Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

[Willow]

Something my players clamor for is the ability to resolve non-essential fights in one die roll. I was wondering if there was anything like that already in print- perhaps in the Combat Handbook or Ultimate Skill?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Something my players clamor for is the ability to resolve non-essential fights in one die roll. I was wondering if there was anything like that already in print- perhaps in the Combat Handbook or Ultimate Skill?

 

Nothing I am aware of, and whilst I could come up with something the problem is that sometimes that roll will give the result 'PCs lose', which would be real aggravating.

 

I'd just set it up so that non-essential fights don't take long: reduce all the villain's CONs by 5 or assume any solid hit KOs them.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Nothing I am aware of, and whilst I could come up with something the problem is that sometimes that roll will give the result 'PCs lose', which would be real aggravating.

 

I'd just set it up so that non-essential fights don't take long: reduce all the villain's CONs by 5 or assume any solid hit KOs them.

 

If the fight is non-essential (I'm assuming narrative-wise) then either it doesn't amtter if it doesn't happen or it doesn't really matter if the PCs lose.

 

This is something that happens in HeroQuest where the contest resoltion provides results from Major Victory to Major Defeat in seven steps for such rolls and the GM would have to narrate the results of that roll.

 

I haven't seen a HERO way to do it but I do think it would be a useful mechanic.

 

 

Doc

[Sean Waters]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

We would need some sort of 'combat effectiveness' rating for the two sides to offset the roll by, and if the players did not mind losing badly on a single roll then it would be peachy.

 

A combat effectiveness rating in Hero is, of course, a problem...

 

(Average CVxAverage DCx(Average DEF/4))/25 +1 per team member?

 

Easy enough but not too accurate...then you both roll 3d6, add your combat rating and the highest wins, or you go with

 

Equal roll = draw

win by 1-2 = minor victory (win but other side escape OR reduce STUN and END to 10% of maximum

win by 2-3 = normal victory (win and reduce stun and end to half normal)

win by 4 or more = major victory (win, no penalty)

[kjamma4]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

to resolve non-essential fights in one die roll

 

If the fight is non-essential, why does it need to be resolved?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Equal roll = draw

win by 1-2 = minor victory (win but other side escape OR reduce STUN and END to 10% of maximum

win by 2-3 = normal victory (win and reduce stun and end to half normal)

win by 4 or more = major victory (win, no penalty)

 

The roll seems good enough for rough work (which this would be - small skirmish that doesn't really affect the narrative in a substantial fashion - like a skill roll really)

 

I would change the name of the vistory levels to

 

Standoff

Marginal Victory

Minor Victory

Major Victory

 

When approaching a combat in a narrative fashion like this it is important to establish what goals each side were looking to achieve.

 

Doc

[Zed-F]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

If the fight is non-essential... I'd just describe what happens. I wouldn't even bother rolling.

[Markdoc]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

If the fight is non-essential... I'd just describe what happens. I wouldn't even bother rolling.

 

More to the point, I wouldn't even include it.

 

However, to give the swordswingers a little spotlight time, I occasionally include a non-essential fight. By its definition, that means the players outclass their opponents so significantly, that the fight is over in a few minutes real time anyway.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I think this opens up some other issues.

 

- Even in a fairly minimal combat, there is the chance of injury in many genres. That swordsman might take a BOD or 2 in combat.

 

- If it's a "one roll" combat, I guess I don't use up any limited resources, like charges, right?

 

- Do the results depend on our objectives? Did we want to wipe out the opposition, take a prisoner, drive them off, scare them, etc.?

 

- "Oh, you're counting phases instead of doing a one-roll - I guess this fight must be more important than we thought. Maybe I better rethink my tactics."

 

If the combat is truly inessential - ie irrelevant to the story and the game - why is it there to begin with? If it's just background flavour, why not just narrate it with no die rolls?

[tesuji]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Something my players clamor for is the ability to resolve non-essential fights in one die roll. I was wondering if there was anything like that already in print- perhaps in the Combat Handbook or Ultimate Skill?

 

Well, i would never describea fight the PCs LOSE as "non-essential" so i would presume you are speaking only of easy PC squahs scenarios, like say spidey foiling normal bank robbers.

 

For those, i just narrate them, letting the PCs describe whatever results they wish within "reason". Its done dramatically, not mechanically, and sprinkling these thru the game wllows that "yeah I am super. I don't have to sweat the small stuff" feeling to come thru.

 

So my suggestion is "dont roll at all. just cut loose with the dialog and narrative. give each PC involved one, maybe two, "opportunities" for coolness" then move on.

[Vondy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

They may find this is less desireable in practice than sounds in theory. What will they do when, in one roll, they lose? I recommend implenting mook rules of some sort to speed things along, rather than just using one roll. Declare some NPCs to be one-hit-wonders, or assume a con-stun and/or a to hit roll made by 1/2 or more, automatically removes mook-level opponents from the fight. Personally, I'd prefer to narrate it, with an unluck-luck die* influencing the narration.

 

In my games, if something a player was trying could go one way or the other, but was out of the ordinary, and I had no interest plot-wise one way or the other, I would sometimes roll a D6. A 1 would end in catastrophic failure, a 2-5 in some level of success, and a 6 would be an uncanny success. I also allowed them to "demand" such a roll on an unlikely action - and had one player who was addicted to doing so.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

More to the point' date=' I wouldn't even include it. [/quote']

That was my first thought too; I'm not much for Obligatory Mook Fights that do nothing to advance the plot. But OTOH I have had players get into fights for no good reason (at least from a plot standpoint). Sometimes they're no-challenge fights, in which case I'd probably just narrate it assuming generally average to-hit and damage rolls all the way around. Or use "mook rules" to speed things up as Von suggests.

 

If it's a fight that looks like it could be a challenge, I might still simplify the combat a little, or at least simplify the bad guys' tactics so the fight doesn't drag on. Occassionally I'll run the first phase or the first turn, and then handwave the rest. I have very occassionally had the players just describe what they want to do and then narrate the results based on how effective I think they would be (and what's best for the story, of course). I'd be very hesitant to stake everything on one die roll, as either a GM or as a player.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I'm not much for Obligatory Mook Fights that do nothing to advance the plot. But OTOH I have had players get into fights for no good reason (at least from a plot standpoint).

 

This is my experience. The PCs get into a fight that has no real consequences on the plot. I don't care if they win or lose and equally have no desire to fight it out. Combat eats up too much of any game session to warrant major attention on minor scuffles.

 

I would rather declare the fight inconsequential and have a simple contest roll.

 

- Even in a fairly minimal combat, there is the chance of injury in many genres. That swordsman might take a BOD or 2 in combat.

 

- If it's a "one roll" combat, I guess I don't use up any limited resources, like charges, right?

 

- Do the results depend on our objectives? Did we want to wipe out the opposition, take a prisoner, drive them off, scare them, etc.?

 

- "Oh, you're counting phases instead of doing a one-roll - I guess this fight must be more important than we thought. Maybe I better rethink my tactics."

[/Quote]

 

Many of the initial questions are what I would include in the victory levels. A major victory is easy - no damage, no use of limited resources and yes - your stated objectives indicate the narrative result based on victory levels.

 

As for the metagame aspect of knowing a fight is important or not is fine for my group. I prefer players to be aware that a fight is important and that they should pay more attention to what I am saying and what they are doing.

 

 

Doc

[Cancer]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

C'mon. It wouldn't be HERO if the playing-out of combat didn't take 100 (give or take a factor of 3) times the game-world duration of the combat.

There are people whose idea of a good evening of RPGing is wading through a mookucopia (that is, a Horn of Plenty spewing forth mooks) and then wasting the henchman commanding the bad guys, independent of what else is going on ("What is this 'plot' thing you keep mentioning?"). I'm not one of them, but they do exist.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Know your players and give them what they need, if not what they want. I would think that if the players are clamouring for a very quick way to get through mook-bat then they are not keen on it, so you either need to avoid it or suggest to them that they invest a few points in stealth and avoid it themselves.

[sbarron]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

A combat effectiveness rating in Hero is, of course, a problem...

 

(Average CVxAverage DCx(Average DEF/4))/25 +1 per team member?

 

Easy enough but not too accurate...then you both roll 3d6, add your combat rating and the highest wins, or you go with

 

Equal roll = draw

win by 1-2 = minor victory (win but other side escape OR reduce STUN and END to 10% of maximum

win by 2-3 = normal victory (win and reduce stun and end to half normal)

win by 4 or more = major victory (win, no penalty)

This is a good idea, but I'd tweak it a bit. Rather than having both sides roll high, I'd just subtract the Opponent's score from the PCs score, treat that as the modifier, and have the PCs roll it like a skill.

 

Opponents

((5 CV x 6 DC x(10 DEF/4))/25)+10 = 13

 

Heroes

((10 CV x 12 DC x (20 DEF/4))/25)+5 = 29

 

29 - 13 = +16, so the PCs need to roll under a 27- (11 + 16) on 3d6 to win the fight (18 still auto loss?).

 

How you calculate the power rating could change, but I think the basic idea seems sound. I'd probably include average SPD, and figure out something more representative to do with numbers per side, but it seems like a decent plan.

 

If you wanted to get a bit more complex with this system, you could give PCs the option to improve their roll by using potent powers, or sacrificing body, END, whatever. Basically, if the mage is willing to use his one charge fireball for this battle, then the PCs get a +5 to their roll, or some such. Same with the fighter and sacrificing Body.

 

Personally, I'd institute strict mook rules or not fight at all. But HERO is supposed to be a toolbox right? Since we're here, we might as well figure out a good tool for this gamer.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

To me, the simple answer comes down to not running inconsequential combats at all. Maybe a formula could determine what's inconsequential, but the sheer variance in Hero characters suggests to me that there's no point.

 

The formula suggested places way too much weight on numbers, IMO. If we use 100 townsfolk with 4 defenses, 3 CV and 4 DC (which likely isn't even pitchforks), we get 12/25 + 100 = 100.48. The Supers are crushed!

 

The question I have to ask is, if the combat is inconsequential, and was desiged by the GM to be inconsequential, why do we need a formula to decide the result? It's inconsequential - why play it out?

 

Perhaps Willow can enlighten us as to the types of combat where this is an issue?

[pinecone]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Yeah, I don't see the need...if its a steamroll, I just narrate and move on...Though I'd be Very tempted to say "OK" with a smile...."OK, I'll just roll....Ohhhh, you get slammed and beat up, but manage to escape"..."Just too many mooks"......Later..."Ohhhh, you wake up in an alley, they took everything of value,including your pride".....later..."Wait one D**N minute! I want to play this one out!"....end of request....

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Where we're coming from is games like Burning Wheel, The Shadow of Yesterday, and other 'indie' games, where one-roll fights are the rule, and the game zooms into a subsystem of the rules for the "boss fights."

 

Ok, here's what I had initially came up with before: Every character has a 'combat advantage' roll. This is base 11 + the character's OCV, plus one point for every five active points of relevant advantages. There would probably be a chart to, like "highest STR" gives +1, or something like that. Then the participants make an opposed Combat Advantage roll (for multiple character fights, I picture this using the helping rules), and whoever rolls better wins.

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Should've asked this before: what genre are you playing? Something like that might work for, say, Pulp where the characters don't tend to have a lot of Powers and most attacks are either fists or guns. But I can't see how you'd work it for something like Champions.

[TaxiMan]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Don't forget to add something like "You kill X normals" to the roll. If they are fighting a ton of nobodies with super powers, there's always a chance of a diabetic triple-bypass geriatric aneurysm-laden guy in there.

 

It's only one roll, after all.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I recommend simply narrating the outcome, if only one outcome is remotely feasible. Perhaps get a few ideas from the players of what their characters may do during the fight ... but if the fight is inconsequential, AND there's no realistic chance the PCs will lose ... just narrate it.

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Genre-wise, I'm mostly looking for Fantasy Hero or high-level pulp. (See the HeroFIST info in my sig.).

 

So my way of thinking, starting with one-vs-one fights and taking it from there, is that HERO doesn't really have one skill for combat, so I'd start with 11 + OCV. So in this case, it's just an opposed skill roll. The big question is NOT what happens when you win*, but how you figure out what to roll. Problems here: OCV skill levels become really undercosted if you use this sort of thing alot, and HERO is built with a lot of crunchy, crunchy semi-intangibles.

 

*Easy: you get whatever you were really after: "I foil the bank robbery." "I get away." "I end up holding the MacGuffin." If whether or not people got hurt was important, winner gets a free hit on the loser with an attack of their choice. Little details are typically left up to GM or high roller, depending on your playstyle, interpreted based on margin of success.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I'd look at octaNe. You could mix and match into HERO somewhat easily, we've discussed but not actually done it, considering it a viable PBEM thing, perhaps. Anyway, you won't get a "single" roll most likely, but just about as reasonably quick with enough character ability interjection to be interesting, I tend to bet.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

What range of possibilities are you looking for? I think watching 3 6's come up and knowing that means "You lose - total party kill" would not make for a great long-term game.