Reversing the roll to hit

[dsatow]

So, I was wondering while driving, which I often do, what if we change the appearance of OCV and DCV.  Your OFFENSE would be effectively by 11+OCV.  The target's DEFENSE would be DCV + 3d6.  If your defense is lower than the attackers offense, you are hit.  

 

Example:  PC has a hero called Prayer with a OCV 8 and DCV 8.  GM has a OCV 7 and DCV 7.

PC: "I attack God Monster.  I have an offense of 19."

GM: Rolls 3d6 = 10 or 10+7 = 17.  "Prayer hits.  Roll damage"

 

GM: "God Monster is peeved.  He attempts to attack Prayer."

PC: The player rolls an 8 on 3d6.  "I have a defensive value of 16."

GM: "God Monster hits you."

 

Would this confuse you or could you adapt?

[SCUBA Hero]

My group does it slightly differently:  the attacker still rolls.

 

11 + OCV -3d6 = DCV hit.

 

In your above example, PC "I attack God Monster".  Rolls 3d6 = 10.  11 + 8 - 10 = 9.  "I hit a DCV of 9".  GM "Prayer hits.  Roll damage".

 

GM "God Monster is peeved He attempts to attack Prayer."  Rolls 3d6 = 8.  11 + 7 - 8 = 10.  "God Monster hits a DCV 0f 10."  PC "Prayer is hit."

 

As an alternate, you roll and note where the roll is compared to 11.  For every point under 11, you hit that many points over your OCV.  For every point over 11, you hit than many points under your OCV.  If you roll 11, you hit your OCV.

[Duke Bushido]

I think I'm going to start bookmarking these threads and just respond with a list of links. 

 

The survey is a nice touch, though.

 

My standing is still "no; I don't do it.  I have yet to find any argument that has convinced me that it is in any way better that the way we've been doing it for decades.

 

 

On a related note, though-- so I can add something constructive to the conversation:

 

I use the to-hit mechanic for Skill v Skill rolls, instead of the RAW way:

 

Okay, you're making a Concealment check to search the room.  The guy hiding the McGuffin had a 12-.  Let me make a quick roll....  he rolled an 8; that's four levels of success....

 

You have a 14- on your Concealment; make your roll....

 

Okay, you rolled a 10; that's four levels of success....

 

Spend ten minutes searching, describe what you're doing to increase your odds of finding something, and try again....

 

Alternatively, of course:

 

Okay, you have a 14 penalty because of the first guy's success, so you roll a 10...  yep.  You found it, barely.  This eliminates the potential for ties, of course, but my preference:

 

 

I use the to-hit roll as the mechanic:

 

Your 14 (or less) plus 11 minus the "defenders" 12-.  Roll 3d6  (apply any modifiers, of course).

 

It eliminates ties, and I use the "level of success" to determine just how long the search might have taken, roughly.

 

Anyone else do that?

 

 

[unclevlad]

On 1/30/2022 at 4:20 PM, dsatow said:

So, I was wondering while driving, which I often do, what if we change the appearance of OCV and DCV.  Your OFFENSE would be effectively by 11+OCV.  The target's DEFENSE would be DCV + 3d6.  If your defense is lower than the attackers offense, you are hit.  

 

 

I suppose I could, but I don't see the point of making the defender roll.  Why not 
OCV + 3d6 >= DCV + 11

 

Still gets the sense that you want to roll high, but keeps the attacker...normally the one considered the actor here...making the roll.

 

As a secondary point, is this the only time you'll do that?  Because all other skill-class rolls (and combat is a skill-class roll) say Low Is Good, so why have one that's High Is Good?  

 

[dsatow]

On 1/30/2022 at 4:18 PM, Duke Bushido said:

Anyone else do that?

 

 

I do something similar

2 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

I suppose I could, but I don't see the point of making the defender roll.  Why not 
OCV + 3d6 >= DCV + 11

Because by straight math, the mechanics work the same.  I thought about that, and in the end the probabilities are the same but rolling OCV +3d6 basically makes rolling low on the 3d6 worse than rolling high.  I figured people might not like that.  But if you think people would more like that, I would be willing to see it that way.

[Tjack]

   Cutting thru all the debate from the people who know the numbers much better than I do, it seemed that your main point was “Would you find it easy to change?” not “Is this a better way of doing this?” 
   The answer is...The longer anyone has been doing something successfully the harder it’s going to be to change.

If you take two players one of whom is playing their first game and the second is a gamer of twenty years or so it’s only natural that the new guy will take to your variation faster and easier.  It’s human nature.  The folks on this board are definitely in the twenty years or more camp.  And older people (myself included) have a harder time with change.  This may lead you to a skewed result in your poll.  Sorry, just my opinion.   You’ll notice I never commented on whether it was a good rule change or not...and I’m not gonna.

 

[dsatow]

7 minutes ago, Tjack said:

   Cutting thru all the debate from the people who know the numbers much better than I do, it seemed that your main point was “Would you find it easy to change?” not “Is this a better way of doing this?” 
   The answer is...The longer anyone has been doing something successfully the harder it’s going to be to change.

If you take two players one of whom is playing their first game and the second is a gamer of twenty years or so it’s only natural that the new guy will take to your variation faster and easier.  It’s human nature.  The folks on this board are definitely in the twenty years or more camp.  And older people (myself included) have a harder time with change.  This may lead you to a skewed result in your poll.  Sorry, just my opinion.   You’ll notice I never commented on whether it was a good rule change or not...and I’m not gonna.

 

Thanks, I understand that.  But none the less, I'd figure I'd ask.  To be honest, I think if the game changed slightly to make the 3d6 rolls add to some value, a lot more people wouldn't find it as hard.  

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, dsatow said:

Thanks, I understand that.  But none the less, I'd figure I'd ask.  To be honest, I think if the game changed slightly to make the 3d6 rolls add to some value, a lot more people wouldn't find it as hard.  

 

I don't think that's the major issue, but you may well be right.  I think it is easier to understand "this is the number you have to match or beat"...and it's a HECKUVA lot more common.  But if it's to be that way, then I'd restructure ALL rolls.  Also, you need to make a tweak:  Succeed on 11- is the same as succeed on 10+...not succeed on 11+.  

 

I'm formalizing it as 

roll high:  OCV + 3d6 >= DCV + 10   

 

vs. the standard 

roll low:  OCV + 11 - 3d6 <= DCV  

 

P(3-10) = 50%.  P(11-18) = 50%.  P(10) = P(11);  P(9) = P(12).  And so on.

 

So rolling low, 11- means P(3-10) + P(11).  Rolling high, 10+ means P(10) + P(11-18).  Well, those are clearly equal.  OCV is one higher...12- adds P(12) while 9+ adds P(9), which are equal.  So the math remains the same *as long as you remember to switch to 10+*.

 

It's also easy to adapt to all skill rolls and is probably more natural.  A higher stat means a higher basis, and High is Good.  

 

I actually think even the old farts would adjust readily enough, if it was a universal change.  In some ways this is the same debate from the Days Of THAC0...and switching away from THAC0 was a massive relief.

 

But just express it throughout, or it's WAY worse.

 

 

[Hugh Neilson]

To put a curve ball on this, what if you adopted the "defense roll" model when the PC is the defender, retaining the "attack roll" when the PC is the attacker. For rolls between two PC's, let's say the attacker rolls.

 

This would increase the rolls made by players rather than the GM, hopefully providing a bit less GM work and more player engagement (players love rolling dice), especially for "that one guy" who drifts off between his character's actions.

[Asperion]

A big question here is  -

 

Since this is a primary mechanic for dnd (and all its clones), do you really want to become another copy of dnd?

 

My personal answer is to keep things as they are now and separate from dnd. Your answer though could be different and milage can vary. 

[schir1964]

12 hours ago, unclevlad said:

I'm formalizing it as 

roll high:  OCV + 3d6 >= DCV + 10   

 

vs. the standard 

roll low:  OCV + 11 - 3d6 <= DCV  

I like this for one reason:

 

It keeps the relevant information partitioned off to only those people it's relevant to.

 

OCV + 3d6 is the relevant information for the player.

DCV + 10 is the relevant information for the game master.

 

I think I'll use this for the games I'm going run with my kids. One has already voiced that there appears to be a lot math (after reading the Champions Begins player manual).

This should make things even easier in game play.

 

 

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

To put a curve ball on this, what if you adopted the "defense roll" model when the PC is the defender, retaining the "attack roll" when the PC is the attacker. For rolls between two PC's, let's say the attacker rolls.

 

This would increase the rolls made by players rather than the GM, hopefully providing a bit less GM work and more player engagement (players love rolling dice), especially for "that one guy" who drifts off between his character's actions.

 

So what you're suggesting is, the NPC's roll is always CV+10, and the PC always rolls, so it's his CV+3d6.  Tie still goes to the attacker.  That's straightforward.  In some ways it's too simplistic but that might just be that I need my nap...

 

schir:  if you're going high is good, as I mentioned, then carry it through. A basic skill roll is Rating - 3d6 >= 0.  To convert this to Rating + roll, it's Rating +3d6 >= 21.  Let's go with no ranks in the skills, it's just easier.  It would be simpler to adjust for the players if the different base ratings...8 familiarity, 10 proficient, 11 general...let's keep these the same.  The higher your base, the more understanding you have/the better you are.  And it's better to NOT change the mechanics as we get into characteristic rolls, which are just an extension of this.  So...an 8- standard means 13+...Rating 8, target 21.  

 

So for simple rolls...

Base + ranks + situational bonuses + 3d6  >= 21 + situational penalties

Ranks is easy, it's how many you bought.  Bonuses and penalties should be straightforward.

So...Tumbler has a 23 DEX and 2 ranks in Acrobatics.  He wants to cross a room and has dodge some goons.  GM figures this incurs a penalty of 2.  Tumbler's getting no situational bonuses.  23 DEX == base 13, + 3 ranks.  His difficulty is 21 + 2 for the goons, or 23.  So he has to roll a 7 or higher.

 

Example 2:  Whizbang is a mage-type with a 23 Int, a VPP with 60 Control size, and 8 ranks in his Power skill.  To swap over a full 60 point power adds 60/10 or 6 points to the difficulty.  He's got 13 base + 8 ranks, so 21 + roll, to beat a 27 difficulty.  (For comparison?  He'd have a 21- base Power skill roll, -6 for the amount changed...15-.  Same probability.)

 

I believe the math should all work out, and the system doesn't have *too* many tweaks.  

[unclevlad]

6 hours ago, Asperion said:

A big question here is  -

 

Since this is a primary mechanic for dnd (and all its clones), do you really want to become another copy of dnd?

 

My personal answer is to keep things as they are now and separate from dnd. Your answer though could be different and milage can vary. 

 

Why does this make Hero a copy of D&D?  

 

There are 4 basic success-test mechanics that I know (plus Fate's odd one, or MSH's table-based that I really dislike)...

 

1.  Actor's rating combined with a die roll compared to target's rating or a static difficulty.  D&D, Hero, etc.  Note that rolling percentiles is only a variant on this.

2.  Roll dice, add them up to get a total.  

  2a.  Roll and total all dice.  (Star Wars, IIRC)

  2b.  Roll some dice, take a subset of the best.  Exploding d10 uses this...older L5R, Seventh Sea are the two I know.

3.  Trials.  Roll N dice, each is considered separately.  Success is based on the number of successes.  Storyteller, Shadowrun.

 

Trials is an ugly approach;  minor tweaks in the target number for a trial to succeed, have BIG effects.  

Roll and total is fairly flexible;  the trick is recognizing difficulty/target numbers.

The "roll N, take the best M" is complex to analyze.  What's better...roll 5, choose the best 2 (which I'll abbreviate r5c2 from now on), or 4c3?  Those are both clearly a step better than r4c2.  And if you've got r5c2, is it better to advance to r6c2 or r5c3?  That makes costing tricky.

 

The rating and simple, consistent roll approach is straightforward.  Using 1 die has issues with being linear, and getting REALLY good can be hard.  On the flip side, rolling 3d6 means that not all +1's or -1's are created equal.

 

But recognize:  Hero's system for attacks IS fundamentally the same as D&D's.  They LOOK different but they're not.  And how Hero does it is...kind of bizarre.  As I noted, it's like THAC0...we got used to it but it took time and effort to get there.

[Duke Bushido]

Excellent list, Hugh, 

 

but you left out one that has shown up here and there over the years and has been increasingly popular in one-off rules-light games:

 

Cards.   Draw a card.  Either compare or card means something specifically, etc--

 

 

gad, do I hate cards as a mechanic in an RPG...

 

[SCUBA Hero]

On 1/30/2022 at 7:18 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I think I'm going to start bookmarking these threads and just respond with a list of links. 

 

The survey is a nice touch, though.

 

My standing is still "no; I don't do it.  I have yet to find any argument that has convinced me that it is in any way better that the way we've been doing it for decades.

 

 

On a related note, though-- so I can add something constructive to the conversation:

 

I use the to-hit mechanic for Skill v Skill rolls, instead of the RAW way:

 

Okay, you're making a Concealment check to search the room.  The guy hiding the McGuffin had a 12-.  Let me make a quick roll....  he rolled an 8; that's four levels of success....

 

You have a 14- on your Concealment; make your roll....

 

Okay, you rolled a 10; that's four levels of success....

 

Spend ten minutes searching, describe what you're doing to increase your odds of finding something, and try again....

 

Alternatively, of course:

 

Okay, you have a 14 penalty because of the first guy's success, so you roll a 10...  yep.  You found it, barely.  This eliminates the potential for ties, of course, but my preference:

 

 

I use the to-hit roll as the mechanic:

 

Your 14 (or less) plus 11 minus the "defenders" 12-.  Roll 3d6  (apply any modifiers, of course).

 

It eliminates ties, and I use the "level of success" to determine just how long the search might have taken, roughly.

 

Anyone else do that?

 

 

My group does RAW for Skill vs. Skill rolls, and here's why I prefer it to your mechanic:

 

The first roll determines how well the first actor does.

 

Example:  Stealth vs. PER Roll.  If the stealthy character fails the roll, everyone hears it (the classic "steps on a branch and breaks it") and decides how to respond.  If the stealthy character makes the roll, the skill/vigilance of the opposition matters.

 

[SCUBA Hero]

6 hours ago, schir1964 said:

I like this for one reason:

 

It keeps the relevant information partitioned off to only those people it's relevant to.

 

OCV + 3d6 is the relevant information for the player.

DCV + 10 is the relevant information for the game master.

 

I think I'll use this for the games I'm going run with my kids. One has already voiced that there appears to be a lot math (after reading the Champions Begins player manual).

This should make things even easier in game play.

 

 

This is why I like my group's method.

 

Look, there are a number of *mathematically equivalent* ways to do the to-hit roll.  They ultimately come down to "what is the easiest method for MY gaming group to understand"?  So use what's easiest for your group.

 

The way we do it keeps the information partitioned correctly (IMHO).  Player: "I hit a DCV of X." GM: "You hit/miss".

[unclevlad]

4 hours ago, SCUBA Hero said:

Look, there are a number of *mathematically equivalent* ways to do the to-hit roll.  They ultimately come down to "what is the easiest method for MY gaming group to understand"?  So use what's easiest for your group.

 

The way we do it keeps the information partitioned correctly (IMHO).  Player: "I hit a DCV of X." GM: "You hit/miss".

 

Have you even tried offering them this?  They understood it because it was the only method given.  Oh, and yeah, you could maybe add some pointless complexity...but this is the only mathematical equivalence staying within the basic parameters of the system (my skill vs. your skill, with a 3d6 roll.)  There is only the one dimension of manipulation:  roll high vs. roll low to succeed.  

 

DCV + 3d6 >= DCV + 10.  Player rolls, gets a 19.  He announces 19.  GM says "you got him" or "he avoids it easily" or whatever.  No difference in information partitioning.  

[Grailknight]

For myself, I can't comprehend why this is an issue. The mechanic is laid out pretty clearly in the rules and the only added complexity I see over other games is the need to total 3d6 instead of using a single die roll. 

 

No one suggests taking d20 and reversing the math so that you roll low, even though the math involved is identical. It all depends on what system they learn first

 

That player who can't learn the roll under mechanic in Hero, won't learn  the roll over in d20 or the count successes of Shadowrun either. Some people are just bad at translating die rolls. 

 

But the majority of the time, IME , the person who "can't" is that holdout who doesn't want to play Hero, because it's all new and hard,  because they know the old system in and out and now you're making me learn all over again, because why are you making me change from something I'm happy with? Or the player and/or you may just have an issue communicating. I've had players balk at my explanation but then accept the near word for word explanation from someone else that I taught just days before.

 

Your experiences may be different but it boils down to this. It's your game. Use what works best for you and your players.  

[LoneWolf]

Most people like rolling to see if their own actions succeed.  In this you are rolling for other people's action to fail.  Every game system I know the vast majority of rolls are done by the player of the character.  Reversing it is going to confuse a lot of players with experience in other systems. 

 

It is also going to slow down combat because the players are now going to be making a lot more rolls.  Player rolls seem to take longer than GM rolls because there is more communication going on.  I don’t know about others, but I use a computer to make most of the rolls I need to make.  This allows me to make massive number of rolls and quickly determine how many succeed.  This is really helpful in situations where the players are facing a lot of low-level threats that they can mow through.

 

How do you determine critical hits with this system?  Critical hits are rarely used in Champions but are common in Fantasy Hero and other heroic games.  Now when you switch over to Fantasy Hero the new player has to adjust to a new system. 

 

The last reason I am against this is that if you teach this to a new player and that player for some reason joins a game where the system is not used, they are going to be confused.  One of the reasons to recruit new players is to help the Hero System grow and survive. 

 

Don’t fix what is not broken.

[SCUBA Hero]

9 hours ago, LoneWolf said:

I don’t know about others, but I use a computer to make most of the rolls I need to make.  This allows me to make massive number of rolls and quickly determine how many succeed.  This is really helpful in situations where the players are facing a lot of low-level threats that they can mow through.

 

 

Heh.  [Off-topic]  we have multiple folks in our gaming group GM at some point.  One of them uses a huge plastic-box-subdivided-into-small-boxes-with-small-3d6-in-each-box to roll for mooks shooting at the heros (this is in a Golden Age Champions game).

 

GM: "The Nazi soldiers shoot" " :rolls box:  "They all miss"

 

I assume he's at least scanning for 3's (maybe 4's and 5's as well).

[Spence]

On 1/30/2022 at 4:18 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I use the to-hit roll as the mechanic:

Nice

[Spence]

Oh and for the actual poll.

 

I don't really have an opinion anymore about which is better.

 

I really don't see any point.  The current official way is not difficult.  At all. 

The entire question like trying to say which bottle of Crystal water tastes better. 12oz or 1gal.  They are both bottled by the same company. 

 

Roll low or roll high is beyond basic easy math.  If they can't understand either how are they making characters?

 

 

[dsatow]

Not all potential players are moderately good at basic math and people have an easier time adding and multiplying than subtraction and division.

 

Ex: 

12.42+15.36 

but change the sign and people slow down

12.42-15.36 

 

Personally, I don't have an issue with either, but if I presented this to my wife, I can just about hear the gears in her head grind away and smoke start coming out of ears.

[drunkonduty]

Adding numbers and "higher numbers are better" are two things that are much easier to sell to potential new players. Anything that does away with charts is better as well.

[Duke Bushido]

On 2/1/2022 at 8:52 PM, SCUBA Hero said:

My group does RAW for Skill vs. Skill rolls, and here's why I prefer it to your mechanic:

 

The first roll determines how well the first actor does.

 

Example:  Stealth vs. PER Roll.  If the stealthy character fails the roll, everyone hears it (the classic "steps on a branch and breaks it") and decides how to respond.  If the stealthy character makes the roll, the skill/vigilance of the opposition matters.

 

 

Ultimately, the first point is irrelevant.  Don't misunderstand: I fully get what you're saying; I used to feel it was important, too.

 

Over the years, this "level of success" concept started creeping in, and that's how we tend to gauge things: determine who did better by who "succeeded the most."  Thus, it  is always possible for a character with 16- to succeed more than a character with 8- possibly could.

 

Once you've begun comparing levels of success, it doesn't matter how well or poorly the individual characters actually did, because the victor did better.

 

No player wants to hear "you see him by three more than he hides from you."   He wants some narrative; he wants to know how awesome his character is.   If the level of success (which is what the to-hit mechanic does: it boils directly to the level of success and which way it went) is small, the contest was difficult.  If the level of success is high, then the task was child's play for the victor.  Toss out a narrative that makes that work.

 

Additionally, I gain an ability and lose a problem: I gain the ability to detail the exchange in a way suited for the moment.  If the mood wanes, I can narrate it as lucky, nearly-missed thing.  If the players are starting to drift out, I can detail it as meticulous and hard-fought-- whatever the players need to maintain engagement, and at no time am I just giving them successes or failures; I haven't change the mechanical results at all.

 

I also lose the problem of annoyed Players who has "wasted" a good roll.  The character who has rolled a 3 for his Stealth is going to be quite happy (we all love threes on Skill Checks and combat, after all), only to sneak past the sentry who rolled a 17 will, in my own experience, always be disgusted rather than overjoyed, because he "wasted" his one-in-two-hundred-rolls 3 to sneak past a guard who was actively throwing sand into his own eyes the entire time.  I don't have that issue anymore.

 

Do understand: I am not advocating that you-- or anyone else-- adopt it; I don't actually care if anyone else adopts it; it's something I have adopted, been well-pleased with, and thought I'd share, never having seen anyone else post it.

 

The _biggest_ reason that this came to pass was that I was running a group of eleven players in a Heroic-level sc-fi game (which is in it's second year of Corona Hiatus).  Heroic level games, as we all know, are Skill Check marathons.  With eleven players, and rolling a roll for the NPC who was here two weeks ago to determine the modifier for the character here and now, each time a Skill-v-Skill situation came up......

 

In addition to the benefit of tooling the narrative to suit the mood or the needs of the moment, it eliminated a crap ton of time loss for rolling NPC skill results to create the modifiers for eleven players.   

 

 

Like anything else in terms of options and house rules, mileage will vary.