So, as I continue refining V2 playtesters come up with the weirdest things. One mentioned that defense in Iridium is not "active". He sited that you are rolling against a skill that is modified by a fixed number. So, you have a skill in Weapon Use (Sword) and, with mods, you have a 70% but it is modded down by Defense of an opponent, say, 30 to give a final total of 40%. I will agree that this PART is static but could argue even that much. However you also have:

1. Parrying - an attempt based on skill of the defender modified by the opponent's ability.

2. Modifiers to combat based on your action;i.e. surprise, actively dodging, using an acrobatics skill, etc.

To me, this would make combat in Iridium "active" IMO.

My definition of active defense/offense would be where, in combat, actions can be taken to improve your defense or offense.

So, what is your definition of "active" defense or offense? Feel free to use examples.

Thanks,
Bill

Quote from: HinterWelt;253037So, as I continue refining V2 playtesters come up with the weirdest things. One mentioned that defense in Iridium is not "active". He sited that you are rolling against a skill that is modified by a fixed number. So, you have a skill in Weapon Use (Sword) and, with mods, you have a 70% but it is modded down by Defense of an opponent, say, 30 to give a final total of 40%. I will agree that this PART is static but could argue even that much. However you also have:

1. Parrying - an attempt based on skill of the defender modified by the opponent's ability.

2. Modifiers to combat based on your action;i.e. surprise, actively dodging, using an acrobatics skill, etc.

To me, this would make combat in Iridium "active" IMO.

My definition of active defense/offense would be where, in combat, actions can be taken to improve your defense or offense.

So, what is your definition of "active" defense or offense? Feel free to use examples.

Thanks,
Bill

Defenses in RPGs are almost always a combination of Passive and Active.

Passive defense operates without volition - armor, protective spells, etc.

Active defense depends on the volition of the person - dex bonuses, blocking, parrying, etc.

That's my take.

-clash

Well, given the context of your playtester's concern and your example, I would say that their concept of an active defense is where the defender rolls their defense and the attacker rolls for their attack, and then the two numbers are compared for either pass/fail or degrees of success.

I guess the best example would lie in GURPS, where an active defense is where the defender and attacker both roll in combat and the results are compared to give an outcome of the attack.  Passive defense in GURPS usually means armor or cover, where even if the defender cannot, or chooses, not to defend themselves, then they will be afforded some degree of protection vs. an attack.

Quote from: Drohem;253043Well, given the context of your playtester's concern and your example, I would say that their concept of an active defense is where the defender rolls their defense and the attacker rolls for their attack, and then the two numbers are compared for either pass/fail or degrees of success.

This is how I would read it too. Active defense is when the defender makes some roll that is then compared to the attack roll.

Quote from: CavScoutActive defense is when the defender makes some roll that is then compared to the attack roll.

Well, this is what we call active defence, but it's not what playtester is talking about. I think, that playtester just don't think, that blindly rolling some dice is something "active" on his part, because, there is no way he, as player, can tacticaly affect the outcome, maybe with exception of choosing to roll with modifiers from his/her highest skill...

Quote from: Fritzs;253059Well, this is what we call active defence, but it's not what playtester is talking about. I think, that playtester just don't think, that blindly rolling some dice is something "active" on his part, because, there is no way he, as player, can tacticaly affect the outcome, maybe with exception of choosing to roll with modifiers from his/her highest skill...

With an active defense roll player feel more in control of the results of combat. If you have just one active defense roll then you are right it is an exercise in rolling dice. But in GURPS you have a choice of defenses and have the ability to modify those defense with various actions or modifiers. For example I can "step back" for one defense gaining +3 to my defense roll (on a 3D6) so do I use it on my parry which is a 12 (and can only use once as a defense per turn) or save it for one of my dodges. All of this results in feeling more in control of what happening to your character.

HERO system in contrast uses a single roll based off of a comparsion between the Offensive Combat Value and the Defensive Combat Value. These values are modified by the player's choices of maneuver during his turn. For example (it been a while) you can Dodge and gain a +5 to your DCV. But that all you do turning your turn. I seen players feel like they have more control over their character using this. But I also seen where people preferred GURPS over HERO partly because of GURPS having the defense roll.

estar: Whatever you roll or not doesn't matter as long as you can somehow affect the outcome...  maybe the roll only seem better, because there more randomness to it, but I would personaly prefer static number instead of having to make extra roll...

Quote from: Fritzs;253059Well, this is what we call active defence, but it's not what playtester is talking about.

I on the other hand think that's exactly what the playtester was talking about.

The current mechanic uses information and input from both parties, but resolves an attack with a single roll rolled by the attacker. Therefore, at that crucial moment the defending player sits there and hopes for the best. That sort of passively sitting there at that one moment creates a feeling of helplessness that's mathematically nonsensical, but is right up there with "bad dice" or that visceral Oh Shit moment in dice-pool games where you realize that the other guy is picking up twice as many little polyhedrons as you.

I've always wondered how people would react to a system that only had the defender roll...


EDIT: For what it's worth I personally find the "passive" defence as described above more verisimilous (trying to avoid dropping the R-bomb here). The way I see it, if you're not proactively positioning yourself and setting things up early on to minimize later attacks, and you're relying primarily on being able to react only after the attacker has started their swing or lunge or whatever, you're DOING IT WRONG.

Vaecrius: I just don't like to have to do extra rolls... it slows the game... considerably...

It may add dice rolls but it gives the PCs a feeling of more control over the action.

Quote from: Fritzs;253079Vaecrius: I just don't like to have to do extra rolls... it slows the game... considerably...

I agree with you, Fritzs, I personally love mathematical abstraction in a game for this very reason - speed of execution, that is. I do think, though, that the original poster was going for the die roll thing. It doesn't make sense otherwise, since Bill rolls volitional defense into the attacker's roll.

-clash

Quote from: Vaecrius;253075I've always wondered how people would react to a system that only had the defender roll...

That's a very interesting point.

To the best of my knowledge, an active defense is a situation where you make a die roll (usually an opposed roll). A passive defense is a static number, like Armor Class in D&D. That's how I see it anyway.

Palladium has an interesting take on defenses.   The player has the choice to hope the attacker misses versus a static defense or is unable to penetrate his armor versus a static Armor Rating OR the player has the choice to spend an action to actively dodge with his D20 + modifier roll.

Interesting examples and explanations guys. It would look like, yes, Iridium is passive combat. I had always though of it as active because you could choose many things to counter like parrying or acrobatics to increase Defense but if it comes down to an attacker roll vs a defender roll then yeah, passive.

As to switching it around to be a Defender roll, honestly, I think that could be cool. You could have the various factors coming into it from the attackers side;i.e. type of attack, weapon used, tactics and all manner of mods. The Defender then could make responsive maneuvers reflecting the advantage of a defender anticipating an attackers tactics. It could work nicely.

Bill