Reducing the number of rolls in combat

[StephenMcG]

21 hours ago, Mugen said:

A way to reduce the number of rolls is to go Pendragon-style, where there are no Attack/Parry oppositions, but only Skill versus Skill and the best roll hits. You could also go a step further and consider a failure versus failure is not a draw, but that the best roll also wins in this situation.

It can also be done using Resistance Table, if you consider that a failure from the active character means the passive one hits him.

I reckon what I have done is kind of use the Resistance Table but not simply. 🙂

I didn't want to lose the critical, specials and fumbles on either side, so, now they all exist but that needed a much bigger table that was easier to do electronically.

I am, however wondering if pushing into a resistance table combat is not actually a good idea. I mean, if a 25% skilled opponent, fights a 25% skilled opponent, should there not be the same chance of success as a 75% skilled opponent fighting a 75% skilled opponent.

By success, I don't mean a chance of hitting (could be blocked by parry), I mean a chance of doing damage (could be blocked by armour)...

When a 5 POW opponent casts disruption at a 5 POW opponent, the chance of damage is 50%, same as if both their POW was 15.  Why does spirit combat work different to physical?  Because we want more simulation in the swordplay?

[StephenMcG]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:35 AM, soltakss said:

I wouldn't reduce the rolls for attacking and parrying as I like the visceral nature of RQ combat.

A valid opinion, I have come to the opinion that, as GM, I want combats to go faster and to take the dice out of my hands, focus more on the game management.

[Mugen]

1 hour ago, StephenMcG said:

I reckon what I have done is kind of use the Resistance Table but not simply. 

I didn't want to lose the critical, specials and fumbles on either side, so, now they all exist but that needed a much bigger table that was easier to do electronically.

I am, however wondering if pushing into a resistance table combat is not actually a good idea. I mean, if a 25% skilled opponent, fights a 25% skilled opponent, should there not be the same chance of success as a 75% skilled opponent fighting a 75% skilled opponent

Using the method I proposed above gives similar results, without the burden of having to refer to a (possibly complex) table.

Specials and crits are possible on both sides, and if two characters with similar skills are opposed, their respective chance of success is ~50%.

1 hour ago, StephenMcG said:

When a 5 POW opponent casts disruption at a 5 POW opponent, the chance of damage is 50%, same as if both their POW was 15.  Why does spirit combat work different to physical?  Because we want more simulation in the swordplay?

I think it's because the roots of RQG system date back from the second half of the 70s, where people had different views on system design, even though RQ was way ahead of its competitors back then.

If you look at more recent games such as HeroWars (now QuestWorlds) and Revolution D100, you can find that Spirit Combat has been the foundation of their conflict resolution system.

[StephenMcG]

34 minutes ago, Mugen said:

Using the method I proposed above gives similar results, without the burden of having to refer to a (possibly complex) table.

Specials and crits are possible on both sides, and if two characters with similar skills are opposed, their respective chance of success is ~50%.

I thought the same until I went to put it into Excel.  If you are only using one active roll, what roll provides you with a critical success versus a critical defence?  Or, more problematically, a success versus a critical defence?

 

[mfbrandi]

1 hour ago, Mugen said:

2 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

Because we want more simulation in the swordplay?

I think it's because the roots of RQG system date back from the second half of the 70s, where people had different views on system design

Yes, but the idea of using the resistance table for combat — and even the idea of using how much you beat your target number by to determine damage (eliminating another roll) — goes back at least to 1982 and Harry White (see this comment). But the basic idea of compare attack and defence values, roll, and look up the result on a table must be older than RPGs.

[French Desperate WindChild]

2 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

I thought the same until I went to put it into Excel.  If you are only using one active roll, what roll provides you with a critical success versus a critical defence?  Or, more problematically, a success versus a critical defence?

 

I agree, and the new model is interesting.

However, if you use it only with excel (because too many figures to be human like appropriate) and want to keep all the outcome, why not just roll as the rules (roll att, roll def ) and then add the option of dodge ?

or better: players roll for their characters, excel "roll" for others

 

for me the official rules are fine if you don't want to roll physical dices 😛

the issue (imo) is when you don't want to use computer. Not a question of model, but a question of irl time to determine the action (roll a, roll d, check the matrix, roll damages, check previous hp, calculate hp, check matrix to determine what happen, calculate new modifiers...)

[radmonger]

4 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

A valid opinion, I have come to the opinion that, as GM, I want combats to go faster and to take the dice out of my hands, focus more on the game management.

A full round of one on one RQ combat takes ~6 rolls (opposed attack, opposed parry, location, damage).

• Call of Cthulhu  drops hit locations
• Pendragon also combines attack and parry into a single opposed roll
• Questworlds just uses a single opposed roll.

if i was going to create another system, it would be a mix of these approach. A single contest for combat, to see what happens. Then roll  hit locations and damage, to see who survives and who can still walk.

 

[StephenMcG]

18 minutes ago, French Desperate WindChild said:

I agree, and the new model is interesting.

However, if you use it only with excel (because too many figures to be human like appropriate) and want to keep all the outcome, why not just roll as the rules (roll att, roll def ) and then add the option of dodge ?

or better: players roll for their characters, excel "roll" for others

 

for me the official rules are fine if you don't want to roll physical dices 😛

the issue (imo) is when you don't want to use computer. Not a question of model, but a question of irl time to determine the action (roll a, roll d, check the matrix, roll damages, check previous hp, calculate hp, check matrix to determine what happen, calculate new modifiers...)

Well, the defence roll could be parry or dodge - there is no real difference in the calculations, just in how that plays out in game.  I think part of the value here is that the players dont need to track what is or is not a cirtical or special. 

I also plan to be using it on my phone, or tablet (I agree the difference in what is or is not a computer is becoming increasingly fine) which I am more likely to have in my possession than a laptop.  If I was going to have a laptop, I might want a bigger screen so players could see the numbers go in and the results come out...

If I was app-clever, I would be having players put data into their phones and be getting a result back to them... 🙂

I might ask the players if they want the hit-location dice to be done at the same time as the roll, that would be easy enough to add in there...but lots of players like rolling the dice.  I think this would be easy - the sheet would be open, the numbers take seconds to input and output.  Probably quicker than for me to roll the dice and wait for them to come to a stop...

 

[Mugen]

4 hours ago, StephenMcG said:

I thought the same until I went to put it into Excel.  If you are only using one active roll, what roll provides you with a critical success versus a critical defence?  Or, more problematically, a success versus a critical defence?

 

In the part you quote, I was in fact thinking about a Pendragon-style combat system, where there attack and parry roll are combined, not a RT-based one...

With Resistance Table, it might possible to take the margin between the roll and the success threshold.

Edited September 21, 2023 by Mugen

[StephenMcG]

7 minutes ago, Mugen said:

In the part you quote, I was in fact thinking about a Pendragon-style combat system,

My apologies.  🙂  I shuold have been more careful in making sure what I was quoting.

 

22 minutes ago, Mugen said:

With Resistance Table, it might possible to take the margin between the roll and the success threshold.

Yeah - that is what ends up making it so complex.  There will be times a successful roll works against a successful defence, an unsuccessful one, a special on and a ciritical one.  That will be true for special successes, critical successes, fails and fumbles.  🙂 It all gets complex pretty quick. 

[radmonger]

Run 20 rounds of combat on a pc. For each, print out the results, cut them up, and put them into a bag.

PC's draw from the bag and read out what happens that round.

Alternatively, use permanent tokens, and randomly populate the bag according to math e.g.. players get to add 8 tiles to the bag, the opponent 12, each drawn from another appropriately populated bag.

 

 

[StephenMcG]

Nice alternatives!  🙂

The problem with it is the variation that might take place (like casting bladesharp) etc. 

[mfbrandi]

2 hours ago, radmonger said:

use … tokens, and … populate the bag according to math e.g. players get to add 8 tiles to the bag, the opponent 12, each drawn from another appropriately populated bag.

If you draw one token, you get who wins that round. If you draw multiple tokens, you can get quality of result. (See, for example, Ben Robbins’ Follow.) That kind of thing? I suspect you mean something more sophisticated, but let’s run with it …

One way to do an 8 vs. 12 “resistance” would be to put 8 white stones and 12 black stones (or 2 white and 3 black — doesn’t matter) into a bag and draw one out to see who wins. Note that unlike the resistance table — if my brain is working, at least — this works off ratios, not absolute level of advantage: draw one stone = 40%/60% (2:3); resistance table = 30%/70% (4×5%). For some purposes, that might be better, but it is different. If you have a big enough bag, you can have your one in a million shot against the dragon! I wouldn’t want to load the bag for large prime numbers.

If you draw multiple stones from the same bag load and use ratio (of drawn stones by colour) to determine result quality, the more you draw, the less randomness (of course).

[StephenMcG]

Not going to be faster than rolling dice but I reckon just as satisfying to use.

[mfbrandi]

1 minute ago, StephenMcG said:

Not going to be faster than rolling dice but I reckon just as satisfying to use.

Probably terrible for round-by-round combat, but might be one way to do collect-the-plot-token heroquests: the opposing sides get a stone for each station won; make the draw at the end to get the quality of result.

[Jens]

One trick you can use to skip rolling for hit location- use the percentage dice result instead. Take the ones die, and add 0 if the tens die is even and 10 if not. So a roll of 23 would hit location 3, 51 would hit 11, and 70 would hit 20. 

[Mugen]

3 hours ago, Jens said:

One trick you can use to skip rolling for hit location- use the percentage dice result instead. Take the ones die, and add 0 if the tens die is even and 10 if not. So a roll of 23 would hit location 3, 51 would hit 11, and 70 would hit 20. 

But that means criticals will never hit outside range 1 to 5.

Also, if your skill is, say, 45, your 10s die will be more likely to be even than odd in case of a success(as 0, 2 and 4 are even and only 1 and 3 are odd).

Edited September 22, 2023 by Mugen

[Jens]

15 hours ago, Mugen said:

But that means criticals will never hit outside range 1 to 5.

Also, if your skill is, say, 45, your 10s die will be more likely to be even than odd in case of a success(as 0, 2 and 4 are even and only 1 and 3 are odd).

Understood, it’s a quick and dirty hack, not a true replacement (I just roll the D20 with the D100). But it’s all about hitting that left leg 😉

[StephenMcG]

9 hours ago, Jens said:

Understood, it’s a quick and dirty hack, not a true replacement (I just roll the D20 with the D100). But it’s all about hitting that left leg 😉

It was obviously the system used by the GM for Gimpy's in Pavis.

[narsilion]

I had issues trying to play RQ, my son got almost asleep during fight 😄

Together we decided to simplify combat rules just into opposed roll. Both parts of fight do this:

• take the number of tens of your weapon/fighting skill, add 2D6

• the one with higher result wins and deals the damage

• if there is a tie, the one with higher skill gains minor success.

• the bigger the difference, the better the result of fight, you can optionally use it instead of rolling the damage

If you have some advantage (it can be ambush, outnumbering, better weapon, applied tactics, shield if enemy has none etc) you roll additional D6 and choose better results.

 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by narsilion