Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

[bigdamnhero]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Genre-wise' date=' I'm mostly looking for Fantasy Hero or high-level pulp.[/quote']

That helps, thanks.

 

So my way of thinking' date=' 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. [/quote']

The problem is, that doesn't take in how much damage you do when you hit. Say you've got a Fencer squaring off with a Brick. Fencer's OCV+CSLs is 9 compared to 5 for Brick; by your system, Fencer is almost guaranteed to win. But what if Fencer's max damage is only 1d6K, and Brick is wearing 6 DEF Armour? Even putting all his skill levels into damage, it's still going to take him awhile to whittle Brick down to size. Meanwhile, Brick may miss 4 or 5 swings before he lands a blow with his 2d6K axe, but if/when he does, the unarmored Fencer is probably going down for the count. So you need to factor in Damage Class and DEF somehow.

[Doc Democracy]

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.

 

If something would result in a total party kill then you wouldn't run it as a one-roll option.

 

In HeroQuest it would be like a character taking a shortcut down an alley and someone trying to mug him. Whether they succeed or fail would have little effect on the plot in hand and the GM might not want to simply narrate him losing his gold or running through his assailant but instead provides a roll to the player.

 

What it does is allow those small actions that provide some flavour and possibly long term complications to the plot to be introduced without having to take the time to play it out.

 

The big consensus is to simply narrate it. This provides a random element - the players roll decides which narration the GM provides - often gives players the feeling that they could influence the plot advancement where a straight narration does not.

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

(Qualifier - done in a hurry at work, so this is more rough than I'd have liked, hope it gives you some ideas...actually I'm interested in developing this further for my own purposes)

 

How about something like this - just a random idea here, would need to be fleshed out...

 

A single roll is tough on a group of characters. I say go with a very limited number but retain flexibility (which octaNe, does, hence my recommendation, but here I'll try to stick with just HERO itself).

 

Each PC and NPC states a "bid", what priority thing they want to have happen and how they want it to occur. They have more tha one bid - in which case dice are divvied up among these (see below). The more dice they throw in, the more vulnerable they are as they are more engaged. A character may invest as many dice as an applicable CV/3 (or something like this), and as many Active Points from applicable powers (e.g., Summon, EB, etc.) divided by 10. Complementary powers ("I use my Summon and then wallop him with my massive RetroBlast!") get halved (cumulative - first one is halved, second one is quartered, etc.) and of course require GM (or better yet play group) approval for reasonability. Those are "attack dice." You allocate attack dice to each bid, if you have more than one.

 

Defense dice are much the same, but rolled only as attack dice are revealed against your character, if applicable. Once you know an attack is occurring, allocate DEF in the same fashion (AP/10 or more likely it needs to be AP/7.5 or such, would have to think about the right value, it's not strictly half really in terms of how defenses tend to work) and appropriate DCV/3.

 

A bid is against a goal - whether it's "grab the jewels and run" or "attack Northstar, I hate him!" It is up to the GM and play group to determine if goals are mutually exclusive or in conflict. For example, if Dreadbaby wants to "grab the jewels and go" and Hapless Protector wants to "stop the robbery," this is a clear conflict. However, if, instead, Hapless Protector (HP) had chosen, "hurt Dreadbaby!" then we could also consider these to be in conflict for all practical purposes. But if HP chose, "I want to make sure he doesn't hurt any innocents" it might be a bit more of a judgement call, depending on the character and situation - but if DB's modus operandi is reckless endangerement and given it's a superhero game, we'd probably call it a conflict (more on this below, though). But a clear non-conflict would be if HP's goal were "I am going to avoid getting hurt!" (if for whatever odd reason).

 

So characters with bids in conflict roll defense dice, as above, against each conflict coming at them. The defense dice are also divvied out - not in total against each! This means that you can also use unused powers (such as part of a VPP or a power that is flexible) and apply those to a defense. NO DICE ARE ROLLED YET - JUST BIDS MADE AND DEFENSES.

 

Once dice are dedicated to each bid, then all dice are rolled. Each "1" is bad, each "6" is good. Or count BODY damage, maybe. Compare. A difference of 0 means a stalemate, narrate accordingly. A difference of 1-2 (or such) is marginal success, the attacker gets some but not all of their goal while the defender is basically okay but also lost some of their goal or defense. A difference of 3-5 (again, just examples) are reasonable success, but the defender gets some small success along with the attacker's overall success. 6+ is total success,

 

You could factor SPD in above and indicate SPD, for example, is each 1 dice, but gets allocated according to where you want it, either a bid "attack" or as additional defense. You could do the same with other such things, if you think about it.

 

This is just an idea for development - I'm on a conference call so it's probably disjointed...

 

PS - also, the other idea which I forgot to mention is that if you put few dice in, you can never have a margin of success against you that is GREATER than the dice you put in! So if you only put in 2d6, then you can't do worse than a marginal loss. However, the victor should be able to get his full goal according to his margin of success. The idea here is that if you don't put much into stopping the jewelry robbery, you shouldn't be at risk for damage as much. Also meant to mention above that the level of successes should translate to incidental damage...like I said, too much of a hurry...but just sketching design ideas.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

If something would result in a total party kill then you wouldn't run it as a one-roll option.

 

I agree. What I'm trying to get is some sense of the range of possible results desired. If the only possible result is "Heros win; villains are dead", making even a single roll to determine that the preordained result happens seems useless. What's the worst possible result from the perspective of the player characters?

 

The big consensus is to simply narrate it. This provides a random element - the players roll decides which narration the GM provides - often gives players the feeling that they could influence the plot advancement where a straight narration does not.

 

I'd go with simple narration - if it's not really all that important, and there's no real risk to the characters, why have any rolls?

[Sean Waters]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I would have thought that you would need to start off with 'why are we having this combat', especially in a FH/pulp scenario.

 

Let us assume that we are having the fight simply to progress the story - it is LOGICAL that there are guards guarding the warehouse and through unfortunate stealth rolls or because they WANT a direct confrontation the players end up in combat.

 

What I'd do first off is have the players define a 'win goal', and I'd have each player do that. Some might want to run away, some might want to kill the enemy or, more subtly, capture one or prevent them raising an alarm. They might even WANT to get captured, albeit on their own terms.

 

When we have goals we can then decide how hard it is to acheive them. The GM would have to speak to each player, look at their abilities and those of the opponents, and guesstimate the chance of success, starting with a base assumption of 11- being about right. Also take into account any particular plan or intention as to how something might be acheived, giving bonuses or penalties as appropriate. The GM should also decide for himself, in advance, what the 'lose' condition would be - often it will be related to the players' win conditions.

 

Make the rolls, then narratively describe what happens.

 

If the player gets the task roll or less then they succeed. The higher they roll, the fewer resources they use (see below).

 

If they fail then they do not acheive what they wanted and the GM has to consider what DID happen, based on how badly they blew it.

 

The other point of a lot of combats in certain games is to wear down the PCs so that the EoLB is more of a challenge, so the other thing we need to determine is what the players lost in acheiving their goals in terms of resources. Roll on this table for each player, with the roll being modified bythe degree of success or failure:

 

8- No resources lost that are not instantly replaced (eg may have taken some stun, but recovered it all)

10- 10% resources lost in damage, ammunition etc

12- 20% resources lost in damage, ammunition etc AND took minor injury (1-2 BODY, no impairment)

14- 30% resources lost in damage, ammunition etc AND took major injury (3-4 BODY, possible impairment) OR lost some difficult to replace items

16- 40% resources lost in damage, ammunition etc AND took major injury (5-6 BODY, impairment) AND lost some difficult to replace items OR lost unique item

18- BLEW IT - GMs choice of something nasty

 

Now this is off the top of my head stuff, so do tinker, but it does address WHY you are having these combats and what the consequences are. You don't even need to make the second roll - you could make it into a straight 'level of success' consequence of the first one.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

....which is not far off what zornwil suggested

 

I really ought to read through to the end of the thread before posting...

[Willow]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

First off, I think character death is never on the table for something like this- and that goes for both PCs, and 'named' NPCs. Depending on the genre, being captured might also be a no-no. If you want to take out your nemesis for good or put your life on the line, you're going to have to do it the long way!

 

Reading Zornwil's ideas made my eyes gloss over, but it's definately going in the right direction.

 

I like Sean Water's idea- perhaps base 11- chance of victory, and then a table of modifiers, like outnumbering opponents, overpowering opponents, especially applicable powers, etc. I'll probably look over this in detail and come up with something more fleshed out.

[CraterMaker]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

The suggestions above are excellent, of course.. Another idea tho - if there is a mechanic from another game that works, port it over to your Hero game! Hero is incredibly flexible! Sometimes it takes adding something, sometimes it takes a little.. twisting.

 

So how does this one roll mechanic work in the game it appears in?

 

Another Idea - Before game starts, figure out for each character -

 

Average DC of attacks (character A has a 2d6 HKA w Str added in and an 8d6 Offensive Strike - Average DC is 7)

 

Average CV (OCV + DCV/2)

 

Active PTs in SKill Levels /5 rounded up

 

Which gives you a base Combat Rating

 

Then figure out what modifiers you want to use, like adding 2 if he has an area effect attack, adding 2 if he has a NND, adding 2 if he has FW, Subtracting 5 if he has a susceptibility or vulnerability to any of his enemies attacks, etc etc...

 

Take the Lowest Score out of the group, and add 1 for each teammate.. Do the same for the other side, then roll 3d6 for each and add their roll to their score - whoevers' is higher win, compare the difference to a chart you make up with outcomes based on what that difference is..

---------------------

What we used sometimes, tho, was one straight 3d6 roll, with the GM assigning a target number on the fly for how difficult he thought the opponents were or what he preffered the outcome to be (ssshhhh! don't ever tell players you're doing this) and then narrate the results depending on how much they either made the roll or failed the roll. It was simple, fast, and worked, so I can recommend it..

-------------

 

CraterMaker

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

One of the things that I loved about Champions when I first played it was the huge number of dice that I got to roll.

 

Why not a system where you choose a few things that are combat critical and add dice. Biggest number wins. I'd be inclined to count BODY rather than normal but whatever rocks your boat.

 

So

+1D6 per 2CV

+1D6 per 5DEF

+1D6 per 2D6 in largest attack

+1D6 per SPD over 4

-1d6 per SPD under 4

+1D6 per doubling of attackers/defenders (+1D6 for 2, 2D6 for 4, 3D6 for 8 etc)

 

Pick up all the dice and roll them. I haven't decided on levels of victory yet.

 

I think that I would count BODY - starting with 6s. At some point one side would run out of dice (meaning they lose). Every two dice (that are not 1s) after that raise the victory level

 

marginal

minor

Major

Complete

 

A marginal victory could mean that you accomplish your core goals (defend the gate) but have not accomplished the subsidiary ones (teach the attackers a lesson, take some lives(though only mooks, not named NPCs, husband your resources).

 

A minor victory builds on that. You did more damage to the attackers, used less of your own resources etc

 

A major victory goes further. You drove them off, took little or no damage, used minor or replaceable resources and probably did significant damage to your opponents and made them use significant resources.

 

Complete victory could mean that not only did you defend the gate, you made it impossible for the attackers to contemplate another attack (either because you did them so much damage or possibly even captured the enemy leader or something).

 

Defeats are similarly staged, from having the gate breached but being able to drive them off to being driven from the gate and (depending on the context of the defence of the gate being captured, allowing the castle to be captured or even your leader being captured or under threat).

 

There is a place for this kind of thing in many games but it does require the clear establishment of goals and how those goals interrelate. Sometimes a contest might have to have two stages but if it gets more complex than that it probably requires being completely played out.

 

 

Doc

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

One of the things that I loved about Champions when I first played it was the huge number of dice that I got to roll.

 

Why not a system where you choose a few things that are combat critical and add dice. Biggest number wins. I'd be inclined to count BODY rather than normal but whatever rocks your boat.

 

So

+1D6 per 2CV

+1D6 per 5DEF

+1D6 per 2D6 in largest attack

+1D6 per SPD over 4

-1d6 per SPD under 4

+1D6 per doubling of attackers/defenders (+1D6 for 2, 2D6 for 4, 3D6 for 8 etc)

 

Pick up all the dice and roll them. I haven't decided on levels of victory yet.

 

I think that I would count BODY - starting with 6s. At some point one side would run out of dice (meaning they lose). Every two dice (that are not 1s) after that raise the victory level

 

marginal

minor

Major

Complete

 

A marginal victory could mean that you accomplish your core goals (defend the gate) but have not accomplished the subsidiary ones (teach the attackers a lesson, take some lives(though only mooks, not named NPCs, husband your resources).

 

A minor victory builds on that. You did more damage to the attackers, used less of your own resources etc

 

A major victory goes further. You drove them off, took little or no damage, used minor or replaceable resources and probably did significant damage to your opponents and made them use significant resources.

 

Complete victory could mean that not only did you defend the gate, you made it impossible for the attackers to contemplate another attack (either because you did them so much damage or possibly even captured the enemy leader or something).

 

Defeats are similarly staged, from having the gate breached but being able to drive them off to being driven from the gate and (depending on the context of the defence of the gate being captured, allowing the castle to be captured or even your leader being captured or under threat).

 

There is a place for this kind of thing in many games but it does require the clear establishment of goals and how those goals interrelate. Sometimes a contest might have to have two stages but if it gets more complex than that it probably requires being completely played out.

 

Just my take on it, but this seems like movement from a tactical RPG towards a preset outcomes - roll to see your result boardgame. Using your gate example, I think a lot of the time you save in playing it out gets lost in figuring out the various modifiers, adjusting for player plans and defining or changing their victory conditions (eg. perhaps they're willing to use certain resources the GM didn't anticipate, or perhaps they're prepared to sacrifice the gate to make a guerrilla strike and capture an enemy leader).

 

To me, there are situations that don't merit playing out because the outcome is preordained, and there are situations that merit playing out because their outcomes can vary, will matter and there is a possibility for the PC's to influence the results significantly.

 

[Plus, I still dislike the idea that, when the GM starts counting phases, the players immediately know this particular "defend the gate" scenario is not routine, so they're alert for what's about to change the ground rules.]

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Just my take on it' date=' but this seems like movement from a tactical RPG towards a preset outcomes - roll to see your result boardgame. [/quote']

 

Less preset than if the GM simply narrates it surely...

 

Using your gate example' date=' I think a lot of the time you save in playing it out gets lost in figuring out the various modifiers, adjusting for player plans and defining or changing their victory conditions (eg. perhaps they're willing to use certain resources the GM didn't anticipate, or perhaps they're prepared to sacrifice the gate to make a guerrilla strike and capture an enemy leader). [/quote']

 

If I was to use this system I would have the dice for every PC worked out. The time would be taken up in deciding the objective of the group and the opposing objective of the NPCs. No modifiers, no player plans, no changing of victory conditions. Define the objective of the group, roll the dice, get voctory result and then (preferably with the co-operation of the players) decide what that level of victory (or defeat) would mean.

 

To me' date=' there are situations that don't merit playing out because the outcome is preordained, and there are situations that merit playing out because their outcomes can vary, will matter and there is a possibility for the PC's to influence the results significantly.[/quote']

 

It is a matter of style I think. I routinely see combat in my games that I'd rather skim through but would like the PCs to have some influence in deciding. This would allow me to give them a roll of the dice and a bit of discussion about the result.

 

[Plus' date= I still dislike the idea that, when the GM starts counting phases, the players immediately know this particular "defend the gate" scenario is not routine, so they're alert for what's about to change the ground rules.]

 

No argument will change that. I dont mind the metagame aspect, others will hate it. I like the fact that the players get a heads up, it is like in Feng Shui when an NPC has a name!

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

....which is not far off what zornwil suggested

 

I really ought to read through to the end of the thread before posting...

It's certainly sufficiently different than what I posted, though, I'm glad you did. And for once, strangely, I think you chose a more abstract approach than I did, even if only by degrees!

 

DD's is more similar to mine, similar enough it's for all intents and purposes essentially the same approach. What I would want to do whether using his or mine would be to develop it just a bit for multi-stage bidding/bringing things in out of reaction, and I would want to avoid "largest attack," rather allowing as I noted for complementary attacks or the like. As to multi-stage bidding, I mean something such as, once I have played my "Thunderous Quake" dice and dice for CV/SPD, etc., you might in your defense throw up "Amazing Resistance to Kinetic Damage" which makes you impervious, effectively. So maybe Quake guy can then raise the ante by throwing in dice for his "Molten Lava Blast," and Kinetic Resistance guy can throw in other defs as appilcable. Something like this. I will have to think more about it, this could be nice for not-quite-tactical but not-entirely-one-roll conflicts, without having to depart from HERO's sheets and revamping anything overtly on those.

 

However, overall, Sean's is probably the simplest and quickest general approach. It depends a lot what level of abstraction/detail you want to play at.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Reading Zornwil's ideas made my eyes gloss over' date=' [/quote']

 

I have that effect on people....

 

I like Sean Water's idea- perhaps base 11- chance of victory, and then a table of modifiers, like outnumbering opponents, overpowering opponents, especially applicable powers, etc. I'll probably look over this in detail and come up with something more fleshed out.

 

Just one more thing to add on this, bear in mind the bell curve and how to balance against that so it's not immediately/always lop-sided. Just a thought in advance, you'd encounter it anyway in tweaking.

[SpydirShellX]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I like Zornwil's (and to some extent Sean Waters's) ideas on the quick resolve.

 

Zornwil has what sounds like a nice system, but it looks to me like it's no longer doing a single roll - not even one per character.

 

Here's a slight variation on the idea -

 

Each character (or character group for weak NPCS) gets a number of points. The character may get more dice if they want to use expendable abilities - abilities that cost charges - (like from Sean's system, except that the use of charges is the player's choice.)

Points can be allocated to:

- 1 point of Character survival defense.

- 1 Chacacter goal dice.

 

The goal dice are rolled and normal BODY is counted.

If it is something that directly affects a particular character or that they might choose to block they can apply the defense to it.

Once all the defense is applied the remaining BOD of the goal dice is applied toward the goal.

Some goals may have more or less points required to achieve. However each goal BOD done should have some affect.

 

For example, if the objective is to kill a character - you may need 3 BOD, but lesser amounts would mean some damage occurs.

If the object is to knock out a bunch of weak NPCs you may need 1 BOD for one + 1 BOD for each doubling of NPCs. Less the the number needed may let some escape.

If your object is to protect NPCs - the character might put all his dice into defence and defend against the goal.

 

Note that I didn't put in an order to where the goals are declared or when defenses are chosen to be applied. You may choose to have suprise goals or declare defenses before rolls. Or you may let them apply as they come up. My preferance would be:

1) Declare goals.

2) Allocate points for or against each goal. I would have players allocate them hidden (and use dice - put dice her to help this goal, here to oppose this goal and so forth)

3) Roll dice.

This method means one set of dice is rolled for each goal - generally less sets of dice than there are players.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Here's another tack that you might take to resolve things quickly, albeit certainly not with a single roll: spotlighting.

 

You know how, in comics and often in movies, even where there are groups present, very often the author concentrates on just one or two characters, with the rest in peripheral or supporting roles?

 

Well, what you could do is pick one character for each non-critical combat and have them face off against and fight one or more members of the opposition, with the result reflecting the result for the entire group.

 

I do appreciate that this is not the original intent, but it struck me as a way in which you could maintain the good bits of combat (and I do like Hero combat) but remove the bad bits, or at least the bits that can make it seems low and disjointed - i.e. alternating through a sizeable group of heroes and villains.

 

This will give each combat an individual flavour, and assuming you just rotate through the group, everyone gets a go.

 

Should be quite cinematic and pretty quick as you are probably only making a quarter of the rolls - but it does retain that real danger without any perceived arbitraryness of the single roll.

 

The character does not necessarily have to defeat their opponent - there might be other goals - distract him for 3 turns, stay alive for 2 turns, defeat him within 4 turns, escape from your opponent, stop him escaping or whatever else is appropriate.

 

Quite cinematic, quite quick and easy to do, and doesn't require any totting up of theoretical combat effectiveness. It's worth thinking about anyway

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I like Zornwil's (and to some extent Sean Waters's) ideas on the quick resolve.

 

Zornwil has what sounds like a nice system, but it looks to me like it's no longer doing a single roll - not even one per character.

 

Here's a slight variation on the idea -

 

Each character (or character group for weak NPCS) gets a number of points. The character may get more dice if they want to use expendable abilities - abilities that cost charges - (like from Sean's system, except that the use of charges is the player's choice.)

Points can be allocated to:

- 1 point of Character survival defense.

- 1 Chacacter goal dice.

 

The goal dice are rolled and normal BODY is counted.

If it is something that directly affects a particular character or that they might choose to block they can apply the defense to it.

Once all the defense is applied the remaining BOD of the goal dice is applied toward the goal.

Some goals may have more or less points required to achieve. However each goal BOD done should have some affect.

 

For example, if the objective is to kill a character - you may need 3 BOD, but lesser amounts would mean some damage occurs.

If the object is to knock out a bunch of weak NPCs you may need 1 BOD for one + 1 BOD for each doubling of NPCs. Less the the number needed may let some escape.

If your object is to protect NPCs - the character might put all his dice into defence and defend against the goal.

 

Note that I didn't put in an order to where the goals are declared or when defenses are chosen to be applied. You may choose to have suprise goals or declare defenses before rolls. Or you may let them apply as they come up. My preferance would be:

1) Declare goals.

2) Allocate points for or against each goal. I would have players allocate them hidden (and use dice - put dice her to help this goal, here to oppose this goal and so forth)

3) Roll dice.

This method means one set of dice is rolled for each goal - generally less sets of dice than there are players.

That sounds pretty good. Yeah, I willingly went beyond the original requirement, mainly for fluidity and for maintaining a bit of "HEROese" without going so far as HERO tactical combat.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

If the fight is non-essential' date=' why does it need to be resolved?[/quote']

 

Exactly. Just narrate it with a capsule summary and move on. GMing 101.

[Mr. Negative]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

I like Sean Water's idea- perhaps base 11- chance of victory, and then a table of modifiers, like outnumbering opponents, overpowering opponents, especially applicable powers, etc. I'll probably look over this in detail and come up with something more fleshed out.

 

If you like Sean's idea, you might want to treat non-essential combats kind of like Presence Attacks, and somewhat related to the resolution system in the Amber RPG. The PC's declare, roughly, what they are doing:

 

"I'm going to beat these guys up using my superior Karate training."

 

or

 

"Since we need to be quiet, let's sneak up on them and use silenced pistols."

 

You decide what the opposition is using to respond.

 

"These guys aren't well trained, but there sure are a lot of them."

 

or

 

"Well, once you peg someone, everyone else is going to take cover and open fire".

 

Give each side some dice to roll, more based on their capabilities and good ideas, and count Body. Highest BODY total wins.

 

Presence attacks already require the GM to make judgement calls on stuff like whether the PCs are more powerful or less powerful than the opposition, and whether the actions are violent or incredibly violent.

 

Just let them describe it, rate it, and roll:

 

"You decided to try to attack the gun-wielding gangsters by charging across the street shouting and then punching them. You roll 3d6, they roll 6d6."

 

"You decided to call out the karate-goons by striding boldly down the alley and picking out the toughest ones to fight with your best fighters. You roll 4d6, they roll 2d6".

 

This system still requires all the judgement and handwaving, but it does allow PCs to suffer unexpected defeats (and unanticipated victories). Plus, it relates to an already familiar aspect of the game (Presence Attacks) and encourages and rewards creative and descriptive role-playing while penalizing thoughtless or boring players.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Exactly. Just narrate it with a capsule summary and move on. GMing 101.

As it is non-essential, is the capsule summary derived:

- by the GM

- by the players

- by cooperative non-rules narration?

 

I feel like calling this "GM 101" makes it sound as if the thread-starter is ignorant or not performing adequate GM tasks. His query is pretty sound in my mind and relates to the desire to still game the task out so that GM versus player narration is determined - which I could also claim is "GM 101" if I were more accustomed to certain kinds of games other than HERO.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

As it is non-essential, is the capsule summary derived:

- by the GM

- by the players

- by cooperative non-rules narration?

 

I feel like calling this "GM 101" makes it sound as if the thread-starter is ignorant or not performing adequate GM tasks. His query is pretty sound in my mind and relates to the desire to still game the task out so that GM versus player narration is determined - which I could also claim is "GM 101" if I were more accustomed to certain kinds of games other than HERO.

 

Who really cares who or how it is resolved so long as it is resolved quickly and the story moves forward?

 

Unimportant is unimportant.

 

Resolve it however you like and move on to things that are important.

 

And Im sorry, but moving the story along in an entertaining fashion is GMing 101. If you don't know how to progress the game in a smooth fashion, then you are not performing "adequate" GM tasks.

 

There is nothing wrong w/ asking if you don't understand how to do it, but it is a very basic question.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

As it is non-essential, is the capsule summary derived:

- by the GM

- by the players

- by cooperative non-rules narration?

 

To me, the players describe what they wish to do, and the GM adjudicates. So the players might simply say "We'll call out the karate-goons by striding boldly down the alley and picking out the toughest ones to fight with our best fighters"

 

The GM can move this into full combat, or simply say "After a brief skirmish, it is clear that you are the superior fighters. A few of the goons lie unconscious in the alley, and the rest have chosen to flee." The former is for a seriouis challenge and the latter for an inconsequential bout.

[Robyn]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Who really cares who or how it is resolved so long as it is resolved quickly and the story moves forward?

 

The players might care. Though the story may move forward immediately, group interaction issues may arise in the long term, based on how it is handled by the GM. In theory the group may be able to work out a method that is satisfactory for all, but in practice the group may fall apart due to such tensions before they figure something out.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

Who really cares who or how it is resolved so long as it is resolved quickly and the story moves forward?

 

Unimportant is unimportant.

 

Resolve it however you like and move on to things that are important.

 

And Im sorry, but moving the story along in an entertaining fashion is GMing 101. If you don't know how to progress the game in a smooth fashion, then you are not performing "adequate" GM tasks.

 

There is nothing wrong w/ asking if you don't understand how to do it, but it is a very basic question.

Let's define "unimportant." In this case, the original post really asks us about conflicts that are "non-essential", and specifically to the point where players do not want to use detailed conflict rules but they prefer a quick resolution and move along. So we're talking about conflicts that, by themselves, will not change the course of the overall plot or decide any particular great fate, but are of interest to the players enough that they still want the conflict to be driven by a chance element and to color the simulation by that; in other words, it is non-essential, yes, but not irrelevant to the characters and/or players.

 

It's much like in a supers game where PCs encounter a group of thugs. The PCs will overwhelm the thugs, we might well know/expect/depend upon, but just how will that interaction take shape? Some groups love to play this out in great detail for the fun of it, because they enjoy this, it is not non-important to them in terms of player (as opposed to character) desires. Sometimes GMs love to let players do this so they remember/bask in just how powerful their characters are, and to strike the contrast to real challenges, demonstrate that not every conflict is hard, etc.. Some groups just narrate by joint (brief) discussion according to their desires from a pure story standpoint. Some groups just ignore it ("of course you trash them"), moving on with no influences on the characters or players. Some groups, such as this request begs, perform an abstraction of combat to see just how it takes shape, as the thugs may not be utterly useless and it might be interesting, both to characters and story, as to whether they are entirely caught versus one escaping or the like. This can become an even more interesting discussion in, say, a pulp or other lower-powered game, where in fact the PCs will and can easily trounce the thug, but we wonder if one might get away, but it isn't worth player investment of 15 minutes of tactical combat.

 

And besides which, if we have purely a sort of "I"m better" chest-beating fight between 2 characters (PC and NPC, PC and PC, whichever, really), one which is either entirely non-essential to the plot at hand in the result or otherwise having stakes of interest but not life-or-death, but either way of some importance to character development or at least establishing "hey, who did win?", we don't want or need tactical combat (potentially, I mean) as neither character will be killed or even seriously (at least in terms of suffering on-screen consequences) injured. So a one-roll or otherwise abstracted but chance-driven process might be just the ticket. This could even be more important when 2 super-teams get into such a conflict, such as the Justice League meets and gets into a fight with the Avengers. As players in this story we might be extremely aware that there can't/won't be any "real" fall-out to this, but we want to know who did better, who got trapped. A good example is where Spiderman drops in on the Fantastic Four as recently referenced somewhere. Of course you could apply non-supers examples as easily.

 

That said, I am by no means claiming that pure narration or tactical detailed combat is at all wrong, either. Just depends on taste. And to that point, some groups have tastes such as Willow cited where they like this idea of 1-roll combat for something as this.

 

Personally, I like the idea a lot for PBEM conflicts that are non-essential and still consider whether something like this might be interesting in F2F play for some little conflicts that are color, essentially, and while non-essential still become interesting little fun moments for players. Though I don't really have a problem with detailed tactical combat for these, either, as I find it easy to just do a fast-and-loose conflict, too.

[zornwil]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

To me, the players describe what they wish to do, and the GM adjudicates. So the players might simply say "We'll call out the karate-goons by striding boldly down the alley and picking out the toughest ones to fight with our best fighters"

 

The GM can move this into full combat, or simply say "After a brief skirmish, it is clear that you are the superior fighters. A few of the goons lie unconscious in the alley, and the rest have chosen to flee." The former is for a seriouis challenge and the latter for an inconsequential bout.

What if the players say,"I think we might have caught them all? Why didn't we?"

 

(I can imagine lots of fine answers besides resorting to abstacted conflict, just interested in your opinion.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Resolving a Combat in One Roll?

 

What if the players say,"I think we might have caught them all? Why didn't we?"

 

(I can imagine lots of fine answers besides resorting to abstacted conflict, just interested in your opinion.)

 

If the precise details of the resolution are considered critical, then the situation should be played out. Alternatively, the GM might state that, since you called out the toughest goons, the others backed off to give them room to fight. When the result quickly became clear, they took off.

 

At some point, the lack of detailed play-out will mean there are possibilities not explored. If the players wich the full measure of control they would have playing the events out phase by phase, the only practical way to achieve that is to play it out phase by phase.