Dragon Warriors

Here's an idea: instead of players making attack rolls for their characters and the referee making attack rolls for everyone else, why not have players make attack rolls for themselves and, when they are attacked, make defense rolls for themselves as well?

The math is pretty simple, and the stats for players don't change at all. Their Defense score is the base number that they have to roll at or under to avoid being hit when targeted. That number is modified by something I'll call the "attack modifier" of their opponent. That attack modifier is equal to their foe's Attack score subtracted from 20.

As an example, say a giant beetle (Attack 17) targets an average 1st rank Mystic (Defense 6). To avoid the insect's attack, the Mystic's player needs to roll a 9 or less. The math is 6 + (20 - 17).

I have some other related ideas about this approach, but I get into those, I'm curious about your thoughts on this approach.

If you allow critical hits to be applied to players, you would need to include a roll of 20 being a 'fumble' (the opponent critically hits you), and a roll of 1 being an automatic defence.

I'm not sure about the psychology of rolling to defend - when a blow gets through, it places more emphasis on the player 'failing' to stop the hit, rather than the opponent 'succeeding'. Although mechanically the same, the latter is easier for a player to shrug off as 'not their fault', as they didn't roll the die. A subtle difference, but one that can impact fun and player morale in the long term.

Sure. That's no problem at all.


That's a perspective I hadn't considered. What in your view is the distinction between rolls that a player might fail and shrug off and rolls that a player might fail and not shrug off?

That's interesting.. in my own games I use a mix:

Players roll their own attack, magical attack, spell speed, stealth rolls

GM rolls NPC attacks, stealth rolls (so it's stealthy and players can't meta-game that something is going on)

Players do however roll against Magical attack and Speed. From my point of view it's "leaving your own fate in your own hands(dice)" so the GM can't be accused of fudging dice rolls. I think they prefer that and tend not to feel bad if they fail their own dice roll, because THEY rolled it, with their own dice (player superstitions and all come into play I guess "I'll use my dice that always roll high to try to evade this energy bolt!" etc)

I've seen it used in d20 games, and it's a good way to empower the players - it stops the GM fudging the rolls, for better or for worse - but it can cause problems if players get frustrated because they tend to fail their rolls and get hit more than they hit. I think that is perhaps more likely to happen in a system like Dragon Warriors, where it's difficult to increase your Defence and Defence is used up when attacked by multiple enemies, than in the d20 system.

Cheers,

Gary

_________________
Home Page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gwzjohnson
Exemplars Campaign Resources: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~gwzjohnson/exemplars.htm
Fantasy Role-Playing Game Page: http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pelari

Currently on the piss after meeting up with the local st andrews society/scottish get pissed society... so my powers of recollection are not strong at this moment.

Palladium fantasy has a system of parry rolls vs strike rolls. I like that. One reason why I like dragwars and palladium is how skilled individuals can throw up their defence. Right now I can barely recall the process, but I do like an 'active parry' thing. The alternative was to 'dodge' which was a move function rather than the 'auto parry' reflex action.

I like this approach. I might even want to convert some dragwarrrios plaryrs to palladium fantasy..

_________________
Speech!





And so the show begins!!!
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dwp ... ssages/640

It's purely psychological, and it's effect on players depends on how they view their own influence on the roll of the die.

To put it simply, a negative event originating from a 3rd party is easier to accept than a negative event originating personally. If I roll the dice and I fail to defend, it's interpreted as 'Player Failure', while if the GM rolls the dice and succeeds in the attack (mechanically the same thing), it's interpreted as 'GM/Opponent Success'.

Opponent Success is less personal - it's removed from the player, so absolves them of some responsibility, and also lessens the sting of failure (as it wasn't their 'fault').

People tend to look at the act of rolling the die as the arbiter, rather than probability.

Again, it's a very subtle distinction, but over time it may have an impact on player morale, depending on the individual.

wimlach, thanks for your explanation. It's an interesting theory. Also interesting is that when I asked my group of players about whether they'd prefer to roll for defense or have me make attack rolls against them, given the same odds either way, they favored rolling for defense. In light of what you've suggested, I wonder if that would hold true after an extended playtest.

Either way, I do want to share an idea that I came up with while working out the Defense Roll system. If players are making a Defense Roll, rolling a 20 would, as noted previously, result in their character being critically hit. However, if they roll a 1, they would achieve a critical success themselves. This "perfect defense" might allow them to disarm their opponent, get a free attack of their own, or some similar benefit.

Furthermore, when highly defensively skilled PCs are attacked by much less skill opponents, the PCs "critical success" range would expand. If the player's target number (i.e., their Defense + their foe's "attack modifier") is 19-24, they'd achieve a perfect defense on a 1 or a 2. If the target number is 25-30, a perfect defense is achieved on a roll of 1, 2, or 3.

Off-hand, I think this system would provide a slight advantage to the players while also giving them something to get excited about other than just avoiding an attacker's strike. Thoughts?

I note this would make disarming much easier. At the moment only a Master Knight with the correct combat technique can do it, when his opponent critically fails his Attack roll and then the Knight rolls over his opponent's rank on 3d6.

Cheers,

-Kyle