The Forge Archives

Hey, everyone. I'm still new to the Forge, so if this post is on the wrong forum, I apologize.

What I'd like to know is whether or not you'd be comfortable with a game system where every conflict was boiled down to one roll, even combat.

Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?

For example, Player A and Player B are fighting. They both use whatever randomizing system is in place and Player A beats Player B's score. The GM asks Player A what result he wanted, and he says he wants to kill Player B. Player B is now dead. It's fast and simple, so it doesn't slow things down, but your character can die just as quickly.

Put that bluntly, yes, I'd have a problem with it.  But my reasons have nothing to do with speed: it's a question of who gets control of what characters.

Suppose, in the same situation, you slightly changed the post-roll structure.

First, I think A should be describing what he wants to happen on the cause side of events, i.e. "I hack his neck good and hard with this sharp axe" or whatever, as opposed to describing what actually happens to B.

Second, I think that B might be given the opportunity to describe the effect.  Death might be an appropriate option, but there might be others.

If you boil down all combat to a single die-roll, you have to have more narration elsewhere, it seems to me.  So if I'm player B, and the only say I get over what happens to my character is how I roll the dice, that sucks.  I feel like I'm being punished for bad luck.  But if I get to say what happens to me, however horrible it may be, then I can be creative and involved.

With respect to your general question about one-roll resolution:

I have no problem with it, but that's just me. I believe that this is one of those questions that can sometimes be used to diagnose GNS preferences - the more Sim you are, in general, the less likely you are to be satisfied with one-roll abstractions for deciding important in-game realities.

The bits on conflict scale in Trollbabe and FATE are very useful for thinking both about this issue in general and about just how relative to individual preference this issue really is.


With respect to the more specific question about PC death being based on such a resolution:

This seems a little more rotten, especially if you didn't go into that situation with a clear understanding of the stakes. But still, it depends on how often such conflicts come up, and on the nature of player/character identifications in that game. In a traditional RPG, with combats essentially forced on players at regular intervals, I imagine this would suck eggs. But that doesn't mean it would be bad in all implementations.

The saving throw was introduced into D&D because Dave Arneson's players kept complaining about him rolling a die and saying 'you're dead.' So people protested about this kind of mechanic back in '72 already. But that was assuming a kind of adventuring and a kind of player/PC relationship that doesn't at all have to be a universal norm.

I think the *option* of settling a conflict with a single roll is a good thing, as is the option of settling it with more granularity.

I also think that the players should get some say in which option is used and when.

I agree with Sean that Trollbabe is a must-read when thinking about this. It comes as close to "right" from my perspective as any game I know of.

Doesn't Tunnels & Trolls combat work that way?

regarding your example, I think the biggest issue you'll get into with the scenario you describe is player empowerment. If player B is deprotagonized, player B's enjoyment will be less than if he has stock in the outcome.

Hero Quest works this way, potentially. That is, you can do a "to the death" contest as a simple contest if you want to (or you can use the extended contest rules).

The thing about HQ is that complete defeat doesn't neccessarily mean death. It means that the character is dying, but that he may be saved by any contrivance that the GM decides on. So you don't have the worry that your charater will die undramatically. He'll only die when it's appropriate for that to happen. Whether with one roll or a hundred.

Further, I don't think that this is unrealistic or "non-sim" at all. It's not detailed, but the results of this sort of resolution are often more realistic than more detailed systems. I had a player in my game comment a couple of sessions back someting like, "You know, I've had characters stab others in games before, but this time I felt like I was stabbing a real person." One of the biggest compliments I've ever heard paid to a system.

Mike

You know I have come to view the concept of character death with a more jaundiced eye, since coming to the Forge.  When In my long rpg career has character death EVER been fun? Is character death really necessary? The pulp action literature that most rpgs are based on go to extraordinary lengths to save the skin (or at least some of the skin) of main characters.
The game Trollbabe explicitly states your character cant be killed without permission, I think that game benefits from that rule in so many ways.

In point of fact plenty of traditional rpgs benefit from tacit rules that delimit character death. In many games (D&D in particular) the actual probability of character death goes down exponentially as you go up the experience ladder (and once the 'party' cleric in a D&D game gets Resurrection, FORGET IT!). Indeed in many highly mature rpg campaigns keeping characters alive can become a matter of social survival for a GM!

I increasingly think the concept of character death as the result of a simple random systemic operation is one of those artifacts that rpgs have inherited from the wargame and one I think they could do without....

Quote from: Sean.

The saving throw was introduced into D&D because Dave Arneson's players kept complaining about him rolling a die and saying 'you're dead.' So people protested about this kind of mechanic back in '72 already. But that was assuming a kind of adventuring and a kind of player/PC relationship that doesn't at all have to be a universal norm.

Indeed, they didnt like GMs rolling a dice and saying 'you're dead' so they roll ANOTHER dice and say 'you're dead', oh well it's kept the rpg world happy for 30 years......

(erased)

Okay, lots of good points here. I was really just trying to get a measure of people's gut reactions to the idea, but since most of you are determined to actually give well-thought-out answers, I'll add some detail.  :-)

In this theoretical example, characters would have a skill level to which the die roll would be added. This skill level, plus situational modifiers, would be potentially much larger than the possible die outcomes, making skill more important than luck, but still adding in a randomizing element. For example, skill level could range from 1-12, plus situational modifiers of anywhere from -4 to +4, and the die roll would be 2d4.

Also, the stated result doesn't have to be death, but it could be. Player A might be trying to kill Player B, but Player B might in turn wish to knock Player A unconscious for later questioning. Whichever one wins the contest achieves their chosen result.

The narration of the scence would of course be much more detailed, but that would be up to the GM and/or players to work out.

Quote from: Andrew Morris
In this theoretical example, characters would have a skill level to which the die roll would be added. This skill level, plus situational modifiers, would be potentially much larger than the possible die outcomes, making skill more important than luck, but still adding in a randomizing element.

Hero Quest, again. You roll a d20, but things are rated from 0 to up to as much as 80 or 100 for really exceptional humans. More complicated than that, but you get the idea.

So not only possible, but functional as well if done right.

QuoteAlso, the stated result doesn't have to be death, but it could be. Player A might be trying to kill Player B, but Player B might in turn wish to knock Player A unconscious for later questioning. Whichever one wins the contest achieves their chosen result.

This is HQ again in essence, it just makes complete success rather rare. Normally if you try to attack somebody to kill them, it's unlikely that you'll succeed - often you'll just wound them or something.

As you say, though...

QuoteThe narration of the scence would of course be much more detailed, but that would be up to the GM and/or players to work out.

Since it is up to these people to work out, you can always make this seem sensible. Why didn't you get to finish me off? Because the cops broke us up. Or I fled before you were finished with me. Etc.

This might not be what you're looking for, but realize that it eliminates the problem that you note above. And once you've played this way for a while you might find it pretty comfortable.

In any case, make sure that who narrates what, and what their limits are, is well established.

Check out the basic HQ rules here: http://www.glorantha.com/support/GameAids.pdf

Mike

Quote from: Andrew Morris*snip*
Basically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?
*snip*

No, not really.

From what you describe, it sounds like there isn't any limmit on the stakes. Which means its a railroad. I'm completely at the mercy of whatever the other guy decides to ramp up the challenge to.

In a round by round combat, we can all be using lethal force, but the dude on the other side doesn't get to just say 'TO THE DEATH' and it is so. Sorry dude, its round by round and I can try to escape, try to knock you out, try and draw the fight closer to friends. If things are going well, kewl, I'll take on 'to the death', no worries. I can try to do these things or even change my mind half way.

Basically I can sound out the situation and change my mind if I want. The motivations of the NPC I'm fighting don't dominate my choices during combat.

When its just one roll, it causes a bottle neck effect. I just can not get any further until I've survived the exact motivation the NPC declares. The bottle neck means I can't go around, duck under, hide and wait for it to go by, whatever. I have to go through one narrow gap of the NPC's choosing, no other choice.

I mean, sure, I fight to the death with my PC dozens of times in a row. But that's because its something I can and do choose to do (rather than any other option). When the NPC declares the stakes and there is only one roll, despite what I may otherwise want to do I have to knock him out or kill him. As soon as he declares it to the death (or to try and knock me out), those are my only options (are they much different, either?). The prospect of actually dieing directly from a railroad is not thrilling.

Hi Andrew,

It seems to me you are asking two different things here:

QuoteWhat I'd like to know is whether or not you'd be comfortable with a game system where every conflict was boiled down to one roll, even combat.

Absolutely, my last two systems work this way.

QuoteBasically, would you enjoy playing a game that allowed you to be killed on the basis of one challenge?

For example, Player A and Player B are fighting. They both use whatever randomizing system is in place and Player A beats Player B's score. The GM asks Player A what result he wanted, and he says he wants to kill Player B. Player B is now dead. It's fast and simple, so it doesn't slow things down, but your character can die just as quickly.

No. This is too limiting on the options.

Here's what I'd do:

Combat only takes one roll. That roll determines the success of the combat then the winner gets to declare what the want to do (kill, pin, whatever). The loser can choose to either accept the action on try and take a different action to make it happen differently - so they could surrender, try to run away, anything but fight; the combat has already been decided.

This way you have both slick resolution, and the ability to take different options into account.

Hey Noon,

I'd like to thank you and the others who's given me some food for thought. I'm not saying I think one way is better than the other, I just proposed the idea to see how people feel about it, and all the varied answers have helped me.

As to your specific concerns, though, I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is the only reason you wouldn't like such a system the fact that you couldn't change your mind partway through a combat? I can understand that perspective.

But as to there not being any limit on the stakes, I don't see how that's different from most other combat systems. In most combat systems, like you said, if someone is trying to kill you, you can attempt to escape or knock him out. But you could do that in the theoretical system I proposed as well. If your opponent's stated action is to kill you, but your's is to knock him unconscious, the only difference is that it's decided on one roll instead of many.

Quote
When its just one roll, it causes a bottle neck effect. I just can not get any further until I've survived the exact motivation the NPC declares. The bottle neck means I can't go around, duck under, hide and wait for it to go by, whatever. I have to go through one narrow gap of the NPC's choosing, no other choice.

How do you figure that? If you're in combat, either in the one-roll system or a more traditional system, you can't suddenly decide to hide. In either system, you'd have to do that before the battle began. Just because the system would be one roll doesn't mean that NPCs decide what the stakes of all conflicts are (at least not any more than usual).

Maybe I've explained this idea poorly, and if so, I apologise. Perhaps an example could clear it up:

Player A is trying to get past NPC B, who is guarding the entrance to a fortress. Player A could walk right up to NPC B, in which case NPC B is likely to attack him, creating the situation I mentioned earlier. But Player A could also try to use some skill, say Stealth, to get by. In this case, NPC B might never have the chance to attack Player A.

Am I making sense here? I don't want to dump a long and highly detailed message on everyone, but let me know if this is not clear.


Jack,

I really like the idea about either accepting the combat result or attempting a non-combat response. Would you impose a limit on the number of times this could happen? For example, you could try one non-combat method of getting out of it, but if you fail, the original result of the combat takes place. This solution seems to address Noon's concerns, as well.

Quote from: Andrew MorrisI'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Is the only reason you wouldn't like such a system the fact that you couldn't change your mind partway through a combat? I can understand that perspective.

But as to there not being any limit on the stakes, I don't see how that's different from most other combat systems. In most combat systems, like you said, if someone is trying to kill you, you can attempt to escape or knock him out. But you could do that in the theoretical system I proposed as well. If your opponent's stated action is to kill you, but your's is to knock him unconscious, the only difference is that it's decided on one roll instead of many.

Forgive me if I misrepresent you, Callan; I feel like I understand what you're saying.

In the round-by-round play of D&D or Multiverser, you step up to the challenge, and usually you don't know how powerful the opponent is likely to be but you can probably survive the first round in any event. It doesn't always work that way, but it's typical.

I'll mention a game situation in which we were going round by round against some space pirates, and we were winning. The leader turned to escape, and one of our NPCs pursued him. Suddenly the leader drew a sonic disruptor and fired, killing our previously uninjured NPC with a single shot and escaping. Now, had we any inkling that this guy could kill one of us with a single shot, we'd not have let a single character pursue him--we'd have made sure there would be someone at hand who could administer first aid and keep him alive. At the same time, the recognition that the pirates might have such weapons was a very serious change in our perception of the situation.

In one-on-one combat, if the guy delivers a very serious blow to you within the first couple of rounds and you don't seem to have impacted him to any significant degree, you can decide that this was a bad idea and either surrender or flee, in most cases, getting away with your life. In party combat, if one of your people is killed abruptly, you suddenly realize that the enemy may be more than you can take, and again you have the option of escaping. However, in a single roll situation, you don't have that assessment period--you can't try a couple rounds and then decide this was a mistake. Once you've decided to engage in combat, you're committed, and you suffer the consequences.

Of course, if the consequences are weakened such that it's not going to be life or death on the roll of a single die, that makes it easier.

Another thing that would make it easier would be if the stats of the enemy are in plain view. That is, if I know that the guard on the door is a mook who probably can't kill me and will go down on my first successful attack, that puts me in a very different position than if I know that the guard on the door is one of the elite crack troops around here who has faced entire squadrons of trained fighters and lived to tell the tale--but if I know he might be either of those or anything in between, I have no basis on which to decide whether to engage or avoid. I'm running scared of everything, because I don't know what it is.

D&D could have created one humanoid monster with stats ranging from kobold to hill giant, and had them all look the same. It would have had a very dampening effect on play--you'd see ten humanoids in the room, and not know whether this was a cakewalk or a deathtrap. Instead, the created a variety of different creatures of varying strengths who could be identified with reasonable accuracy on sight. That meant that when you saw them, you knew what you were up against and could make a reasonable estimation of what it would take to defeat them. Now, if you can incorporate that into your game, you would give the players some basis to decide whether to fight, and mitigate the hazards of the single roll combat. It's not as good as letting them test themselves and then retreat, but it's a lot better than "There's a monster standing by the door which might be anything from a pixie to a tarrasque, do you want to live or die based on whether you guessed right?"

--M. J. Young