modifying Hero System combat

[whswhs]

I've been looking at my copy of Champions (which is fourth edition, by the way), which I remember as having quite an elegant combat system, which I wanted to refresh my memory of. One thing that stands out for me is that combat is handled by having the attacker roll to hit, with the roll being modified both by the attacker's combat value and by the defender's. And on one hand, that does speed things up, because you need one roll per attack rather than two, as in GURPS. But on the other, it tends to deprive the players of a sense of agency, in that "defending" is not something they do actively, but something that modifies the attacker's chances. And as a byproduct it does still require the GM to make a lot of rolls.

So I was thinking about a trick that's used in Buffy the Vampire Slayer: the protagonists always make the rolls. When they're attacking, they make attack rolls; when they're being attacked, they make defense rolls.

Could this be done in Champions? The combat roll is a set number, 11, modified by both the attacker's OCV and the defender's DCV. So to a first approximation it doesn't matter who's rolling the dice.

However, if the rolls are exactly the same—for equally skilled combatants, target number 11, with a hit on 11 or less and a miss on 12 or more—then the protagonists are going to be trying for a low roll when attacking, and a high roll when defending. And I think that's going to feel a little odd, subjectively. "So you mean I'm rolling for Gargantua's attack and I'm trying to fail?"

I think it might be better to change things so that the protagonist succeeds in either attacking or defending by rolling low. But in that case, keeping 11 as the target number would mean that a protagonist's chances of hitting were significantly higher than an antagonist's. And while a game could work that way, I don't think Champions ever has.

The 11 or less for equally matched opponents means that the attack hits 135 times out of 216, or 62.5% of the time. This is equivalent to saying that the attack misses 37.5% of the time, or 81 times out of 216. And that equates to a roll of 9 or less. So the odds will be unchanged if a defender successfully defends against an equally skilled attacker on a 9 or less. That basic roll will by modified up by things that favor the defender (starting with DCV) and down by thing that favor the attacker (starting with OCV).

I think maybe that could work. It wouldn't change the outcomes, statistically, but it would give players the satisfaction of rolling the dice and saying, "Ha! I dodge Gargantua's attack!"

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Could this be done in Champions? The combat roll is a set number, 11, modified by both the attacker's OCV and the defender's DCV. So to a first approximation it doesn't matter who's rolling the dice.

Actually, it does; success chance at equal skill is 62%, not 50%. If you want to replace attack rolls with defense rolls, the target for defense would be a base of 9.

Though I'd probably switch the entire thing over to roll high in the model of d20: roll 3d6+OCV vs a target number of 10+DCV. That's identical odds to standard champions. For a defender roll, target would be 12+OCV. If you want to even things out, make both targets 11+score.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I've been looking at my copy of Champions (which is fourth edition, by the way), which I remember as having quite an elegant combat system, which I wanted to refresh my memory of. One thing that stands out for me is that combat is handled by having the attacker roll to hit, with the roll being modified both by the attacker's combat value and by the defender's. And on one hand, that does speed things up, because you need one roll per attack rather than two, as in GURPS. But on the other, it tends to deprive the players of a sense of agency, in that "defending" is not something they do actively, but something that modifies the attacker's chances. And as a byproduct it does still require the GM to make a lot of rolls.

So I was thinking about a trick that's used in Buffy the Vampire Slayer: the protagonists always make the rolls. When they're attacking, they make attack rolls; when they're being attacked, they make defense rolls.

Could this be done in Champions? The combat roll is a set number, 11, modified by both the attacker's OCV and the defender's DCV. So to a first approximation it doesn't matter who's rolling the dice.

However, if the rolls are exactly the same—for equally skilled combatants, target number 11, with a hit on 11 or less and a miss on 12 or more—then the protagonists are going to be trying for a low roll when attacking, and a high roll when defending. And I think that's going to feel a little odd, subjectively. "So you mean I'm rolling for Gargantua's attack and I'm trying to fail?"

I think it might be better to change things so that the protagonist succeeds in either attacking or defending by rolling low. But in that case, keeping 11 as the target number would mean that a protagonist's chances of hitting were significantly higher than an antagonist's. And while a game could work that way, I don't think Champions ever has.

The 11 or less for equally matched opponents means that the attack hits 135 times out of 216, or 62.5% of the time. This is equivalent to saying that the attack misses 37.5% of the time, or 81 times out of 216. And that equates to a roll of 9 or less. So the odds will be unchanged if a defender successfully defends against an equally skilled attacker on a 9 or less. That basic roll will by modified up by things that favor the defender (starting with DCV) and down by thing that favor the attacker (starting with OCV).

I think maybe that could work. It wouldn't change the outcomes, statistically, but it would give players the satisfaction of rolling the dice and saying, "Ha! I dodge Gargantua's attack!"

I'm doubtful about the proposition as it glosses over some aspects of Hero System combat. First, player agency in the instance of "rolling for defense" amounts to usurping GM agency. Every roll that you turn into "making a defense roll for the PC" is removing a GM attack roll for an NPC, and since all rolls were hitherto attack rolls, that removes the GM's ability to make any combat rolls. (Well, there would be NPC vs. NPC rolls, but where's the GM's fun in that?) It also makes for more rolls for the player as he now rolls for every character attacking him as a "defense roll" as well as rolling for his own attack. There is no loss of player agency by not giving DCV rolls to the players because no one heretofore got to make DCV rolls.

Second, it does matter who is rolling, as the formula is 11+ OCV - DCV, or 11 + your CV - opponent's CV, if you are attacking, but 11 + opponent's CV - your CV, if you are defending, remembering that DEX/3 = CV and CV = OCV = DCV for your character. The only way it doesn't matter is if you and your opponent have the same CV, which implies close to the same DEX.

Third, it neglects skill levels which can be converted into +1 OCV or -1 DCV for each level (and can be split between the two as desired if the skill level is +2 or greater) and the fact that those assignments are made fresh on each phase of combat.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, is that it assumes that you and your opponent share the same spots on the speed chart and will therefore be making your rolls in the same phases. As bad as that would be if true, since it effectively gives you at least two rolls per phase, once for your attack and at least once defending against an opponent; it is worse if your opponent has a higher speed than you, as this lets you roll on phases that you did not pay character points for, usurping the combat benefit of a higher SPD paid for by the NPC for your own PC.

[whswhs]

Guys, guys. Both of you seem to have skipped over the following paragraph:

The 11 or less for equally matched opponents means that the attack hits 135 times out of 216, or 62.5% of the time. This is equivalent to saying that the attack misses 37.5% of the time, or 81 times out of 216. And that equates to a roll of 9 or less. So the odds will be unchanged if a defender successfully defends against an equally skilled attacker on a 9 or less. That basic roll will by modified up by things that favor the defender (starting with DCV) and down by thing that favor the attacker (starting with OCV).

I also, earlier, considered the idea that the player would roll for being attacked, and that if they roll ABOVE a base 11 (with modifiers as applicable), then the attack would have failed, i.e., the defense would have succeeded. In that case, too, I was taking into account that the chance that an attack will succeed is 62.5% and not 50%.

As to Curmudgeon's point about the player making all the rolls, and the GM not making any, I've run a campaign of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which does things exactly that way. I didn't find it any trouble, and my players seemed to enjoy it. So I don't see any intrinsic problem with it as an approach.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

As to Curmudgeon's point about the player making all the rolls, and the GM not making any, I've run a campaign of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which does things exactly that way. I didn't find it any trouble, and my players seemed to enjoy it. So I don't see any intrinsic problem with it as an approach.

I've been a player in a couple of other systems (I think Symbaroum and Numenera) that work that way and I find it something of a nuissance though I haven't complained about it to the GMs in question.

It might just have been that they were systems that were not designed with probabalistic care but that was true about almost all of their mechanics.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I've been a player in a couple of other systems (I think Symbaroum and Numenera) that work that way and I find it something of a nuissance though I haven't complained about it to the GMs in question.

It might just have been that they were systems that were not designed with probabalistic care but that was true about almost all of their mechanics.

Well, I did make some attempt to get the probabilities to come out right in this proposal.

I suppose it may be a matter of taste whether you're more unhappy with having to watch while the GM rolls for an NPC's trying to hit you, and you don't get to make a roll to protect yourself; or with having to make all the rolls when your character is in combat, with the GM not having to pick up dice.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I suppose it may be a matter of taste whether you're more unhappy with having to watch while the GM rolls for an NPC's trying to hit you, and you don't get to make a roll to protect yourself; or with having to make all the rolls when your character is in combat, with the GM not having to pick up dice.

A lot of game systems have defense as a passive target number, most people don't seem to mind. Hero system has access to aborts to defensive actions, which is more agency than a lot of systems give.

[Fred Brackin]

With flat probability "curves" like a D20 the dice have more agency than any human at the table. In Symbaroum my enormous troll ahd to roll a 5 on D20 or less to avoid getting hit and through sheer luck he got hit less than anyone else playing.

Agency should probably be about making meaningful choices. Attempting to get lucky doesn't really feel like the same thing to me.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

With flat probability "curves" like a D20 the dice have more agency than any human at the table. In Symbaroum my enormous troll ahd to roll a 5 on D20 or less to avoid getting hit and through sheer luck he got hit less than anyone else playing.

I'm not sure why this is relevant, as Hero System rolls are made on 3d6.

Agency should probably be about making meaningful choices. Attempting to get lucky doesn't really feel like the same thing to me.

I wonder if that argument proves too much. After all, if your character is in a combat situation, and you say, "I'm going to strike at the orc with my sword," or ". . . punch the guy who picked a fight with me," in most systems that leads to your rolling some sort of dice, and waiting to see if you were lucky enough to hit. Does it seem to you that such combat is also lacking in agency?

If you're prepared to say that you have agency in the moment when you say, "I strike at the orc with my sword," then you are making a meaningful choice just as much if you say, "I'll wait to block the orc's attack with my sword," or "I'll dodge the guy who's swinging his skateboard at me." And Hero System explicitly offers such defensive moves as alternative options.

But it seems to me that in gaming, the sense of "agency" has to do not only with the tactical choices that the player makes, but also with the visible display of agency, in the tense, dramatic moment when the player picks up the dice, and rolls them, and the roll succeeds or fails. And that moment is lacking if the player doesn't get a defense roll, in a system where their defense just worsens the odds of success on the GM's roll for the adversary. The GM is (in many people's practice) rolling the dice behind a screen, and then announcing the result, and the players are just sitting there waiting for the result to be announced; there is a conceptually identifiable link between the player's announcement of a defensive move and the foe's success or failure, but there's not a perceptual or dramatic link; the effects of the defense are just folded into the larger calculation of the foe's odds. Whereas if the player rolls the dice, then they are going to be told, "You can parry the orc's blow by rolling X or less," and then they can see if the dice come up in their favor. That moment of tension is not literally agency, to be sure, but psychologically it centers the course of the combat on the protagonist.

And as I say, I've run combat on that basis in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer rpg, and I think it really does provide that focusing effect. And of course you can get it in GURPS by the fact that both combatants roll, one to hit and one to defend, but Hero System doesn't offer that "both roll" option, and it would take a much bigger redesign to make it do so. For one thing, effectively you would be rolling combat actions on 6d6 rather than 3d6, which changes the odds significantly.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I'm not sure why this is relevant, as Hero System rolls are made on 3d6.

It was relevant to the other games I've played that were Player Roll Only.

As to "meaningful" choices this is a smaller set than "all choices". A choice that has only a 5% chance of succeeding is often not very meaningful.

Also, situations where that 5% chance is your only real choice are fairly common. Not much agency there.