How do you make a "Roll to defend" system as un-crunchy

What does 'crunchy' mean?

>>53383364

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8P1oGF2nnA

Munchy crunchy

>>53383364

Have to *crunch* too many numbers per action to determine success.

Hence crunchy.

Like when you have to roll more than 2 dice and add modifiers from more than 3 sources.

Most systems have a 'roll to hit' way of doing things.

Some of them are a 'roll against his attack' thing instead, but they all seem crunchy to me even if it seems like it would be fun mechanically. Eventually it would just take too long to be worth it.

Roll - Roll = Shift

>>53383349
Only the PCs ever roll. NPCs just have flat numbers.

You can do fun combat in Fate like this but you need to be imaginative. If you try to rely on intricacies of the dice system to make it fun you will be disappointed.

Most of the time "crunch" comes from too many situational modifiers, imo. If you have to re-evaluate what bonuses or maluses you get every time you attack that's what slows things down.

>>53383990
Would you consider GURPS roll-under-number system crunchy? Most combat actions are resolved with at most 3 rolls compared to a fixed number.

>>53384050
>Only the PCs ever roll. NPCs just have flat numbers.

This is by far the best solution, it reinforces the notion of player agency and does away with the random "punishing" of players by NPCs rolling crits.

>>53383990
Then numenera seems fine for that, you just roll 1 D20 and if it is higher than the opponents level, you defend

>>53384141
>>53384050
See
>>53384343

>>53383349

funny enough world of synnibar does this perfectly. But there is more time making a character and crunching numbers then there will be combat

>>53383349
I've actually run a game where the attacker rolls a die (either a d6 or a d10) and adds it to his score, while the defender does the same. The attacker hits if he equals or exceeds the defender's result. It's actually pretty quick and easy, and makes everybody always feel active.

>>53385074

Yeah, this. The attacker rolls attack and the defender rolls defense at the same time, then the roll is added to base skill score and the highest number wins. It's never felt crunchy to me.

>>53385074
>>53385545
It just feels like you could make this faster by having the attacker roll 2 dice and increase defenses by the average of 2dX.

For example, if you have a "roll against" system of d6 vs d6, you could just have the attacker roll 2d6 and add +7 to the defense value (or subtract 7 from the roll, or roll d6-d6) the math works out the same and it's one less person rolling.

Of course, if you use different dice sizes this is moot.

>>53385074
savage worlds?

>>53383990
parries and dodges generally are prone to very few modifiers compared to attack rolls, so i don't know why you're asking to make it uncrunchy.

usually the only modified are due to injury or a penalty for using the parrying weapons in the off-hand.

also, something that D&D faggots tend to overlook: "roll to parry" creates player involvement outside of player turn.

>>53385647

There is something to be said for the player knowing their target number, so they can cheer or boo the moment their dice stop rolling, I just find it interesting when even a puny enemy can potentially hold their own against the party, while it also potentially enables the party to bring down a much stronger enemy by sheer luck and determination.

I have a question if this is too crunchy (current homebrew):
Attack roll: (Diceroll +modifiers) * To-hit stat , then a d20 to determine light/normal/critical hit.
Damage: base damage - armor value, then percentual modifiers, if any

Defense roll: (Diceroll +modifiers) * to-defend stat, then 80% damage reduction on success.
Having weapons and armor equipped gives you a small set of extra-HP that regenerate fully every turn unless depleted (no regeneration until you pass a turn unscathed).

>>53385780
In SW the defender just uses half of the skill his dodge is based on (+2 IIRC), he doesn't roll, unless you soak.

>>53385877
I agree, but I'm a bit confused...

Nothing I said really changes that, only who rolls. The chances stay the same, the only thing that changes is whose hands the dice leave.

File: 1493125647900.jpg (10KB, 240x240px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 240x240px

>>53385890
>(Diceroll +modifiers) * To-hit stat , then a d20

Jesus God.

>>53385890

I'm pretty sure that's the definition of crunchy.

>>53384343
This. You relay on fluff added by the player and/or special skills to describe the result.
As a player to me it feels more natural and engaging that if I am defending the enemy attack I roll to see how good I defend myself. Mechanically is not diferent than having a defense value on the pc and the GM rolling to attack me, but the feeling is completely different and end up feeling more in control of my actions and the outcome.

>>53385911

I suppose it could just be me perceiving the opposed rolls as offering a wider range of possible outcomes.

>>53384343
and how is it fun for the GM if he doesn't get to roll for his NPCs? randomness is good and fun

>>53385989
Well, let's do it mathematically:

d6 + mod <=> d6 + mod
d6 - d6 + mod <=> mod
(realize 2d6 -7 = d6-d6)
2d6 - 7 + mod <=> mod
2d6 + mod <=> 7 + mod

exactly the same range of results; two dive are rolled either way, but there's less counting because the defense number is static, and there's only one person rolling.

>>53386004

In my experience as GM, I value streamlined systems that let me narrate what's happening fluidly. The more I have to stop and roll dice and change pace, the worse.

File: pondering-guy.jpg (152KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1600x1200px

>>53386042

I might actually change my homebrew system based on this.

>>53386090
Amusingly, if you want to introduce PbtA to grogs, good way to do it is reversing that; lower the values on the results table by 7 and roll against, instead of this new age hippie bullshit of always the player rolling.

>>53386042
>2d6-7 = d6-d6
Explain yourself

>>53386135
They got the same results.
d6-d6 : http://anydice.com/program/c2c
2d6 -7 : http://anydice.com/program/bc33

>>53386188
I see. I misunderstood what you meant. Keep the good work going anon.

>>53385890
>tfw too intelligent to only use addition/subtraction for checks