Eliminating attack rolls in melee combat - Is it a crazy idea?

Mr_Sandman · 02-02-2023, 03:28 PM

One of the issues that people have with GURPS is that combat can be slow, and often it is perceived as having a big whiff factor compared to many other games.

Often active defense is identified as something that adds a step to combat, and makes people feel that whiff factor strongly. An opponent making his defense roll can feel like it snatches away the victory of the to hit roll you just succeeded on.

Some people have tried to figure out ways to eliminate the defense roll and convert it into a penalty on the attack roll, or do it as a quick contest between attack and defense. I've never seen those work out as great solutions.

Recently, I saw a tweet from Matt Colville about eliminating attack rolls in the new game system he's working on. If someone (or something) is in position to attack, they can hit.

So I've been wondering if it might work to eliminate the 'to hit' roll in many cases. Say for example, if you have a 12 or better effective skill you hit automatically. I think it's reasonable to assume that most competent fighters can get a hit on a human sized target if nothing happens to stop them. So, just call it a success, and see if the opponent can do something to avoid it. If you have a higher effective attack skill, every two levels over 12 becomes penalty of -1 to the defense roll. If the effective skill on the attack roll is under 12, you still roll. Another approach would be a +1 bonus to defense for every two levels under 12 for the effective attack skill.

One problem is that it eliminates critical hits and misses, which a lot of people enjoy. Maybe it could be the attacker's choice, go for the more sure thing, or take a chance on missing in return for a small chance of something extraordinary happening. Or just use the defense roll to determine crits, a critical failure on the defense roll goes to the critical hit table, and a critical success goes to the critical miss table.

I think this works better for melee combat than ranged, where range penalties, aim, accuracy, etc. all come into play. Somehow to me it just feels more reasonable that random influences can play a bigger roll in ranged attacks. Plus, there are fewer defense options against ranged attacks, so making them automatic seems like it could be unfair or unbalancing.

Another big problem is that people just like rolling dice, and for some people rolling to hit is the main fun in an RPG. I don't think this alternative would be good for them.

I welcome any thoughts on my half-baked idea.

02-02-2023, 03:28 PM	#1
Mr_Sandman Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: L.I., NY	Eliminating attack rolls in melee combat - Is it a crazy idea? One of the issues that people have with GURPS is that combat can be slow, and often it is perceived as having a big whiff factor compared to many other games. Often active defense is identified as something that adds a step to combat, and makes people feel that whiff factor strongly. An opponent making his defense roll can feel like it snatches away the victory of the to hit roll you just succeeded on. Some people have tried to figure out ways to eliminate the defense roll and convert it into a penalty on the attack roll, or do it as a quick contest between attack and defense. I've never seen those work out as great solutions. Recently, I saw a tweet from Matt Colville about eliminating attack rolls in the new game system he's working on. If someone (or something) is in position to attack, they can hit. So I've been wondering if it might work to eliminate the 'to hit' roll in many cases. Say for example, if you have a 12 or better effective skill you hit automatically. I think it's reasonable to assume that most competent fighters can get a hit on a human sized target if nothing happens to stop them. So, just call it a success, and see if the opponent can do something to avoid it. If you have a higher effective attack skill, every two levels over 12 becomes penalty of -1 to the defense roll. If the effective skill on the attack roll is under 12, you still roll. Another approach would be a +1 bonus to defense for every two levels under 12 for the effective attack skill. One problem is that it eliminates critical hits and misses, which a lot of people enjoy. Maybe it could be the attacker's choice, go for the more sure thing, or take a chance on missing in return for a small chance of something extraordinary happening. Or just use the defense roll to determine crits, a critical failure on the defense roll goes to the critical hit table, and a critical success goes to the critical miss table. I think this works better for melee combat than ranged, where range penalties, aim, accuracy, etc. all come into play. Somehow to me it just feels more reasonable that random influences can play a bigger roll in ranged attacks. Plus, there are fewer defense options against ranged attacks, so making them automatic seems like it could be unfair or unbalancing. Another big problem is that people just like rolling dice, and for some people rolling to hit is the main fun in an RPG. I don't think this alternative would be good for them. I welcome any thoughts on my half-baked idea.