Roll to defend?

It can add to dramatic tension for sure, but if it's optional rather than standard, then it has to be jsutified to some degree; such as "You take a risky move to defend".

>>50136911
So nobody ever rolls to attack? There are only damage rolls and don't hit me rolls? You take away the player's abiltiy to roll dice when fighting your goblins? Basycally everything that happens on their turn is you rolling dice?

dropped

>>50136911
I don't know...
Rolling implies action, but defence is more passive. Contrast with defensive actions like parrying and dodging, things most systems handle through rolling. It just seems wrong to roll to do something passive.

>>50136947
The players still roll to attack but whether or not they get hit comes down to their character'S ability to defend.

>>50136911
AC/defense scores represent the character's ability to, on average, defend themselves against an attack. You'd probably have to move things around to give an average attack score to every enemy and, assuming it's a complete role reversal (instead of you just making your players roll all the dice), to the player characters.

I think >>50136943 has a good idea in that it could be an interesting option. Would the enemies be rolling to defend as well? Or just AC and attack average (example being 10/11+BAB or something similar depending on system)?

>>50136911
If the system has a mostly static defense, say, AC in DnD, then treat that as Taking 10 on defense, but they can always roll instead. Active defense might make them much harder to hit, but could also mean they zig when they should have zagged.

I think it could be an interesting system, especially if modifiers to the roll are different from those to their static modifiers. Heavy armor is good for acting like a wall, but a swashbuckler can't afford to stand still, all his bonuses are to parries and dodging.

>>50136911
> Everybody rolling to defend.

Don't do this. You feel more agency when you're rolling, and what/how to attack is one of the major decisions players make. Taking away their feeling of agency in their decisions is a bad move.

> Players always roll.

Obviously the benefit is that you keep the players engaged during the GM's turn. That's good.

Two disadvantages though. First, it requires that players and monsters use different rules. This shouldn't be a big deal, but seriously pisses off a certain type of neckbeard.

The other disadvantage is that the game slows down every time you switch between who has to make a decision. That's an extra back and forth from GM to player to resolve every defense roll, compared to an attack roll system where the GM knows the player's defense target.

You can get around that later disadvantage by using fixed damage numbers and putting attacks at the end of each turn, though. That is, "roll 14 defense or take 2 damage" and keep moving while the palyer stumbles through that.

>>50136911
Cypher/Numenera does this. PbtA systems also have the GM never touch dice, just the players. Fate has a variant like it too, personally I like only having important NPCs roll, otherwise they're just static numbers.

It makes it easy to make up NPCs on the spot. All you need to assign them is a target number to beat. Also makes combat faster with large numbers of enemies, you usally just give +1 or whatever to the target number for each additional enemy attacking at once. Sure that means you're fucked if you're fighting 10 dudes, but that's appropriate (depending on genre, I guess).

I also like that it means the spotlight is on the PCs all the time.

>>50137063
This sounds decent. I'd need to see it in action to tell for sure. It would definitely matter whether or not the player gets to choose if they roll or take 10 after they see the enemy's roll. I'd advise against that -- they have to choose what they're going to do first.

File: 9slZ3.png (282KB, 778x679px) Image search: [Google]

282KB, 778x679px

>>50136911
Either go full Cypher and have the players do all the rolling or RQ6 where you can roll do defend yourself if you save up your actions.

>>50136999
So instead of a static defence it is always a contested roll correct?
Attackers To Hit Bonus + Dice vs. Defenders Defense Bonus + Dice

You could use armor as static defense and depending on its mobility grants a roll to defend, so that a plate armor high con person would take relatively fixed damage with a low roll (1-3), and a leather armor high dex person would take damage that fluctuates a lot due to a high roll (1-12).

>>50136911
Mutants and Masterminds has something similar to that, but you have to spend a standard action to do so. It takes the highest of two rolls for either dodge or parry against an attack roll.

Like >>50136956 said, AC or Active Defenses in MnM aren't something the character is dedicating all of their effort into unless they take their action to do so. Same thing with passive perception being something if you happen to spot something or not, and the roll being when you're actively putting your time into searching.

File: IMG_1232.jpg (58KB, 520x436px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 520x436px

>>50137254
We'll originally I was going to go with caracters and creatures all have a target number to hit, if they roll that number or below they pass.
But I was trying to work out how to do armor other than it just gives you extra hp.
So I was thinking of a defensive stat that would act as a barrier from a monsters attack. So if the character had a defense of 25 and the monster had an attack target number of 60 the monster would have to roll between 26 - 60 to cause any damage. But I thought that would be too complex or make the players nearly invincible.

So I'm considering active defense where the monster attacks a player and the only dice rolled are the player's dice attempting to hit their defense target number (with penalties from the attacking creatures weapons)

Player characters will both roll to attack and defend, being influenced by modifiers imposed by the target's equipment.

If this turns out to be garbage I'll have to change it.

File: shadowrun_15_going_loud_2.jpg (147KB, 900x582px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 900x582px

>>50136911
Shadowrun has a thing where people roll for attack, defense/dodging, and for armor. It gives a lot more implicit information about how any given attack resolved. For instance, whether a miss was because the attacker was shit, or the defender made himself a difficult target, the outcome was a grazing blow, or whether the attack connected but simply could not hurt the character because his armor was so tough.

It also makes surprise as deadly as it should be. If you get the drop on someone, he can't roll for defense, and that's basically a death sentence in SR. Same story for automatic fire, which reduces the target's defense pool because it's hard to evade 10 bullets at once.

File: IMG_0786.jpg (245KB, 585x883px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 585x883px

>>50136911
>>50136999
>>50137872
If anyone has advice on a creative way to do armor in a percentile based system that would also be cool.

>>50138916
Creative? Eh
A quick idea is rating an armor at a percent die, having some armor skill maybe modify it (to represent their ability to use it properly...or their lack of ability), make it so "Armor Piercing" lowers this total effect, and then having the attacked creature make an armor save?

Say a suit of chainmail starts at 40%, the wearer is skilled at chainmail/armor use so it's raised by 10%, but the other guy has some "Armor Piercing (20%)" weapon. Final chainmail stat is 40+10-20= 30%, now roll under that 30 otherwise the pain is a-comin'.

If you wanted to make it more ...complicated you could give armors different base percentages versus different 'types' of damage (piercing, slashing, bludgeoning), so the Full Plate might have 90% Pierce/Slash, but like 40% Bludgeoning.

>>50137949
>How about these bulletproof tables they have everywhere nowadays, eh?

File: 1460630021906.jpg (751KB, 2542x1696px) Image search: [Google]

751KB, 2542x1696px

>>50138916
I'd consider stealing the system that original Fallout used.


Each armor has its armor class, which reduces chance to hit for all incoming attacks. An armor with AC 40 reduces enemies' hit chance by 40 percentage points. This armor class stacks with the character's "natural" dodging ability. Personally, I'd simply drop this stat for normal armors, because armor should not impact hit chance outside of encumbrance or weird magic or force-fields.

Then each armor has damage threshold. This just subtracts from damage taken, and can reduce incoming damage to zero. This value is different for different damage types. So an armor might have DT 10 for physical, but DT 4 for plasma. This is the stat that prevents silliness like people in plate-mail being slowly scratched to death by rats.

Finally, armor has damage resist. This is a percentage reduction in damage. Like damage threshold, it differs for different damage types. For instance, an armor with 10% fire resist reduces incoming fire damage by 10 percent.

As for the damage types, I think a fantasy or lower-technology game would benefit from breaking down "physical" into a few categories, most likely bashing, piercing, and slashing. High-end heavy armors and shields would have amazing protection against piercing, slashing, and energy-based attacks (fire, lightning, acid) that make those attacks practically useless against a heavily-armored target, but they would be a little less great against bashing damage. That would encourage players to use variety of damage types for different sorts of armor.

>inb4 lightning is actually strong against metal
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNxDgd3D_bU

>>50136911
This would be a very annoying system. Generally speaking systems allow one attacker to many defender situations far more than many attacker to one defender situations (any area attack vs ganging up on an enemy). Sure dice rolling is fun, but waiting for a bucket of dice rolls to resolve isn't and that's essentially what you're moving towards.

>>50140241
That sounds pretty cool thanks.
How much math is too much math though?
My plan was for a sci-fi game with a heavy focus on melee and energy weapons.

>>50139243
That's what I was considering but the whole idea behind the system was making most of the successful rolls feel more like they succeeded because of the characters personal skill, which I feel 5e kind of lacks.
I do like the idea of different types of armor offering varying protection from different damage sources.
I hadn't considered differing between the damage types but I think that I will.

For every attack, the attacker and defender both roll a number between one and whatever their relevant attack / defense stat is. Tie favors defender.

So there's no hard cap on either stat, and at the same time there is never a point at which someone can't be hit, and there is also never a point at which you're guaranteed to hit

>>50136911
>>50137219
I cannot for the life of me place the name of this manga. Sauce?

>>50136911
I think it would be best in a low magic system where most combat is actual fighting in order to give depth to actions. In a high magic system it would just get tedious but in a low magic system where almost everything is about physical combat it could be interesting if you could decide how to move and fight to give you advantages and disadvantages.
>Reckless attack
You are less likely to hit, and cannot parry but do more damage when you hit
>Lunge
You are more likely to hit but cannot parry and do more damage
>Defensive stance
Less damage and lower odds of hitting but you get a bonus to parrying

Could also decide how to move
>Shield raised
Bonus to parry ranged attacks (block them with your shield) but cannot parry melee attacks and move at half speed
>Normal
Can parry and move as normal
>Dash
Cannot parry with shield but can double movement

>>50140795
I believe that it is tonnura san.

>>50139243
> the wearer is skilled at chainmail/armor use
How? For fucks sake
He can wear a metal shirt better than the average guy can?
Possibly moving in armor but that would affect just about anything except defense

>>50136911
i see all of this as part of a "the gm's fun doesn't count" philosophy in RPGs. quite frequently you can see gamers and/or designers express the attitude that the GM is some kind of service-provider. and to be a good GM, you need to make sure that the players have fun.

i strongly disagree with this notion. the GM is a gamer too, just like the players. in fact, he is the one putting up all the work. therefore a system needs to provide mechanics that make running games fun to the GM. only a GM that has fun can run interesting scenarios.

>>50141015
To each his own
When I GM, I derive fun from presenting a game that lets the players have fun
It may sound corny but their satisfaction is my fun

>>50137949
>inb4 le dice-rolling slows down combat significantly maymay

>>50138916
i do but since i am about to publish a d100 game, i should keep my mouth shut here.

>>50141034
yeah, that is the usual rationale for the fun-service-provider crap. true, to each their own. i guess in a relationship some people don't express their own sexual desires either and just aim to do whatever pleases their partner.

i dont consider that healthy either.

>>50141069
That is completely different. When you GM, you are creating the world, but not playing in it. So if that creation is not what you get fun from, you shouldn't be doing it. Sex is more like playing in a GM-less freeform game, where you create, true, but mostly play.

there are some systems like this:
2d6+mods vs 2d6+mods , difference between the two is damage, then multiply damage by weapon damage factor

File: IMG_2629.jpg (61KB, 1000x584px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 1000x584px

>>50141038
>I could contribute to the discussion but I'll just be a faggot anyways
Why even post then?
Do you just want internet points?

>>50141385
>GMing isn't playing
see, that's where you go wrong. it's just a different form of playing.

>>50141522
i was just pointing out that it can be done

look for the codex martialis, it's exactly what you're looking for

File: ABF Combat Table.png (3MB, 1709x2222px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1709x2222px

>>50138916
Armour applies a multiplier to the final damage received.

>>50141015
both yes and no. For me as a GM the game-part is my player's shit, I don't NEED to have fiddly bits on my end. I've ran Apocalypse World and World of Dungeons before where only players rolled, and it was plenty fun to run, because I could focus on all the extreaneous shit that WASN'T the specific rules for people and creatures. Now I am running campaign on savage worlds which is pretty minis-wargamey and it's fun to run as well. Just different flavors - with one you can focus on keeping the action fast and flowing, the other lets you actually game.

>>50141069
>>50141385
>fun-service-provider crap
I don't just provide them fun. My fun is presenting them situations and seeing how they interact with them. Then figuring out how what they just did landed them in deeper shit than they were in before.

File: image.jpg (104KB, 620x800px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 620x800px

Symbaroum also does something along those lines.

The GM doesn't roll anything in combat, but tells the players what the modifiers for the particular rolls are. The enemy dice are incorporated into the player's roll.

>>50136911
Lots of systems have dodge and/or parry systems.
In some your number of reactions per turn is limited, though.

COPS translation when had a system where you could choose a stance each turn (from careful to gung-ho) , modifying your attack rolls, the attack rolls of the ennemy, and your choice of initiative
Since it's about police work, the order of the actions is very important.

>>50141038
>Takes the effort to make a post saying that he won't say anything.
That's some kind of elaborate faggotry if I've ever seen it.

>>50136911
Check out Red Markets. RPPR has some actual play podcasts you can listen to, and it has the exact mechanic you're describing. As the GM you declare an attack against a player, and they either pass their dodge check or they don't. Speeds combat up by more than you'd think.

>all this number crunching bullshit

Your shitty games will never be published if you don't expand your RPG experience beyond bloated shit like D&D and Shadowrun

>>50147788
>implying there is no sufficient market for crunch games
>implying self-publishing isn't a thing in 2016
>implying one needs to kiss the asses of rules-light retards
no

>>50147916

It's just unappealing to anyone with taste. The reason it works with d&d and shadowrun is because they have been around since overoy crunchy bullshit was a byproduct of the industry being new and trying to compete with video games.

Not saying you can't do crunch well but my eyes glaze over reading half the suggestions in this thread. There's no elegance to it.

>>50136911
Numenera.
The Strange.
Optional D&D 5e rule in the DMG.

File: bitchin'.jpg (120KB, 1024x483px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1024x483px

Okay, here's an idea. You have a pool of "action dice", and three zones on a mat or dice box in front of you -- one for attack, one for defense, one for other. At the start of the turn, everyone declares their actions, as well as how many dice they get to invest in those actions. Any dice you don't use this way you get to keep for reactions.

All dice are rolled in their respective zones, and the number of "successes" is counted. If an enemy attacks you, the dice you rolled into the defense zone can gobble their successes. If any two characters, PC or NPC, try to perform an action that would contradict (e.g. trying to stop someone from running away, or trying to see who can snatch an item from off a pedestal first) the rolls are contested, circumstantial bonuses are added and the player with more successes wins.


(For the record, if the dice roll into a place you didn't mean them to, they still count for the place you were aiming for. You could say, "I'm rolling to defend", roll to defend off the mat altogether, and then put the dice in your defense zone and it would work just fine.

>>50148002
>It's just unappealing to anyone with taste.
but i like it and i am both more intelligent as well as more refined than you.

>There's no elegance to it.
to the contrary, there is no elegance to rules-light systems, where rulings reign supreme, aka GM asspulls. Rules serve to tie the hands of the players but especially of the GM - in a deliberate manner. And the more rules-light an RPG is, the more it resembles Calvinball.

in short, rules-light systems lack gravity.

>>50147788
Crunchy systems seem to be getting more popular. Rules light was just a fad.

>>50149709
they were never unpopular. at the top of sales were always games like D&D, shadowrun, vampire, rifts, etc.

and they still are:
> http://icv2.com/articles/markets/view/35144/top-5-rpgs-spring-2016

File: shadowrun should be a bit higher, all tg homebrews should be lower, pathfinder should be higher and Maid should be a hair higher.png (959KB, 680x1073px) Image search: [Google]

959KB, 680x1073px

>>50149709
I don't know if I'd go that far; rules-lite systems still enjoy some popularity, but they're definitely not The Way RPGs Are Headed These Days.

>>50150082
He's talking about the more obscure games. The old "as normalfag as you can get while still being an RPG" standbys will always be the most popular. If you want to watch design trends within the larger RPG community, you need to look at which systems are more or less popular BELOW the surface.

I roll to bump.

>>50137128
>Two disadvantages though. First, it requires that players and monsters use different rules. This shouldn't be a big deal, but seriously pisses off a certain type of neckbeard.

Mathematically what's the difference between a static number you have to roll to beat versus a roll to defend?

You could convert AC 15 = Defence +5, Attack +5 = TN 15 pretty easily I imagine.

>>50150268
Brand recognition still trumps accessibility. A game like Noumeon has an incredibly easy to learn mechanic. But no one is going to do that because you're playing bug people wandering around the scribbles of a first year philosophy student and what's with the Dominos?

The game like 3.5/pathfinder however are actually mechanical and actually extremely rules heavy but it's just what role-playing *is* to most people.

>>50136911
Sounds kind of like the Blocking rules in M&M. You use a standard action to actively defend yourself, and whenever an opponent makes an attack you want to block, you make your own attack roll, and if it meets or beats your opponent's, their attack doesn't hit. Only works on melee attacks, though. Like I said, it only kind of sounds like it.

>>50137254
I think what he was thinking of was the, "the players roll all the dice," model. As in, the enemies have static numbers while the players get to roll lots of dice. Like, the player attacks a goblin, they roll an attack roll to hit them; the goblin attacks the player, the player rolls a defense roll to not get hit. The DM rolls nothing, so the players feel like they're doing more and are more in control of what's going on. If they fail their defense roll, it's on them, and not the DM fudging the dice to make them take damage.

>>50153195
Tell me more abut Noumenon. It sounds interesting.

>>50154212
You could also do something similar to edge of empire and have player roll a number of 'challenge dice' representing the difficulty.

>>50155489
Player are people reincarnated as bugs and then sent through a dollhouse by NotGanesh to preform a series of trials to gain Enlightment. Or something.

Despite this it's not a complicated system. Task solution is a quick game Dominos with your stat equalling the the number of pieces you're allowed. It's simple and lends itself to team work well.

>>50136911
As long as it's generally only one or the other.

I.e either everybody has static to hit and rolls defence or PCs roll their attack and defence while NPCs have static numbers.

There will be a second roll for damage anyway, adding a third roll will slow shit down.

>>50137473
MmM has a different twist on default - in it the attacker rolls to hit and then defender rolls against damage. Still 2 rolls in default resolution.

Full defence action in 3e is an extra circumstance. And it actually doesn't let you roll below 11 so your defence is guaranteed to be boosted even if you roll bad. And it works on both melee and range.

>>50140241
>ladyknight in full helm, breastplate and covered arms
>leaves her bare ass exposed
woulddefeatandkeepasasexslave/10

>>50136911
Anima: Beyond Fantasy does something similar to this. It's worth looking into, even if it is the most Book o' Weeaboo Fightan Magic thing I have ever fucking read, and that includes the Book o' Weeaboo Fightan Magic itself.

>>50136911
my shitty homebrew already does this. GM doesn't roll anything at all unless it's a treasure chart or something.

Makes it fast and easy to have fights.