Active Defense
Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh
Active Defense
Howdy All,
So, after reading too much KotDT will do that to you), I got my hands on the new HM Players Handbook (and Hacklopedia of Beasts). While DCC and HM are very different games, they do have a few things in common, including an old school ethic and the idea of PCs starting at 1st as pretty much normal and clawing their way up.
The combat examples and rules really hooked me on the idea of going with a active defense roll instead of static ACs. I substituted in a d20 + Defense Bonus as part of yesterday's games; defenders (PC and NPC alike) needed to roll that and beat the attackers rolls to avoid being hit. Unlike HM, I did not add a default -4 to the roll; DCC is tough enough
It was a lot of fun. The players seems to enjoy it; it was a little more engaging, and they got a few more hits than they would have otherwise gotten (and possibly a few more misses, but those don't seem to have stuck as much).
The campaign is a tough one - lots of undead, demons and nasty stuff - so the active rolls should help a little. As static, the monsters are likely to hit more often I'm thinking.
HM also does an interesting thing with the dice scale on initiative. The die type changes with level of surprise, and their countdown starts at 1 (so, low rolls go first). Ambushers get a "1". Really surprised - d20 (which still give you a chance to reaction). Other options range between depending on how wary a PC was being, for instance.
So, after reading too much KotDT will do that to you), I got my hands on the new HM Players Handbook (and Hacklopedia of Beasts). While DCC and HM are very different games, they do have a few things in common, including an old school ethic and the idea of PCs starting at 1st as pretty much normal and clawing their way up.
The combat examples and rules really hooked me on the idea of going with a active defense roll instead of static ACs. I substituted in a d20 + Defense Bonus as part of yesterday's games; defenders (PC and NPC alike) needed to roll that and beat the attackers rolls to avoid being hit. Unlike HM, I did not add a default -4 to the roll; DCC is tough enough
It was a lot of fun. The players seems to enjoy it; it was a little more engaging, and they got a few more hits than they would have otherwise gotten (and possibly a few more misses, but those don't seem to have stuck as much).
The campaign is a tough one - lots of undead, demons and nasty stuff - so the active rolls should help a little. As static, the monsters are likely to hit more often I'm thinking.
HM also does an interesting thing with the dice scale on initiative. The die type changes with level of surprise, and their countdown starts at 1 (so, low rolls go first). Ambushers get a "1". Really surprised - d20 (which still give you a chance to reaction). Other options range between depending on how wary a PC was being, for instance.
Re: Active Defense
So how does armor factor in HM?
- finarvyn
- Cold-Hearted Immortal
- Posts: 2599
- Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:42 am
- FLGS: Fair Game, Downers Grove IL
- Location: Chicago suburbs
- Contact:
Re: Active Defense
Here's the thing: DCC RPG is fundamentally a simple game with lots of charts. As written, it's designed to simulate basic fantasy situations pretty well. Adding extra details like Active Defense certainly can work well, but they do add slightly to the complexity of the game. One or two of these won't have a big impact, but enough tweaks like this could change the feel. As such, I tend to get nervous when some of these types of ideas pop up, because I see them as a potential "slippery slope" whereby a GM might add a zillion different tweaks and modifiers to an otherwise simple system.
Having said this, I'd say experiment with stuff like this. I think that the KoDT comics are awesome and feel that adding a KoDT flavor to your game could be a good thing. I like the basic idea you are proposing, and would be interested to know if it tends to slow down combat or has any other unforseen side effects. Try it a little more and report back.
Having said this, I'd say experiment with stuff like this. I think that the KoDT comics are awesome and feel that adding a KoDT flavor to your game could be a good thing. I like the basic idea you are proposing, and would be interested to know if it tends to slow down combat or has any other unforseen side effects. Try it a little more and report back.
Marv / Finarvyn
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11 (over 11 years of SPAM bustin'!)
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015; OD&D player since 1975
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson
"Misinterpreting the rules is a shared memory for many of us"
-- Joseph Goodman
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11 (over 11 years of SPAM bustin'!)
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015; OD&D player since 1975
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson
"Misinterpreting the rules is a shared memory for many of us"
-- Joseph Goodman
Re: Active Defense
In HM, as written, it's a Damage Reduction system for armor. Shields have their own subsystem - I believe they negate the -4 to the defense roll, plus have some other options.beermotor wrote:So how does armor factor in HM?
How armor factors into DCC with my house active defense rules - exactly as written, except their defense mod get added to the defense roll. I did not implement dame reduction or some such.
Re: Active Defense
I think this is great advice for system hacking in general.finarvyn wrote:Here's the thing: DCC RPG is fundamentally a simple game with lots of charts. As written, it's designed to simulate basic fantasy situations pretty well. Adding extra details like Active Defense certainly can work well, but they do add slightly to the complexity of the game. One or two of these won't have a big impact, but enough tweaks like this could change the feel. As such, I tend to get nervous when some of these types of ideas pop up, because I see them as a potential "slippery slope" whereby a GM might add a zillion different tweaks and modifiers to an otherwise simple system.
Just for clarity / other Judges' awareness and consideration:Having said this, I'd say experiment with stuff like this. I think that the KoDT comics are awesome and feel that adding a KoDT flavor to your game could be a good thing. I like the basic idea you are proposing, and would be interested to know if it tends to slow down combat or has any other unforseen side effects. Try it a little more and report back.
* I'm actually not planning on adding a KoDT feel to the game (at least, as comics). I enjoy them, but Garweez Wurld isn't really my thing. The new HM edition shakes some of the "jokiness".
* The Active Defense roll is essentially based on the model that AC is "taking 10" (in 3.5 terms). It definitely adds some wahoo-ness to the combats. Predictability gets even more difficult - while I can assume the average defense roll is a 10 (and therefore model with AC), how it actually works out ... ? There are no additional charts or subsystems, and armor / AC variants should apply right out of the book.
* It's definitely worth watching, and if it hits dissatisfaction with the party, gets dumped in favor of traditional static AC. I liked the idea that it has more engagement, and adds something to the narrative. Not worth encumbering things.
* In terms of system experience, I'm pretty experienced. Which can sometimes be a blind spot. One of the appeals of a white box style system is the open hood / hackability nature of the rules. At least, to me.
Re: Active Defense
I've always been interested in Warhammer's rules with armor saves. Thinking about having a Dodge roll as a save against a hit, then armor can reduce damage or save your life, although it might interfere with dodging.
Last edited by beermotor on Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Cold-Blooded Diabolist
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:36 am
Re: Active Defense
I love HackMaster's armor and defense rules - they encouraged one of my players to try out never wearing armor and only using a shield for defense, and encouraged other players to go ahead and actually bulk-up on armor because it really did help them.
They are a little more complex than I want DCC to be - but that's because I am the type where I will sometimes want a simple type of game like DCC, and other times I'll crave crazy-complex and full of "crunch" games like HackMaster, so I am the type to play one or the other and keep them as far from each other as possible in the meantime.
They are a little more complex than I want DCC to be - but that's because I am the type where I will sometimes want a simple type of game like DCC, and other times I'll crave crazy-complex and full of "crunch" games like HackMaster, so I am the type to play one or the other and keep them as far from each other as possible in the meantime.
Re: Active Defense
What I'm really after is a very realistic simulation with good crunch, but that plays fast and intuitive. THIS IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE, I BELIEVE I BELIEVE
Heh.
So yeah I'm interested in this mechanic. It seems that you are defining hit points as sort of what they originally were in OD&D: an abstraction related to stamina and endurance more than anything. Realistically speaking, if you slice a dude with a sword, he's dead, no matter what "level" he is. He might be so skilled though that actually getting that physical blow is difficult to impossible... Modern editions have really moved away from that toward hit points-as-physical-wounds, which just moves you into comic-book territory, away from realism.
I'm not suggesting realism ought to be everybody's goal, it all depends on your play style and group. But for me, that's what I'm interested in and looking for.
Heh.
So yeah I'm interested in this mechanic. It seems that you are defining hit points as sort of what they originally were in OD&D: an abstraction related to stamina and endurance more than anything. Realistically speaking, if you slice a dude with a sword, he's dead, no matter what "level" he is. He might be so skilled though that actually getting that physical blow is difficult to impossible... Modern editions have really moved away from that toward hit points-as-physical-wounds, which just moves you into comic-book territory, away from realism.
I'm not suggesting realism ought to be everybody's goal, it all depends on your play style and group. But for me, that's what I'm interested in and looking for.
-
- Cold-Blooded Diabolist
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:36 am
Re: Active Defense
That's not quite the case - every edition of D&D, and even Pathfinder, use pretty much the exact same definition of HP as abstraction of endurance. luck, skill, and all the other things out there that stand between health and death at the hands of a blade... it's just how many things they use to distract you from that abstraction that becomes a problem.beermotor wrote:Modern editions have really moved away from that toward hit points-as-physical-wounds, which just moves you into comic-book territory, away from realism.
pre-flavored attacks, for example - though my favorite thing to blame is actually there in every version of D&D, and basically every RPG out there because of it; You roll your attack... and it is either a "hit" or a "miss."
That's poor word choice because those words have meanings that bring a description of the event along with them "I hit with my sword attack" sounds a lot like "I physically and forcefully made contact between my sword and my enemy."
Had OD&D mentioned attack rolls being either a "failure" or a "success", it might have been easier to keep people clear on how abstract HP work.
D&D Next's current playtest materials actually has what I think is the best description of HP and damage I have seen in writing (note: I cannot currently remember exactly how DCC words the issue) - it mentions HP as abstraction of a large number of factors besides physical durability/ability to absorb damage, and explains that damage up until you are reduced to half your HP is representative of barely staying out of the way and being driven into poor situations, half HP and downward is more serious but still only minor cuts and scrapes as things get truly harrowing... and only upon reaching 0 or negative HP have you actually been wounded in any serious way.
...but because attacks still "hit" or "miss" people miss the abstraction.
Re: Active Defense
That's all well and good, but I also think the problem is with "healing." So, you have an abstract amalgam of endurance and luck and whatnot, but a cleric can cast "cure light WOUNDS" and "heal" you? Hmmf.
- Ravenheart87
- Tight-Lipped Warlock
- Posts: 903
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 3:34 pm
- Location: Győr, Hungary
- Contact:
Re: Active Defense
It heals the spirit too.beermotor wrote:That's all well and good, but I also think the problem is with "healing." So, you have an abstract amalgam of endurance and luck and whatnot, but a cleric can cast "cure light WOUNDS" and "heal" you? Hmmf.
Vorpal Mace: a humble rpg blog with some DCC-related stuff.
-
- Cold-Blooded Diabolist
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 1:36 am
Re: Active Defense
And channels a bit of divine protection through the healer into the target...Ravenheart87 wrote:It heals the spirit too.beermotor wrote:That's all well and good, but I also think the problem is with "healing." So, you have an abstract amalgam of endurance and luck and whatnot, but a cleric can cast "cure light WOUNDS" and "heal" you? Hmmf.
If HP are abstract, so is any 'healing' - but again, another situation were word choice clouds the mind by bringing along a definition that doesn't fit.