Static Defense

[~HANZO~]

While I thing D6 RAW is pretty good I can see a lot of rolling. Roll to hit, Roll defense, Roll damage, And then roll wound resistance.

While this is ok I'm toying with an idea to speed this up just a little. Making a few of these values static. (An idea borrowed from another system I really like).

For example Instead of the defending player rolling for dodge or parry as a defense I think a static difficulty "to be hit" might work nicely.

I was thinking about making this 10+dodge skill die for dodge. So if you had a dodge skill of 5D your dodge would be 15. A roll of 15 is needed to hit you with ranged or while you are fighting in a balanced stance. If you were dedicating your entire turn to dodging or running in a way to keep from allowing an enemy a clear shot at you, you would double your dodge skill bonus for dodge of 20.

If you are in melee you would use your parry. Which is equal to 10+your weapon skill. If you are using your whole turn to just fend off and defend against melee attacks you would again double your weapon skill.

This is all just off the top of my head. Still working on it.

[cheshire]

If your goal is to speed things up, then that would do it. However, I would suggest making the formula #D x 3.5 (rounded down) + pips. So if it was 5D the static number would be 17. If it was 5D+2, it would be 19. I feel that the 3.5 gives them a fair trade for their CP investment.

[~HANZO~]

If your goal is to speed things up, then that would do it. However, I would suggest making the formula #D x 3.5 (rounded down) + pips. So if it was 5D the static number would be 17. If it was 5D+2, it would be 19. I feel that the 3.5 gives them a fair trade for their CP investment.

Sounds pretty good. Its just an idea I was toying around with. More toys in the sand box the better I figure.

I also like the idea of having a standard "to hit" number that is just adjusted by range and conditions like lighting, movement, ect.

But I though having the "to hit" number for melee based on your opponent weapon skill was well worth a look too.

[Grimace]

When I have more time I will post about the plusses and minuses of static defense numbers. To boil it down to the barest minimum, it all depends on what sort of feel you want with the game.

I'll post more when I can.

[wraith]

While I thing D6 RAW is pretty good I can see a lot of rolling. Roll to hit, Roll defense, Roll damage, And then roll wound resistance.

While this is ok I'm toying with an idea to speed this up just a little. Making a few of these values static. (An idea borrowed from another system I really like).

For example Instead of the defending player rolling for dodge or parry as a defense I think a static difficulty "to be hit" might work nicely.

I was thinking about making this 10+dodge skill die for dodge. So if you had a dodge skill of 5D your dodge would be 15. A roll of 15 is needed to hit you with ranged or while you are fighting in a balanced stance. If you were dedicating your entire turn to dodging or running in a way to keep from allowing an enemy a clear shot at you, you would double your dodge skill bonus for dodge of 20.

If you are in melee you would use your parry. Which is equal to 10+your weapon skill. If you are using your whole turn to just fend off and defend against melee attacks you would again double your weapon skill.

This is all just off the top of my head. Still working on it.

I like this idea. When you finalize it you should add it to the wiki as a house rule. I think it would suit some games better than the standard dodge mechanics.

[shadowmane]

Hmmm... if you doubled that dodge skill, it would be 30, not 20. But I like the idea. It would cut down on all that rolling.

[~HANZO~]

Hmmm... if you doubled that dodge skill, it would be 30, not 20. But I like the idea. It would cut down on all that rolling.
The dodge skill is 5D. So that would be 10 doubled. Then add ten.

I'm still working on the numbers. The whole thing started from a conversation with a friend about to many rolls against average goons. How nice it would be to have a system like this for them and use RAW for named NPCs.

cheshire's x3.5+ pips looks good through out the possible skill range so far too.-

[retriever]

I definitely support the static defense idea in the right situation, and I'm glad to see that others don't feel it's too anti-D6. I've been toying with it for a D6-based HeroQuest-type game, to simplify the rolls involved. In fact, I think the best system for my purposes involves static values for both defense and damage, so that the attacker rolls to hit, then the defender rolls to resist damage if the attacker hits.

And cheshire's 3.5x suggestion is right on.

[Grimace]

Okay, I've got some time, so I'll put in my thoughts on static defense/parry.

First off, it can work, but realize that it alters the flow of the way battle works. By making defense and parries a static number, it becomes much easier to determine if targets are hit. This does, in fact, speed up combat a fair bit. However, it also creates a slight problem.

One thing, when you have static defense, you basically make the use of defensive skills pretty much worthless. You had proposed adding 10 to the amount of dice in the skill. Think of how that would work in character creation and advancement. A starting character could begin with a base 10 (no skill in Dodge), an 11 (1D in Dodge), or a 12 (2D in Dodge). Now, at the cost of 2 of the starting 7 dice in skills, a character has increased their static difficulty to be hit by a whole 2 points. Not that great of a return for them. In an increasing growth of the skill, a player would be looking at spending 27 character points to increase the Dodge skill up to 5D. This would increase the static defense from 12 to 15. So a whole 3 point growth in defense for the expense of 27 character points.

Perhaps you can see the problem. Most players aren't going to invest character points in something that's not really worth all that much to them. Nor will they likely invest too much into a Dodge or Parry skill during character generation because the skill dice could be better used elsewhere. By spending more dice in such skills as combat skills (blasters/rifle) or into observation based skills so they can see the danger before they get shot at.

Basically, in order to go from a base 10 defense to a 15 defense (a whole 5 point difference), it would take 2 starting skill dice and 27 character points to get there. Not the best return on all the effort. This is especially bad if you've played regular D6 with those players and they've previously rolled 5D in Dodge and got 20 or more on the roll.

If you've got people who've never played regular D6, or who are fully aware of the lack of any overt action on their part being able to help their character dodge things, then you'll be fine.

Altering the amount to 3.5 per D is good, but then you have to figure out what your base is going to be for people who don't take the Dodge skill or Parry skill. Do you use the attribute? Or do you pick a base 3 or use the suggested base difficulty due to range (5 for short, 10 for medium, 15 for long)? If you can figure out what you're going to do for unskilled people's defense vs. a skilled person's defense, then using the 3.5 per D is a good alternative to a 10+D#.

What turning those skills into static numbers does in game terms is the following: It cuts out 1 roll per shot. It speeds up, ever so slightly, the resolution of shots hitting or missing in that players will be able to find out that X NPC is defense 8 therefore any to hit roll they do they automatically know it hits. No more wondering if they've hit. No more having to wait for the GM to roll dodge (or vice versa, for the player to roll dodge) to announce whether the target was hit or not.

It also removes one option of the players to do something to "save" their character. Now they can't decide to dodge a shot and spend character points to make sure their character isn't hit. Instead, the GM rolls and gets more than the static defense and the character is hit. Now only the damage resistance roll can be used to "save" their character. While making defense static isn't as detrimental as making damage resistance static, it does remove one way for players to attempt to save their character in a combat situation.

Now there are settings and games where it simply either makes sense to have static defense (one where combat isn't the main focus so you want to gloss over that effect when it comes up), and there are settings where things may be much more dangerous for the characters and the actions of those characters are limited to an extent in order to streamline the play. So I can see using static defense if the setting is right or the need is there for a specific reason. I wouldn't, however, suggest making this an "across the board" change in your games.

The "feel" of combat in games can vary. Some may be more gritty. Some may be more cinematic. Making all defense static reduces the cinematic feel as well as some options for players. So be sure that when you're utilizing it you're doing it for a reason beyond "speeding up the game". Make sure the game setting you're running that rule in fits the feel that it conveys.

And from my own personal experience, you probably do not want to turn damage resistance into a static number either. While it would also reduce the amount of dice rolled and speed up combat, it takes away a relatively important aspect of D6 that allows for the player the ability to help save his character. The lack of options by making it static can frustrate some gamers familiar with the way D6 normally works.

Hopefully this helps you with some insight on the matter. It's not a terrible idea, but it should be done with caution and some definite forethought as to what type of setting it should be used in.

[Whill]

Thanks for the in-depth response, Grimace!

Am I the only kook here that actually enjoys rolling dice and adding them up? Does anyone else here but me enjoy the randomness that rolling dice provides, including to dodge? Occasionally, that randomness will result in a character with a low dodge miraculously not getting hit by the sqaud of stormtroopers. It will also occasionally get a dodge pro hit by a bumbling bounty hunter. That's cinematic adventure. Twists and turns that randomness provide. Yes, I can see how removing randomness may serve some games, but none of the games I would be interested in playing.

No offense, but to me, making something as intramental to cinematic adventure gaming as dodge a static mechanic is like letting the air out of your tires before you drive your car.

But to each his own. I also enjoy the customizability of D6 and I'm glad you do too.

[~HANZO~]

Thanks for the in-depth response, Grimace!

Am I the only kook here that actually enjoys rolling dice and adding them up? Does anyone else here but me enjoy the randomness that rolling dice provides, including to dodge? Occasionally, that randomness will result in a character with a low dodge miraculously not getting hit by the sqaud of stormtroopers. It will also occasionally get a dodge pro hit by a bumbling bounty hunter. That's cinematic adventure. Twists and turns that randomness provide. Yes, I can see how removing randomness may serve some games, but none of the games I would be interested in playing.

No offense, but to me, making something as intramental to cinematic adventure gaming as dodge a static mechanic is like letting the air out of your tires before you drive your car.

But to each his own. I also enjoy the customizability of D6 and I'm glad you do too.

I'm mostly looking at it in a way to speed up combat for a situation that might call for me rolling defense for say, a hallway full of stormtroopers.

The idea of rolling a counter rolling for 6-8 nameless thugs/goons just seems like a waist of time. not that I cant do it, But why do it if you don't have too.
Maybe I should'a labeled this thread, "splatting goons".

That is one reason I was not to worried about character point investment. I assumed my players would still want to roll their defense and soak rolls. And I still want to for major NPCs.

Why a formula is great because I can use other published works as is and just note the goons static combat stats.

[Grimace]

Well, if you're just going to arbitrarily use a static defense for NPC goons such as stormtroopers, it's just as easy to say that the NPC goons don't dodge while they're fighting.

Since you used it, let's take a hallway full of stormtroopers as an example. How many of them, that are likely shooting at the PCs, are going to be dodging shots by the PCs? Probably none. Their job isn't to be nimble and to avoid combat and damage. Their job is to dish it out. So they won't spend time dodging shots. Don't roll for them to dodge shots. Just use the base to hit numbers of 5 for close, 10 for medium and 15 for long.

Look at the stormtroopers in Star Wars shooting at the heroes in the Death Star. 95% of the time they just stood there to try to get the best shot they could. They weren't dodging and they weren't using cover to it's best effect. Likewise when they boarded the ship in the beginning of the movie. They just don't really waste effort on dodge. So don't roll it for them.

That will speed up combat quite a bit when you don't roll dodge for every goon the PCs fight against. And it doesn't require making a new rule to do it.

[~HANZO~]

And it doesn't require making a new rule to do it.

A lot of things I do are not really required. I want to do it. So I thought I would share the idea. Maybe some one else will want the idea for something else or to match their own play style.

Sure I could just have no one dodge. And I could give all goons no matter how powerful the same stats. But I like variety. I want elites a bit tougher. So this is how im looking to do it.

For that matter I thought about just assigning an arbitrary difficulty to hit number. But I think basing it on abilities and stats gives a little bit more variety.

I'm not trying to say its better, Or "the way it should be done". I see a way to tailor one little aspect of the game to how I want to run it. And knowing me I'll most likely only use it for games were hallways full of stormtrooper types are the most common and not use it in other settings.

[Grimace]

Okay, that's fine. I just was offering options and presenting some of the facets that you may or may not have thought of. I wasn't attempting to insinuate that your idea was a bad one, or that it shouldn't be considered. Just putting some thoughts out from past experience I've had doing such things.

[Whill]

I'm mostly looking at it in a way to speed up combat for a situation that might call for me rolling defense for say, a hallway full of stormtroopers.

The idea of rolling a counter rolling for 6-8 nameless thugs/goons just seems like a waist of time. not that I cant do it, But why do it if you don't have too.
Maybe I should'a labeled this thread, "splatting goons".

That is one reason I was not to worried about character point investment. I assumed my players would still want to roll their defense and soak rolls. And I still want to for major NPCs.

Why a formula is great because I can use other published works as is and just note the goons static combat stats.

I guess I can see using this more with goons/thugs/mooks = unimportant and low-level NPCs. But in your first post you said "player", which is what lead me to think you were considering this for players or across the board. That's what my first post was reacting to.

What I have done to speed up play is to pre-roll a long list of various D-values, placed in columns for each D-value. I don't bother with pips because they are just easily added during the game session. I use these pre-rolled values for NPC attack, defense and whatever rolls. I start at the top and cross off each roll in each D column as it is used in the game. You still get randomness, but without rolling so much behind the screen during play.

Just offering another alternative to speeding up play.

[~HANZO~]

Okay, that's fine. I just was offering options and presenting some of the facets that you may or may not have thought of. I wasn't attempting to insinuate that your idea was a bad one, or that it shouldn't be considered. Just putting some thoughts out from past experience I've had doing such things.

Thanks for the input. I was just trying to explain why I was doing it.

Yeah I used the term player in the first thread. But it was just an example of the figures I was rolling around in my head.

I'm not getting defensive over my Idea. Just clarifying my intentions for it. I had the idea to use it for every thing. But in the over all I don't want to take power away from the players.