Friday, January 15, 2021

Determining To Hit

While pondering my raging D6 vs D12 debate, I recognized that changing the die type would affect the modifiers to the to hit number. Before I explain that issue, though, I thought I should explain how my to hit system works.

Getting Hit

Dungeons & Dragons, the first and most popular role playing game, bases the to hit number on the defender's armor. It's harder to hit someone with heavy armor and easier to hit someone without armor. I have a problem with that approach.

Let's demonstrate my reservations with a video.

In D&D, the heavily-armored guards should have had no trouble hitting the unarmored fencing master with his [old school] AC of 9. Yet they can't touch him until his wooden sword is broken. Clearly, armor is not the main determinant on whether he got hit; it is skill and experience.

Now, I know that D&D uses hit points as an abstract measure of defensive acumen. Syrio would have a lot of hit points so it would take a while for the guards to whittle him down. But that turns combat into a very attritional game, with more record-keeping. I wanted to get away from tracking a lot of hit points.

This led me to a different take on determining hits. The To Hit number would depend on the relative experience of the combatants. A master would have an easier time hitting a novice but the novice would be lucky to hit back.

In game terms, this means I compare the combatant's levels, which range from 1 (novice) to 6 (legend). If the combatants are equal in levels, then there is no modifier to the base to hit number (4+ on a D6). A difference of 1-2 levels results in an advantage or disadvantage (effectively + or -1 on the roll). More than 2 level difference is a significant advantage or disadvantage (+/-2). In practice, the system is simple and quick.

What About Armor?

You'll notice that armor has no impact on getting hit in my system. Instead, I assume that armor reduces damage if you get hit.

Right now, I divide armor into 2 broad categories - light and heavy. No armor gives a disadvantage to the save roll while heavy armor adds an advantage. Failing the save results in a wound.

And Shields?

Initially, I treated shields as armor, which reduces damage. But I am experimenting with shields affecting the to hit roll. Realistically it makes sense. I use a shield to prevent you from hitting me. But in practical game terms I think it is easier if shields add to the armor bonus for saving. I haven't decided which way to go.

But How Does the Dice Type Affect All This?

My system assumes a 50% chance to hit if there are no modifiers. With a D6, this means that I can only after 2 levels of advantage or disadvantage. For example, a novice attacking a master would need 4+2 = 6 to hit. If there were another level, then there would be no chance for the novice to hit, which may be realistic but is no fun.

Note: This example shows one of the advantages of a D12. A 1 in 6 (16%) chance seems too high for a novice to hit a master. A 1 in 12 (8%) chance is better. For more realism, I probably should use percentile dice and give the novice 1-2%! But I don't want to go that route.

If I switch to D12, I can add more levels of advantage. If the base to hit is 7+, I can have 5 levels of difference - more granularity but in practical terms this seems to require more detailed record keeping and calculations. I'm trying to keep it simple, and D12 seems to negate that.

I have a similar issue with armor. Using D12 allows more categories (padded armor, leather armor, maille, plate + other variations), but introduces more complexity.

Ultimately, my D6 vs D12 dilemma seems to boil down to the level of complexity I want. Part of more wants more granularity, but I am really enjoying the simplicity of a rules light system.

15 comments:

  1. W.r.t. combat resolution, there are a lot of fators to play with:
    1. accuracy of scoring a hit
    2. avoidance of being hit
    3. mitigating damage
    4. accumulation/endurance of damage

    In the end, you always end up with a statistical process with an expected value for how much damage is caused. Whether armour influences any of the stages mentioned above, is more a matter of personal taste rather than inherent realism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hello Kevin,

    granularity Vs simplicity is ongoing. My own SF RPG started off a little like a simplified Traveller and now is so stripped back after 5 years it is 1d6 resolution with one statistic! I also have moved to 1d6 to resolve both to hit and damage and has it so a fail means the opponent hit. A round of combat resolved with one dice. Very much simple! Not trying to sway you to 1d6 at all :-) Actually, it is all personal preference and I can easily see myself flicking back to more granularity when the simplicity gets too much!

    I also think the chance of the expert hitting 5 times more often (2+ I think it would be under your system) that a novice (on a 6) seems fine and not untoward.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Shaun! You should really put your 4Dice SciFi rules out into the world. I've been enjoying the 1.0a version without any modifications for a bit now.

      Delete
    2. I have a draft blog post nearly ready to go. I also created another version of my rules but included 3 skills and limited them and item usage against certain classes of opposition. And added in out of fight chance on a critical failure. For a bit more complication it adds a bit more "realism" (that is only in the eye of the beholder). Anyway, I will endeavour to post both rules in the next few days.

      Delete
    3. Managed to spend a bit of tie editing them and finishing the blog post tonight and just posted them. Off to bed.

      https://solostellarstories.blogspot.com/2021/01/introducing-4-dice-sf-rpg-two-versions.html

      Shawn - 4 Dice SF RPG is the same as what I sent you months ago with a few more optional rules.

      Delete
    4. Thanks Shaun. I glanced at them but haven't had a chance to do a full read through

      Delete
  3. Phil, I like the scheme you laid out. Now D&D pushes the impact of a defender's ability to step 4, but in my fencing / LARPing experience it feels more realistic to me for it to be in step 2. Personal preference of course.

    Shaun, I am leaning more and more toward the simplicity of the D6. But there is just something appealing about the D12.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello Kevin,
    I'm a first-time poster here. I am retired and discovered wargaming as a hobby about 3 years ago. I work at it vigorously now. I was rummaging around the internet for more blogs and ideas and came across a campaign concept you had called Francesia. It looked remarkably like something I have been working on using the old boardgame Risk. I started to explore some of the posts in your blog and I see you talk about a wargame ruleset you developed called MicroBattle. What intrigues me about your blog is that a lot of the concepts of good wargames and campaigns, as well as your overall wargaming philosophy (sort of like "less is more"? KISS?), is right up my alley. And my favorite author Bob Cordery seems to be one of yours. So I will be spending more time here I see. I think I can learn a lot, and maybe contribute here and there. May I ask if you have the Francesia and MicroBattle rulesets posted where they can be picked up and tried? I'd love to give them a go.

    Thanks, and happy wargaming
    Dale

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Kevin, back again. Franzesia gave me the idea to come up with something like it that was percolating in the back of my mind. I finished it, tried it a couple of times, and was happy with the result. It's called Generic Wars. A solo campaign mechanism for ANY period. Up to the player to set that up. The "rules" are posted in my blog "dalethewargamer" if you are interested. Once I finished that project, I went back to ancients and DBA. Again inspired by your philosophy of simplicity, I kept some things I liked from DBA and discarded the nitpicky trivia. Simple worked out so much better. Finally, I've been in my Napoleonic phase. Not being thrilled with rules I was playing with, I remembered MicroBattle2021. So I printed out the rules and have been trying them out on massed battles (could be Corps level or Division level, I don't fuss). About 6 infantry units, 2 cavalry units, and 2 artillery units. The rules worked out GREAT! Seriously, they are so much fun, simple, and rich in tactical decision-making! Just what I am looking for. I don't want to spend time painting uniform coats, or looking up effective firing ranges of the Mumfenhausen musket, I just want to play the battle as the general of each side. I tweaked a little here and there and will play several more battles. I'll get back to you with how it worked. Thanks,
      Dale

      Delete
    2. Hi Dale. Glad to hear you're having fun. That's what it's all about. I'm following your blog. I don't have time to check it out now but looking forward to perusing it when I have free time.

      Delete
  5. Hi Dale,
    Welcome to the hobby! I'm glad you have found some use from my rather meandering posts. I am definitely of the KISS frame of mind, and thoroughly enjoy Bob Cordery's stuff. I had posted the MicroBattle rules back in April, but I have revised them considerably since then. I never posted my Francesia campaign rules. Give me a little time and I will create new posts with the latest versions of both.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks Kevin. A quick look at your post about Francesia, as well as the MicroBattle rules, have given me a lot of great ideas already. I've been playing ancients lately. I had settled in on DBA as the best ruleset for me. I found DBA 3.0 a bit too fussy (too much stuff to keep up with). I went back to DBA 1.0 and like it better, even though Barkerese is tough to get through. Still, I always felt there was something missing. Your blog made me realize I had forgotten to go back to basics, and let simple be rule of the day. So I'm modifying DBA rules to keep what I like, simplify it, and probably enjoy it more. I'll probably incorporate MicroBattle ideas. At any rate, more later. For now, plenty of great ideas to tinker with.

    I do look forward to the Francesia rules when you get to it.
    Thanks, and happy wargaming.

    Dale

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hello Dale,

      We need to talk :-) I am not a big fan of DBA but really prefer 1.0 over all the other versions. In fact I prefer DBSA, the pre-cursor to DBA. It has no bow ranges which I have come to like for these really small battles. But I think it needs a few more troop types (such as Heavy infantry with bows). If I remember, I will send you what I have done with DBSA; just need to tidy it up a bit.

      And Kevin, I do like MicroBattles and have them, DBSA modded and my own rules on the list to give a go on a 6x6 or 8x8 grid.

      Delete
    2. I used to be a big DBA fan (I still have my original copy of 1.0 purchased via snail mail back in the early 90s and even posted about it at https://warwellwg.blogspot.com/2015/02/retrospective-dba.html). I have since moved on to other rules. Still not a bad set.

      All I have on Francesia is posted on the MicroBattles - Scenarios and Campaigns post. At the time I used a now missing variant of the Command & Colors rules for the battles. But one could easily run a Francesia-style campaign using MicroBattle for the battle rules.

      Delete