Using the Resistance Table for Combat?

[samwise7]

So is using the Resistance Table for Combat a silly idea?

There is an optional rule for skill vs. skill using the Resistance Table, and I was curious if doing that with Weapon Skill vs. Parry would be a good idea, or just a dumb one... hehe.

Thoughts?

[Charles Green]

I don't know if it's a good idea, but it's certainly interesting.

It might be a neat way of streamlining combat, as you could essentially make it only a single roll done by the player.

A couple of years ago, I introduced a handful of veteran gamers to BRP during the Fractured Hopes playtest. One of the comments that came out of the game was that the melee fighters in the group didn't like how their successful "hit" results could be so easily countered by an opponent's parry skill. They felt like a hit should be a hit.

Basing combat on the resistance table might have been a way around this complaint: "You're facing off against a capable looking swordman. Based on your relative skills, you have a 55% chance to get past his guard and wound him."

On the swordman's turn:"He's looking angry now that you've gotten past his guard. He's coming at you, and you'll need that same 55% to parry. Or you could Dodge at (quick calculation) 65%, but risk losing the possibility of a riposte."

Taking it a step further, you could even resolve an entire round's worth of fighting in a single die roll: Compare skill levels and get the percentage from the Table. If you succeed, you have injured your opponent, roll damage. If you fail, it has harmed you, and you take damage.

[samwise7]

I like my rules pretty light these days, so it just felt like a good idea. Though I'm wary of myself, as I go overboard sometimes with the house rules. hehe.

[NickMiddleton]

So is using the Resistance Table for Combat a silly idea?

There is an optional rule for skill vs. skill using the Resistance Table, and I was curious if doing that with Weapon Skill vs. Parry would be a good idea, or just a dumb one... hehe.

Thoughts?

IIRC during the early discussions on the BRP play test someone (possibly Jason himself) mentioned in passing the idea of an entirely Resistance table based game - take the Nephilim idea to it's "logical" conclusion and rate EVERYTHING so ALL conflicts are resolved via the resistance table...

It would "even out" the over heads in resolution - simple actions (that in the RAW are a single die roll against a skill) will be more time consuming (match skill against a "default" Potency / Resistance value) but it would to some degree simplify and rationalise things like combat - it might also (depending on how it was implemented) remove some of the texture of combat (see interminable debates here and elsewhere about opposed rolls).

Interestingly, I've often used a variant rule for BRP magic where the chance of casting is determined by matching the casters POW against the local resistance of the world to Magic happening...

Cheers,

Nick

[GianniVacca]

Ain't this called 'HeroQuest'?

[RosenMcStern]

HeroQuest uses opposed rolls only, but it requires two rolls. The idea here is that each attack is a single roll on the resistance table.

It could work, but it would require more calculations, as there would be three kinds of modifiers:

a) modifiers to the attack skill (used against all targets that round)

modifiers to the defense skill (used against all attacks that round)

c) modifiers to the resistance roll (used only for that roll)

All in all, for things that are naturally "opposed" like combat, I think two rolls are faster.

[sdavies2720]

This is essentially the mechanic in AD&D (3 & 3.5, I'm not sure of 4.0):

Take yur skill, add 1D20 to it, compare to the opponent's skill + 10.

To convert that to %-ile:

Your skill + 1D100 versus opponent's skill + 50%.

The probabiities work out the same as the BRP resistance table, and I think it's a little cleaner mechanic operation. The AD&D system has the advantage of being easier to modify to a specific circumstance (harder tests add bigger numbers to the target number).

To my mind, going to this system was the most important innovation or improvement in AD&D3 -- it was almost enough to get me to convert from RQ/BRP.

Steve

[Rurik]

To my mind, going to this system was the most important innovation or improvement in AD&D3 -- it was almost enough to get me to convert from RQ/BRP.

Steve

I agree that the D20 mechanic introduced in AD&D3 is simple, elegant, and well worth using. If only they also fixed (read: dropped) all that other crap like alignment, classes, levels, xp, and... well, you get the idea.

[samwise7]

I added the skill totals to my copy of the Resistance Table. I figure I will round to the nearest value when using skill vs skill.

I think I will try using this method when I run a game. Thanks for the feedback.

[fulk]

I agree that the D20 mechanic introduced in AD&D3 is simple, elegant, and well worth using. If only they also fixed (read: dropped) all that other crap like alignment, classes, levels, xp, and... well, you get the idea.

Talislanta has been using that type of mechanic for years: Roll d20, add your skill, subtract your opponents skill...11 or greater is a hit......

The question of using the resistance table is, I think, one of flavor. With the current % approach, you can get long drawn-out combats with lots of parrying etc.....the resistance table (or even the Pendragon approach) compresses the time. With highly skilled opponents, I think it is important to integrate fatigue rules (like the RQ3 ones) to reduce skill levels overtime.....

I think the idea for using the resistance table for combat is an excellent one for NPC vs NPC, especially if you added in modifiers for armor and weapons. Then you could rapidly resolve group combats among followers.

[Jason D]

IIRC during the early discussions on the BRP play test someone (possibly Jason himself) mentioned in passing the idea of an entirely Resistance table based game - take the Nephilim idea to it's "logical" conclusion and rate EVERYTHING so ALL conflicts are resolved via the resistance table...

Guilty!

That was in reference to an attempt a friend and I made more than a decade ago to license the rights to Superworld from Chaosium and revise it radically. One of our first goals was to put everything on the Resistance Table... powers, skills, combat... everything!

The contract was in hand and Chaosium liked the proposal. The terms were reasonable. Our playtesting was going along quite interestingly. Then the deal was more or less made (unintentionally) unpalatable by someone no longer at Chaosium, and we backed away.

Then the Wizards Attic debacle happened, and we counted ourselves lucky it hadn't proceeded.

In retrospect, I'm glad it didn't work out... it wasn't the right time, and we would have been stomped utterly by M&M.

Now if I had been able to get off the ground the firefighter computer game I was trying to make in 1999-2000 with a programmer friend... that would have been (unfortunately) good timing!

[Sunsword]

Talislanta has been using that type of mechanic for years: Roll d20, add your skill, subtract your opponents skill...11 or greater is a hit......

I'm guessing part of the reason D&D 3E developed along those lines is that Wizards used to publish Talislanta & Jonathan Tweet was Lead Developer on both.

I agree its very elegant. For awhile now I've been converting the percentages to bonuses & using the D20 Mechanic. It works fine & makes an elegant & streamlined game even easier.

[fulk]

I'm guessing part of the reason D&D 3E developed along those lines is that Wizards used to publish Talislanta & Jonathan Tweet was Lead Developer on both.

True. I forgot about that. Wizards did the 3rd edition, no?

One of the things I like about the latter incarnations of Talislanta is the non-variable weapon damage. A successful hit always does a certain amount of damage based on the weapon type. However, you can be half-successful or critically successful, so you weapon damage is tied to your skill with the weapon.

For combat, Palladium also uses basically the same approach. You roll, I roll, whoever rolls higher with bonuses is successful....

Fulk

A lot of ways to achieve, more or less, the same result.

[Sunsword]

For combat, Palladium also uses basically the same approach. You roll, I roll, whoever rolls higher with bonuses is successful....

Fulk

A lot of ways to achieve, more or less, the same result.

True. I feel that Palladium syste was intended to be a hybrid of D&D & RQ, along with its creator's house rules. But like poor Dr. Frankenstein, his creation has become its own kind of monster

[Mugen]

Ain't this called 'HeroQuest'?

Actually, this is called EW-System

[Atgxtg]

Back in the 20th century, there was an article in some RPG mag (Different Worlds?) where someone did this. For some inexplicable reason he also switched the base chance for 50-50 to 45-55. He also converted everything over to d20 (divide by 5).

I forgot where or not the article used the margin of success to gauge the results (i.e. beating a foe by 10 points might mean a better result, like maybe damage = the MoS), but it would have some merit.

Of course once someone gets this far, it is easy to just dump the table and go to opposed skill rolls (Pendragon, D&D 3E).

[pulpcitizen]

I may have missed something here, but it sounds like an idea of interest, so my question is:

how would active and passive skill check gains be handled?

[samwise7]

how would active and passive skill check gains be handled?

Hmm, my lack of experience with the game has me scratching my head. I don't even know what you mean. hehe.

[pulpcitizen]

Hmm, my lack of experience with the game has me scratching my head. I don't even know what you mean. hehe.

Sorry, I worded things badly. Maybe this will be better.

How would gaining a check for use of a skill used as a passive value work? For example if Parry is seperated from a weapon skill or Dodge? If the emphasis is on the active value, presumably the active value would gain a check to roll for increase if a success is achieved. Since Parry and Dodge woul resort to being passive values, do they not get checks? Gain the check for the attacker failing to hit?

Just a minor question, but still of note possibly.

[samwise7]

I liked the suggestion of having the player characters doing most of the Active rolls, even if that means Parry becomes Active. But maybe someone else has a better idea.

[Atgxtg]

Sorry, I worded things badly. Maybe this will be better.

How would gaining a check for use of a skill used as a passive value work? For example if Parry is seperated from a weapon skill or Dodge? If the emphasis is on the active value, presumably the active value would gain a check to roll for increase if a success is achieved. Since Parry and Dodge woul resort to being passive values, do they not get checks? Gain the check for the attacker failing to hit?

Just a minor question, but still of note possibly.

I could see giving the check for passive rolls. After all the reason why the attack missed would be because it was parried.

It might even be preferable to roll attack and parry into one skill and use something like the Pendragon method where the winner of the test is the one who inflicts damage on the loser.

But, I'd be sorely tempted to ditch the table and go with opposed resolution (both roll, high roll wins, with specials and criticals determined by Margin of Success).

[samwise7]

Well, as long as the general consensus is that it would work, I think I'm all for using the Resistance Table.