat an opponent to death with bare hands.
If you use the to-hit roll as also the damage, the system needs to be designed with it from the ground up. It would make a horrible house-rule.
I'm still not a fan generally for TTRPGs, as you lose a lot of granularity unless you want it to take far more time than just rolling and extra die in the same roll. It becomes difficult to have some characters/foes hit hard but inaccurately, as character optimization becomes all about jacking up the character accuracy.
Now - I DO like the idea of hitting easily causing bonus damage/effects, but I think that that's better expressed as a critical hit. In the system I've been working on, critical hits are done by hitting 10+ more than you need to hit the target. It's a Life Points/Vitality system, so the critical hit bypassing Vitality to deal damage straight to Life Points feels very different than just increasing the damage.
Rolemaster's attack tables do this though there's still a separate critical roll.
My own system uses "result" the low, high, or total dice of the attack roll is added to damage depending on the damage range of the weapon.
Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 21, 2021, 03:36:00 PM
So in D&D-derivatives combat generally involves two rolls: an attack roll and a damage roll. The result of an attack roll is a simple success, failure, or a critical hit (which doubles the damage dealt). The result of the attack roll otherwise has no affect on the damage roll.
Why not remove the damage roll and have the damage be determined by the attack roll? Are there any popular optional or house rules to this effect?
The best way to answer the question of "why not?" is to do it.
I've contemplated doing the following with my 1E game:
Damage is determined by how much the hit roll exceeds the minimum needed to hit. Subject to the particular weapon's min and max harm.
For example, broadsword vs S- or M-size creature does 2-8 damage. If I need a 14 to hit, it will do 2 damage on a roll of 14, 15, or 16, 3 damage on a 17, 4 on an 18, and so on. One caveat is I treat a natural 20 as if the die roll were '25' (this is how I simulate the six repeating 20's on the 1E hit tables without ever having to reference the hit tables). So on a 19, the broadsword would do 5 damage, but on a natural 20, it exceeds the number needed by 11, subject to the 8 damage cap on the weapon, so it does 8 damage on a natural 20.
This gives me wood for a few reasons. It saves me a die roll. It creates a bar-bell distribution (anti-bell curve) for the damage result with extremes being more probable than the middle, which I actually find makes more sense than a linear distribution or a bell distribution as it translates more directly into heuristics "light hit, heavy hit, mushy gray". Situational or skill factors that improve chance to hit (thereby decreasing the number needed to hit) come with the implicit tendency towards higher damage. And yet it still allows me to adjust damage independently of the hit roll. For instance, i can still do the x2 damage for a spear set to receive charge by just doubling the damage result. I don't have to go tinkering with the hit probability to make the math work out.
So why don't I just implement this immediately in my AD&D game without giving it another thought?
Well, first is it seems quicker and easier just to roll a separate damage die than to have to calculate the exact number needed to hit* and subtract that from the d20 roll, then double check to make sure it falls within the min/max for the weapon. Second, while I can adjust the damage without affecting the to hit probability, I cannot adjust the hit probability without adjusting the damage. There just very well may be circumstances, characters, skills, or magic items that would logically increase (or decrease) hit probability without adjusting damage in tandem. Like I may wish to distinguish someone who has a high hit probability but crappy damage vs someone who rarely hits but when they do, hold on to your ass.
So even though on the surface it seems to simplify things by saving the extra die roll and it seems more versatile and even "realistic" by making more accurate and highly skilled attackers also do more damage, in reality it makes things less simple and less versatile.
* It's a dirty little secret, but 80% of the time, when someone rolls the d20, it's either obviously high enough that it hits, or obviously low enough that it misses, without having to figure out the exact number needed to hit. Sure. Some people want to calculate that number each and every time. But as a DM, I have so many numbers coming at me throughout the game session that playing it fast and loose like this is a HUGE time saver without losing any fidelity.
Looking at the above posts, I suspect the difficulty has to do with how much math is involved. My experience in this area is limited, but I can share what I have seen. I've run the game I'm designing four times, I think, with its target audience, my 12 year old son and his friends. Three times I GM'ed and once my son did. The players don't have to do any math, they just roll. If the roll is higher than the target the Narrator (GM) needs to do one subtraction or check if the margin is high enough to trigger a special effect. It's run fast and smooth even with a 12 year old running the game. After reading the above, though, I feel like I should do some additional testing to make sure this approach works okay before I proceed much further.
Edit: I should add that the system is designed from scratch around the MoS mechanics; it's not something tacked onto a standard D&D version.
Lots of systems do correlate degree of successes to damage. FFG's Genesys/Star Wars, Shadowrun, White Wolf, and the common factor for all of them is that they don't have thresholds that you have to roll over, any success is a hit, so you just count the number of successes and add that amount to the damage. It makes the math very straightforward so you don't have to rely on a subtraction-deficient group member working out the numbers involved.
So far Soulbound is working out well as a dice pool game with the roll to hit and the roll to damage being the same roll.
You have your pool of D6's. Your target number varies from two to six, depending on how good of a fighter you are vs how good of a fighter your opponent is. It isn't a contested roll, you compare values and it is basically just a 1-6 set of values you are comparing. Equal odds means a 4+ on each die. The side that is one better rolls 3+ and the side that is one worse rolls 5+. Better than that is a 2+ and worse than that is a 6+.
One success is a hit. Extra successes buy extra damage. Armor reduces damage.
I only have a couple actual play sessions under my belt, but it has been pretty smooth so far.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 22, 2021, 01:45:38 PM
Looking at the above posts, I suspect the difficulty has to do with how much math is involved.
I generally think the hardest mental arithmetic anyone should have to do while actually
playing a game is a maximum of double-digit addition and subtraction (for percentile systems), or single-digit multiplication. Anything harder than this breaks my immersion because I have to think about it too much. (I don't mind character design systems that require more complicated math or formulae than this, as long as it's all "front loaded" to be done before play starts.)
I'd be curious to get input from others about whether they think this tolerance is on the low or high side for gamers in general.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 22, 2021, 07:10:29 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on February 22, 2021, 01:45:38 PM
Looking at the above posts, I suspect the difficulty has to do with how much math is involved.
I generally think the hardest mental arithmetic anyone should have to do while actually playing a game is a maximum of double-digit addition and subtraction (for percentile systems), or single-digit multiplication. Anything harder than this breaks my immersion because I have to think about it too much. (I don't mind character design systems that require more complicated math or formulae than this, as long as it's all "front loaded" to be done before play starts.)
I'd be curious to get input from others about whether they think this tolerance is on the low or high side for gamers in general.
I'd say pretty on target. I'll note though that some multipliers are easier than others; x10 is pretty much easier than even x2, and x25 is pretty easy too given the way change works.
I'll also note that many of the systems that use multipliers tend to use rather small dice; Silhouette (Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles) uses opposed checks where a check is the best result of 1-4 six-siders (so a 5, 5, 3, 2 is a 5) + a modifier of about +/-3.
That puts a rare high end result of maybe 12 (each 6 after the first on the dice adds 1... so 6, 6, 6, 6 is 9 plus a 3 modifier), but 8-10 being more typical. Then subtract a similar result to get a margin of success of probably 1-4 and weapon multipliers for the mecha of x5 to about x15 for a really big gun. Those are relatively easy numbers to work with.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 22, 2021, 07:10:29 PM
Quote from: Mishihari on February 22, 2021, 01:45:38 PM
Looking at the above posts, I suspect the difficulty has to do with how much math is involved.
I generally think the hardest mental arithmetic anyone should have to do while actually playing a game is a maximum of double-digit addition and subtraction (for percentile systems), or single-digit multiplication. Anything harder than this breaks my immersion because I have to think about it too much. (I don't mind character design systems that require more complicated math or formulae than this, as long as it's all "front loaded" to be done before play starts.)
I'd be curious to get input from others about whether they think this tolerance is on the low or high side for gamers in general.
I'm naturally inclined to push the envelope on such things. Math is not something that slows me down much, usually, until it gets into things no sane person would put in a game (and even then, it was because I'm rusty on some of the advanced stuff). My group varies from "generally good at basic math" to considerably better than that. Occasionally, I've had a person try to play that struggled even with basic addition (due to youth or lack of math interests), but for whatever reason either the player doesn't last or they get better at basic math really fast when playing. The latter aspect of slightly challenging math improving the audience shouldn't be underestimated, even if it is a tertiary consideration.
Yet, I push hard now for simple as I can get, scraping out every little edge of simplicity while still meeting the goals of the design or the mechanic, rule, or house rule. The reasons are primarily two things:
1. Accounting. Almost everyone can balance their checkbook. Almost no one enjoys it. It's a chore. When advancing your character or designing a monster feels like accounting, it's draining some of the fun out of it. Then you get the distinction between what
can be done out of the play session versus what
will be done out of the play session. Fantasy Hero is still as fun to run and play for me as it ever was. Preparing? Freaking nightmare of tedium. That's coming from someone with so much system mastery that I could design 250 point monsters to the decimal point without opening the book. High level D&D 3.* pushes the same buttons on prep (though I don't enjoy playing it, either, for related and unrelated reasons).
2. As I have gotten older (and along with me, some of the players, though we keep having younger ones join), it has become apparent that the math handling we can do
automatically at the start of the session can be a bottleneck at the end. It's notable at the end of a 3-4 hour session, if you pay attention to such things. It's inescapable to even the most clueless observer at the end of a 7-8 hour session, even with plenty of breaks. Which can be a problem when you are ending an exciting fight. Given busy lives, some people show up tired. There's an obvious hit when that happens, too.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 22, 2021, 07:10:29 PM
I generally think the hardest mental arithmetic anyone should have to do while actually playing a game is a maximum of double-digit addition and subtraction (for percentile systems), or single-digit multiplication. Anything harder than this breaks my immersion because I have to think about it too much. (I don't mind character design systems that require more complicated math or formulae than this, as long as it's all "front loaded" to be done before play starts.)
I'd be curious to get input from others about whether they think this tolerance is on the low or high side for gamers in general.
In general, I don't like broad characterizations like these at all. It depends on exactly the numbers we're talking about.
I fucking LOVE division. "Make your skulduggery check at one half" is a perfectly quick and doable mathematical operation to make even in the heat of play. For me personally, I can do that more quickly than adding two digit numbers. And it's a great sit mod for something that should be very challenging for a highly skilled character without excluding low skilled characters by sending their chances negative.
But speaking of adding two digit numbers in percentile systems, are you REALLY doing that? Like if the modifier is a +10 or +20 modifier. I only really have to add the leading digit. Even though I may technically have two 2-digit numbers I'm adding, it really only requires 1-digit addition, and it can be done just as quickly as single digit addition in actual play.
This would be as opposed to WotC D&D where a high level character might have a 2-digit attack bonus to be added to a potentially two-digit die roll. That would involve actual 2-digit math. Which brings me to the next point. Apart from the exact numbers, I have to ask how often is this coming up? Roughly half the time for high level WotC D&D is way too much for my liking. But if one roll in ten calls for adding two 2-digit numbers? That's fine. Hell, it could be adding 2 3-digit numbers if it doesn't come up too often.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 23, 2021, 01:33:03 PM
This would be as opposed to WotC D&D where a high level character might have a 2-digit attack bonus to be added to a potentially two-digit die roll. That would involve actual 2-digit math. Which brings me to the next point. Apart from the exact numbers, I have to ask how often is this coming up? Roughly half the time for high level WotC D&D is way too much for my liking. But if one roll in ten calls for adding two 2-digit numbers? That's fine. Hell, it could be adding 2 3-digit numbers if it doesn't come up too often.
In connection with the thread about CR, this is the specific reason why, when moving my system from quadratic to linear advancement I decided to flatten the attack/defense portion instead of the damage/hit points portion and keep the attack bonuses almost entirely in the single digits with defense values in the teens.
Damage can be recorded and totaled after the fact until the numbers look like they might be getting close (sidebar: I also find it easier to just add up damage dealt instead of subtracting it from the starting hit points; there's mechanically zero difference between a monster dropping when damage dealt equals its hit points and a monster dropped because you've reduced its hit points to 0).
Similarly, I deliberately kept the variable portion of damage rolls to a single die precisely so the biggest bit of math will be adding 12 to your bonus from a maxed result on a d12 (so 1-in-6 rolls of a d12 require a tiny bit of double digit math and even then its just as easy to do +10, then +1 or +2).
The result is to keep the math from getting overwhelming, even for my pre-teen niece and godkids who served as some of my earliest playtesters.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 23, 2021, 01:56:11 PM
Damage can be recorded and totaled after the fact until the numbers look like they might be getting close (sidebar: I also find it easier to just add up damage dealt instead of subtracting it from the starting hit points; there's mechanically zero difference between a monster dropping when damage dealt equals its hit points and a monster dropped because you've reduced its hit points to 0).
I also do this with my system. I've found a curious artifact in limited play testing so far. We'll see if it holds up in a wider audience: Doing it this way is harder to get players to do, but once they get it, they not only handle the operation slightly faster, they also are less likely to make mistakes. As just one example with marking down problems, I had a dreadful time with a bunch of new 5E players not retaining their original hit point total on their sheet. I suppose part of that is down to character sheet design.
It took me some time to break old habits when recording damage on monsters, but once I got through that readjustment, I handle that more easily, too.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 23, 2021, 01:33:03 PM"Make your skulduggery check at one half" is a perfectly quick and doable mathematical operation to make even in the heat of play. For me personally, I can do that more quickly than adding two digit numbers. And it's a great sit mod for something that should be very challenging for a highly skilled character without excluding low skilled characters by sending their chances negative.
Fair point, although this tends to imply a roll-under system, which is not personally one of my preferences.
It also doesn't allow for much of a
range of modifiers without bringing in divisions that I think are a little harder to do on the fly. In general, most people I find can do 1/2, 1/4, and 1/10 pretty easily, but that's only three levels of difficulty above "standard", the last of which is
really difficult. When you add in factors like 3/4, 2/3 or 1/6 to try to fill in and smooth out that slope, immersion-breaking gets more common, I think.
QuoteLike if the modifier is a +10 or +20 modifier. I only really have to add the leading digit.
This is also true, but it produces an effect I've occasionally seen which I'm also not all that fond of: To make the math easier on the players, percentile-system modifiers are often standardized in increments of +5 or +10, and at that point my simplification instinct kicks in and says: "If modifiers don't matter until they're at least this increment, then your increment should be your +1 and your scores should be lowered to match." A percentile table, for example, which only increments in steps of 5% can be replaced by a d20 without any change in probability.
Of course, if the point is simply to roll percentile dice because one likes percentiles, then the group's tolerance for the math required is likely to be higher anyway.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 23, 2021, 01:56:11 PM
Damage can be recorded and totaled after the fact until the numbers look like they might be getting close (sidebar: I also find it easier to just add up damage dealt instead of subtracting it from the starting hit points; there's mechanically zero difference between a monster dropping when damage dealt equals its hit points and a monster dropped because you've reduced its hit points to 0).
I'm doing the same thing with my game, and found there are small mechanical differences, in that you can add slightly different mechanics on top of damage. As an example, when a PC's damage reaches his health he gets the disabled status. There's a physician skill that can restore some health, and the difficulty check is based on the damage, which I like for several reasons. You can do something similar with standard damage mechanic, but it's a lot clumsier, meaning it's too complicated to be fun in play.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 23, 2021, 01:56:11 PM
Similarly, I deliberately kept the variable portion of damage rolls to a single die precisely so the biggest bit of math will be adding 12 to your bonus from a maxed result on a d12 (so 1-in-6 rolls of a d12 require a tiny bit of double digit math and even then its just as easy to do +10, then +1 or +2).
The result is to keep the math from getting overwhelming, even for my pre-teen niece and godkids who served as some of my earliest playtesters.
I'm using 1d6 as the only roll in the game, because it's primarily aimed at kids who have never played before.
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 23, 2021, 02:36:31 PM
Fair point, although this tends to imply a roll-under system, which is not personally one of my preferences.
False. And your language "tends to imply" suggest to me you don't believe what you're saying either.
QuoteIt also doesn't allow for much of a range of modifiers without bringing in divisions that I think are a little harder to do on the fly.
False. Using one example of division as a simple and effective modifier does not:
1) indicate I envision some grand masturbatory RPG that uses division as its primary means of adjusting for situational difficulty,
2) imply the total exclusion of other means of adjudicating difficulty.
3) preclude other means of simulating the precise probability without any math at all; Example: 3/4 the probability? Simple. Roll a d4 at the same time as the skill roll. A "1" negates a result of "success" on the skill check.
QuoteThis is also true, but it produces an effect I've occasionally seen which I'm also not all that fond of:
False. Nothing I said indicates all modifiers I use are divisible by 5 or 10.
Quote from: Lunamancer on February 23, 2021, 05:43:10 PMFalse. And your language "tends to imply" suggest to me you don't believe what you're saying either.
"Tends to imply" means exactly what it means: that in most of the systems I've seen where difficulty modifiers are applied as dividers of the base chance, it's a roll-under system, whereas in most roll-over systems modifiers are almost always straight pluses or minuses, but that of course there may be exceptions. (I haven't seen every game, but I've seen a lot of them.) Allowing for exceptions doesn't mean the general tendency isn't true.
Likewise, pointing out
potential pitfalls and issues that I see with a given mechanic, as part of an explanation for why I don't prefer it, does not amount to an assertion that your game specifically may suffer from them or lacks options to address them. Nothing here is intended as specific direct criticism, only discussion of comparative perspectives.
If you're willing to use 3d6, the system from ICE's Silent Death (also found in Polyversal) is pretty elegant. Damage ratings are Low, Medium-Low, Medium-High and High.
Low: damage is the lowest die.
Medium-Low or -High: damage is the middle die.
High: damage is the highest die.
If there's a pair, and it's low (eg, 2, 2, 5), L and M-L add the pair together.
If there's a pair and it's high (eg, 2, 5, 5) H and M-H add the pair together.
On triples, you always get to add all three.
Alternately, do nothing special with doubles and triples, just have Low, Medium and High, and keep damage in a 1 - 6 range.
Quote from: Sable Wyvern on February 24, 2021, 08:14:41 AM
If you're willing to use 3d6, the system from ICE's Silent Death (also found in Polyversal) is pretty elegant. Damage ratings are Low, Medium-Low, Medium-High and High.
Low: damage is the lowest die.
Medium-Low or -High: damage is the middle die.
High: damage is the highest die.
I was interested enough to run the distribution on this. Here it is, for anyone who may be interested
Distribution
Mean 1 2 3 4 5 6
Low 2.04 42.1% 28.2% 17.1% 8.8% 3.2% 0.5%
Medium 3.50 7.4% 18.5% 24.1% 24.1% 18.5% 7.4%
High 4.96 0.5% 3.2% 8.8% 17.1% 28.2% 42.1%
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 23, 2021, 08:23:36 PM
"Tends to imply" means exactly what it means:
What it means is you get to intimate something that you full well know isn't true while providing yourself cover from being called on it. That's not conducive to good faith discourse.
Quotethat in most of the systems I've seen where difficulty modifiers are applied as dividers of the base chance, it's a roll-under system, whereas in most roll-over systems modifiers are almost always straight pluses or minuses, but that of course there may be exceptions. (I haven't seen every game, but I've seen a lot of them.) Allowing for exceptions doesn't mean the general tendency isn't true.
I can't speak to what games you have or haven't seen. Near as I can tell, games you've played isn't the topic of the thread. And I know with absolute certainty games you've played was not the subject of anything in my comment. I would like to point out, though, that one need look no further than D&D to find multiple instances where halfsies are used, and not in a roll-under context. So it's not even some rare or obscure thing.
But, whatever. I can't speak to your experience. I can speak to what I was actually saying, though. Is I think calling for half is quick and easy math that really nails what I'm sometimes looking for. That is a completely system agnostic statement, which is how it was intended, and so to suggest that it implies any "tendency" of the underlying game system is simply untrue, no matter how many wishy-washy qualifiers you want to tack onto it. My choice to adjudicate with a one-half modifier does not suddenly change the underlying game system. There is no "tendency" to speak of.
QuoteLikewise, pointing out potential pitfalls and issues that I see with a given mechanic, as part of an explanation for why I don't prefer it, does not amount to an assertion that your game specifically may suffer from them or lacks options to address them. Nothing here is intended as specific direct criticism, only discussion of comparative perspectives.
I replied to a comment you made regarding what sort of math is simple and practical for play, and I said it has less to do with broad categories and more to do with the actual numbers we're working with, citing some examples. You cited examples of inconvenient division. Please explain how inconvenient numbers is a "potential pitfall" of using convenient numbers. You started with dishonest language, moved to clutching at straws, and now are resorting to straight out lying to re-frame the discussion. It's just a game. It's not worth sacrificing your integrity over just because you disagree with me.
Quote from: Mishihari on February 24, 2021, 04:16:18 PM
I was interested enough to run the distribution on this. Here it is, for anyone who may be interested
Of course, it's worth noting that the actual results will skew higher once you remove the 3d6 rolls that don't result in a hit (assuming you're looking to roll high to hit, of course ... if it's a roll-under system, they'll skew lower).
Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on February 21, 2021, 11:13:39 PM
Quote from: Aglondir on February 21, 2021, 08:05:09 PMI've never seen multiplication work, for the reason you describe.
I've made it work for my own generic system homebrew, but that has the advantage that I stepped away from the "hit point total" model almost completely, where the multiplied totals are compared to set Wound Level thresholds instead of subtracted from a running total. If the goal is to preserve the feel of most D20 games that's less of an option.
True20 (http://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/srd_true_generic/PlayingTheGame.html#Chapter%206:%20Playing%20the%20Game%20-%20Damage%20and%20Recovery) does something like this, as do the injury rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/injury.htm) in
Unearthed Arcana v3.5.
QuoteI've made it work for my own generic system homebrew, but that has the advantage that I stepped away from the "hit point total" model almost completely, where the multiplied totals are compared to set Wound Level thresholds instead of subtracted from a running total. If the goal is to preserve the feel of most D20 games that's less of an option.
And so - Daniel D. Fox trollcount was discovered.
I use fixed damage a lot... double on a nat 20, sometimes I use half damage on an exact hit.
Makes things faster.
Margin of success is cool but usually requires more math, so not necessarily faster.