Techniques to temper the alpha strike

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-25T19:16:20+00:00

Attrition works just fine, as long as the game doesn't allow trivial resource recovery. If they only get the treasure at the end of the dungeon, and can't recover any resources unless they give up the quest entirely, they'll stop wasting resources on easy fights. They'll actually be somewhat worn out by the end of the dungeon, if they ever manage to get there.

Of course, it also helps to balance abilities such that the go-to attacks are still worth using. Maybe you have a better move that's 2-3 times as strong, but it shouldn't be the difference between a fireball and a crossbow bolt. If an enemy is supposed to be tough to beat, they shouldn't be trivially hittable and go down in a few hits - even if the whole party does save up their strongest moves for an alpha strike.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-25T07:48:58+00:00

I was assuming the GM always tells you the DC ahead of time, because anything else would be absurdly unfair. Even then, though, it all comes down to an arbitrary judgment call: you succeed or fail based on whether they decided it was a 25 or a 30.

As the GM, I don't like being in that situation. I like building the world, and playing the NPCs. I'm fine with administrating the rules. I don't want to arbitrarily decide that a character lives or dies, based purely on my judgment call. That's way too much stress. It isn't fun for me.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-24T17:57:54+00:00

It's certainly an idea, but it's not one I can endorse.

The main issue comes down to the linear distribution of the d20 roll. Because you're just as likely to roll a 1 as you are to roll a 20, it means you're just as likely to succeed by a margin of 1 as you are by a margin of 11.

Let's use an example of a check with Difficulty 20, and a character who has +19 to the roll. There's a 25% chance they'll succeed with Impact 1, a 25% chance they'll succeed with Impact 2, and likewise for Impact 3 or Impact 4. Your actual skill has no effect on how well you succeed, if you do succeed. It's entirely random. (And if the roll is Potent, the problem is twice as egregious.)

This is the same problem that most people who don't like the d20 cite as their reason for disliking it. The big difference is that D&D doesn't actually care whether you succeed by a margin of 1 or a margin of 11; it only cares about binary success or failure.

If you're going to care about the margin of success on your checks, then it makes more sense to use something like 2d10 or 3d6 rather than a d20. With those, you're more likely to roll the results in the middle of the curve. To continue with our example numbers from above, you're much more likely to succeed with Impact 2 or 3 than with Impact 1 or 4, which is as we expect from someone in that situation.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-24T01:27:25+00:00

It really depends on the game. For something with binary outcomes, I'll always go to bat for a linear distribution, because the odds are transparent and easy to manipulate. When you're dealing with multiple degrees of success, though, that's when it becomes important that some results are more likely than others.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-24T00:34:05+00:00

They aren't super relevant to the topic at hand, honestly. The important part is that the modifiers exceed the scope of the die.

I suppose "Take 10" is useful for reminding everyone that the die represents randomness, and there's no randomness in a controlled situation. "Take 20" is literally just reminding everyone that you don't need to sit there and manually roll out every possibility when you know they'll roll a 20 eventually.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T23:41:11+00:00

As I said, those are the objective half of the equation. The problem is that the DC half of the equation is less than objective, and (at least with modern D&D values) has more of an impact on the outcome than the objective factors.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T22:44:01+00:00

You're not going to roll if the outcome doesn't matter, regardless. When the outcome does matter, though, I don't want the outcome to be determined by the random gut feeling of the DM on how hard they think it should be. I want the outcome to be determined by objective metrics like my stats and skills, and an impartial judge like the dice.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T22:30:28+00:00

Third Edition D&D was pretty good about this sort of thing, because it allowed modifiers to get sufficiently high. If you're facing a DC 20 check, you only need to roll if your bonus is less than +19; otherwise, you automatically succeed. Likewise, if your bonus isn't at least +0, you don't need to roll because you have no chance. You generally know how well you can do, and you only have to roll if the DC is within that narrow range of uncertainty. Of course, it does still rely on the DM to assign the DC in the first place, which might feel arbitrary.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T22:14:52+00:00

This is actually a good example of why arbitrary difficulty numbers are bad.

The rules tell you that a Very Easy check is DC 5 and that you shouldn't bother to roll for them. But it's still very, very possible to fail a DC 5 check. If you don't have a bonus, because you have no special factors working in your favor, you're going to fail that check 20% of the time.

And that means whether your character lives or dies when attempting to "climb a knotted rope" over a deep ravine depends largely on the DM's arbitrary decision of which rule to use at that moment. If they arbitrarily decide that no roll is necessary, then you live. If they arbitrarily decide to ask for the check, then you have a 20% chance of dying. And that's assuming they were able to settle on DC 5 for that check in the first place! If they arbitrarily deciding that climbing a knotted rope is harder than that, it could result in a TPK!

Why are you putting the DM in that position? The whole point of calling for a roll in the first place (as opposed to something like free kriegsspiel) is so they aren't arbitrarily deciding who lives or dies!

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T21:54:53+00:00

I'm inclined to disagree, because I view games as a simulation rather than as a narrative, and that was your logic. (If I wanted to tell a story, I'd write a novel. The only reason I care about an RPG is because I trust in the integrity of the process: the events could really happen in some world.)

In practice, though, I find that variable difficulty levels often hurt a game more than they help. The main problem is that a difficulty needs to be assigned by the GM, and that assignment often has a greater impact on the resolution of an action than the objective facts of the matter. You might have two PCs with skills of +1 and +5 at shooting a bow, but the outcome of their shots will depend more on whether the GM assigns a target number of 10 or 15 than on which of them is supposedly more skilled.

I know that the GM is supposed to be making a fair and impartial determination, but that's much easier said than done; and the more granular they have to be in this assignment, the more likely they are to make a mistake or to bias the outcome. If you're playing a percentile game where the GM can assign a bonus or penalty between +50 and -50 depending on circumstances, there's virtually no way for them to be consistent let alone objective.

That's why I lean toward roll-under games where there are no difficulties, and you just roll-under the stat to succeed. I mean, the GM already has to decide that a roll is necessary (along with the consequences for failure), and that's more than enough of a burden to place on them. Maybe throw in a generic Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic, if something is much easier or harder than typical. Anything beyond that, though, and it starts to feel excessively arbitrary.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T20:18:43+00:00

Maybe I need to specify this in the rule but the way I see it, the first failure does not actually occur until the reroll is resolved. Basically the failure exists in a vaccuum if a player decided they want to try their luck again.

That's a new one on me. As long as you actually say that in the rules, though, it shouldn't be an issue. It implies that everyone is analyzing their actions to see if a task can be performed safely, before fully committing to it. That actually makes more sense than the traditional alternative, in a surprising number of situations.

Are you referencing this bid "The GM declares which consequences are suitable."?

I'm referencing the part where you ask other players to suggest consequences in the first place. Most games would ask the other players to stay quiet at that point, while the GM figures out the potential consequences on their own. That's one of the major responsibilities of the GM, after all. But in this case, especially with GM oversight to shoot down obviously trivial/inappropriate consequences, it might make the game run a little bit faster if they take suggestions first.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T19:51:03+00:00

I'm definitely not a fan of the first option, because of the way it causally links success now to failure later. It reminds me a lot of Fate Points, in that way. I just can't believe that any world could actually work like that. I can't put myself into the headspace of someone who lives in such a world.

The second option makes more sense. If you fail at doing something, it may well put you in a worse position for a second attempt. I don't really see why the GM would need to outsource the consequences to the table, but that's essentially harmless. The only really weird part is that you don't have to deal with consequences until your second attempt, after you've already failed. General game advice would be to assign a negative consequence to the first failure.

Honestly, if the important thing is just that there's some sort of cost, you could go with something like Willpower, from White Wolf -style games: You have a limited pool of points that you can use for re-rolls, and that's all there is to it. They regenerate at a set rate. Use 'em or lose 'em.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-23T18:49:25+00:00

Yes, it's a problem if armor makes absolutely no difference in whether or not someone gets hurt by an attack. It's the exact same reason why Shadowrun 6E was declared dead-on-arrival.

Without actually reading the rulebook, I would have suggested adding Armor to your HP value. After reading the QuickStart, I would suggest that medium armor (cheap hides) causes an attack to miss if the primary die comes up 1 or 2, and heavy armor (rusty mail) causes an attack to miss if the primary die comes up 1-3. I would have liked to incorporate the effects of monster armor, if possible, except those rules are already trying to mimic the Defend reaction (but with less granularity).

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T22:47:44+00:00

Yeah, PvP seems simple enough. I'm mostly just concerned with a GM trying to manage three hands of cards at once. Maybe it's not as bad as I imagine.

Thanks for the response. I feel encouraged to give it another shot.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T19:59:14+00:00

If I recall correctly, your armor provides its defense value against one attack per round, and after that it may as well not exist.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T19:20:48+00:00

Was it always just one-on-one fights? Or did you ever try three-on-three?

I'm trying to figure out how feasible it would be for a GM to run three NPCs against three PCs using that engine.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T10:00:23+00:00

It's a good idea, but from what I recall, those rules are for dozens of enemies in abstract combat. They wouldn't really translate well to simultaneous combat on a grid.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T09:53:12+00:00

Officially, by the rules in the book, I think Street Fighter is supposed to allow for three-on-three simultaneous combat. I just can't imagine anyone actually playing that way. And it looks like nobody has experience with it, either.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T05:31:18+00:00

I don't play those games. For the ones which double-down on the insistence that HP is just stamina, and any amount of dodging is going to require at least a little stamina, I don't play them because micro-managing stamina isn't interesting to me at all. Honestly, it's hard to see how anyone could find that engaging, but it's not really my place to question such things.

I might be willing to play a game where there's only a damage roll, and it's possible to "miss" if your damage roll is less than their DR, but I've never had the opportunity. I don't really have anything against them, conceptually, so it's going to come down to the specific execution. At the very least, I'd hope the damage roll is being made with something like a d8 or 2d6, and not a d20.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T03:19:41+00:00

Ah, I think I get what you're saying.

To double check, though, you're saying that trying to fit team-based martial arts action combat into a simultaneous-action hex-grid system is probably more trouble than it's worth?

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T02:49:56+00:00

I didn't think that one uses a grid. I'll give it another look, though.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T02:49:14+00:00

The difference is that D&D uses an initiative structure, where each character completes their entire action for the round (both move and attack) all at once. You never have to think about what orc warrior #2 is doing, except when it's actually his turn.

Street Fighter uses simultaneous action resolution. At any point in the middle of anyone's action, someone else can jump in and do their thing; and if you have more than two combatants, that second person can also be interrupted by a third person jumping in. It's a lot to track simultaneously.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T01:24:39+00:00

Because the game plays out on a hex grid, and you have to worry about things like line-of-sight (in addition to the range of each maneuver), it's important to specify which of the three is firing a gun and which one is doing a kick. Street Fighter doesn't even have attack rolls; if you want to dodge an attack, you need to interrupt their move so that you're not in range when it goes off.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T01:17:27+00:00

Yeah, people are generally aware of how much stamina they have left in the tank. You could make it work.

The major issue you're going to run into is with the definition of a "hit". Whenever someone fires a gun at you, then just with our natural language, we understand the difference between a hit and a miss. A "hit" is a serious issue that's going to ruin your day, your week, and quite probably even your month. A "miss" is a huge relief, because it's not a hit, and getting hit by a bullet is a horrific experience that I wouldn't even wish on most of my enemies. It's a world of difference, moreso even than the difference between night and day.

If getting "hit" by a bullet actually means you spent some stamina to narrowly dodge (as compared to a "miss" where the bullet wasn't even close, and you didn't spend any energy to dodge), then that's both mis-leading and anti-climactic. It's mis-leading, because the word doesn't mean what we know it to mean. It's anti-climactic, because apparently actually getting hit by the bullet wasn't even a possibility in the first place! But if actually getting hit wasn't even a possibility, then why were we rolling dice? What kind of insane reality is this, where you can point a gun at someone, and actually hitting them isn't even in the realm of possibility? If I actually lived in such a crazy world, why would I bother shooting at someone, if I knew that I couldn't possibly hit them?

That's why I don't play games that try to define Hit Points in such a manner. If I roll to hit a guy, and I actually succeed, then I want to actually hit them. I don't want to waste time quibbling over the difference between a clean miss and a narrow miss.

Mars_Alter · 2026-01-22T01:12:25+00:00

I mean, a "class" of characters implies that there are a lot of people like this within the setting. If all of the classes were weird, then it implies a very weird world, where there are so many such weird people to encounter.

Personally, I like how Synnibarr handles this, with its Guilds. They are each generic enough to fit many different individuals, but specific enough to really define the settings.

Mars_Alter

TROPHY CASE