r/RPGdesign • u/Which_Principle_2370 • 3d ago
Opinions: damage rolls vs fixed damage
Hey, while designing the combat for my RPG i came across an interesting prospect: making attacks deal fixed damage instead of the usual damage rolls. In a digital context, where calculations are done automatically, damage roll is the superior choice, for sure, but in a TTRPG context, i can think of a lot of good points why having fixed damage would be good:
- Calculations are simpler
- The number of rolls in a battle is vastly reduced, making it quicker.
- It vastly reduces the number of dice necessary to play the game (In mine, you would be able to play it with just two d10).
- It impact a lot less than it seems. If with fixed damage an enemy would reach 0 hp in 3 attacks, it would also reach 0 hp in 3 attacks with damage rolls in the majority of cases. If the GM keeps the enemy hp concealed in his game, the players wouldn't even know the difference, whatever the case is.
On the other hand, i can see one major point against fixed damaged, and i say this as someone with a major in psychology: we love our random results, lol. Random results are big part of what makes something addicting (social media, gambling, roguelikes and RPGs are full of it), and i wonder if it would make the game "duller", to the point of it not being worth it. Another one is that damage rolls just make sense: some attacks hits better than others, and damage rolls emulate this pretty well.
So, is there a consensus on this? Would love to hear your thoughts and opinions.
54
u/robhanz 3d ago
Honestly I'm not sure why there's such an obsession with reducing the number of die rolls. While it's good not to have excessive rolls, I don't find that the majority of time in a combat is ever waiting for dice to roll or even doing the (usually basic) combat math. It's waiting for people to decide what they're going to do.
The point of randomness is to introduce variability, so that adapting to what happens is part of play. If you have varying chances to hit, that serves the purpose as well.
Another option is combining your attack and damage rolls in some way, usually with a margin of success mechanic of some sort.
13
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
You don't even need to combine them. I roll both at once with different colored dice. The damage only matters when something is hit, but I may as well roll both at once if I want to go slightly faster.
Also sometimes fun to see "oh that one would have hurt!" Etc.
11
u/robhanz 2d ago
Combining the two has other effects. I think that for a lot of people seeing a “better” hit result in more damage is gratifying.
But yeah combining the two makes sense and I think a lot of experienced players do that.
But I still think that the rolling portion is tiny compared to “deciding what you want to do”.
2
1
u/Hytheter 2d ago
Also sometimes fun to see "oh that one would have hurt!" Etc.
To each their own, I would hate that. Just makes missing sting all the more.
6
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Didn't know there was such an obsession, but i can tell you why i thought about it. One of the main complaints about RPGs that go for a more tactical combat is how time consuming it can be, and while i agree with you that most of the it's because players can't decide what to do, reducing die rolls can save some time, enought to at least entertain the thought, i think.
About the importance of variability, i have nothing to say. It is, indeed, very important, and the game i'm making does have attack rolls, which is why i thought about reducing variability when it comes to damage. The margin of success mechanic is a good option, but it doesn't mix well with what i have, unfortunately. Thank you very much for the input, you got most votes so far, so i'll take your opinion as resonating with most of the people that came across the post.
3
u/robhanz 2d ago
I'd also say lookup tables are big time sucks.
That said, I'd absolutely agree that minimizing unnecessary rolls is good. I just don't think the way I see some people almost fetishize roll less helps as much - if you have to roll ten things to resolve an action? Yeah, that's bad. Attack and damage? Even attack, defense and damage? I don't see that as a big thing.
One of the reasons that turns can take a long time in some games is that the player can't reasonably pre-plan their turn - enough can change between turns that any plans may be irrelevant by the time their turn comes around. Also, extra calculations that occur, like per-movement costs/risks they have to consider. The more decisions you have to make, or the more factors, the longer turns will take. If reducing turn speed is the concern, that is. (But, of course, the key even there is not having unnecessarily long or complex stuff, at some point you can over-streamline.)
I don't know that reducing damage variability is bad. It still gets you enough non-determinism that dealing with that randomness is a factor, especially if "do I hit?" is kept as a fairly open question (vs people optimizing to always hit). As with all things, playtest and see how it goes.
2
u/Paul6334 2d ago
Calculations you have to apply to rolls are also a factor, but unless you’ve got an extremely complex set of calculations to do it will still almost always be second to deciding what to do.
4
u/foolofcheese overengineered modern art 2d ago
using a single roll margin of success mechanic does have the interesting side effect of creating a reason to not change the target number/number of successes needed to initially succeed
in essence the reward structure becomes doing more damage instead of being able to hit more difficult targets
a game that only embraces the single roll to produce damage numbers is probably not going to see a significant change in how fast combat proceeds, a design that seeks to do more with less throughout the design will hopefully find many ways to improve
2
u/robhanz 2d ago
Yeah it does make it harder to have that differentiation between “likely to hit but doesn’t do much damage” and “less likely to hit but does huge damage”.
4
u/foolofcheese overengineered modern art 2d ago
it isn't my style but I just read a mechanic that essentially does what you are describing - Gas Dog Vaylant by u/rivermesa has a mechanic called the Cut, bassically trading dice for effect
given the number of posts I see about how people hate missing and "wasting their turn" and the popular suggestion of using the Into the Odd automatic hit mechanic leads me to believe low hit success isn't a common goal even if it is a big risk, big reward
2
u/SpaceDogsRPG 2d ago
There are ways to mix them. Traveler does - albeit you still roll for damage.
Basically some weapons/attacks have higher base damage, but all weapons increase damage via accuracy.
Simple example: All weapons deal +1 damage per point rolled above the target's defense.
Rapier: +5 accuracy but only 1 base damage
Battleaxe: +2 accuracy but with 6 base damage
So whenever the battleaxe hits it would do 2 more damage than the rapier, but sometimes the rapier will do 1-3 damage when the battleaxe would have missed entirely.
I actually think the tougher thing is mixing the easier to hit but durable character, since they will both be hit more often AND hit harder.
Note: I agree with you that rolling for damage doesn't slow significantly. IMO - the added math from such a system would probably take longer than just rolling damage at the same time.
7
u/noodles0311 3d ago edited 3d ago
It depends on whether they are consequential. As the number of dice scales up, the more pointless it is. D&D makes it worse by choosing added dice over larger dice. This is sometimes because spells up-cast by adding one die per spell level. That keeps the math of upcasting consistent, but it does waste a lot of time for an outcome with very little variation. IMO, players should have the option of rolling or using flat damage, but the DM shouldn’t waste time in combat like that. As more players use automatic dice rollers and begin to think about statistics because of the increase in optimization content online, I think the supposed value of rolling all the time is becoming harder to justify.
The last option you listed is the Draw Steel (and some other games I haven’t played approach and I think it significantly improves combat. Rolling for hits and damage wastes a ton of time and players start tuning things out when it’s not their turn which makes them less likely to be ready on their turn, which begins a viscous cycle. Beyond that, there’s nothing more immersion-breaking than asking “does a 15 hit?” Like how would you not immediately know if you hit someone?
7
u/dj2145 Destroyer of Worlds 3d ago
I agree, however, there is nothing worse than landing a hit with your great axe and rolling a 1 for damage. If anything, variability should come from the level of success of the attack. If its just barely a hit, maybe 1/3 standard damage (4 for a great axe). But land a hit by a margin of 5 on a d20 and maybe the damage increases to an 8. The drawback coming from there being a little more math involved that way as well but at least you dont minimize a great roll with a bad one.
3
u/Gang_of_Druids 2d ago
I actually like that idea a lot. I also incorporate that when playing games where you roll to cast. For instance, (just using D&D terminology since we all know it) there is NOTHING worse that casting Cure Light Wounds and rolling a big fat 1 hit point healed -- I mean, that's literally not worth the spell slot (or spell points).
3
u/Hytheter 2d ago
While it's good not to have excessive rolls, I don't find that the majority of time in a combat is ever waiting for dice to roll or even doing the (usually basic) combat math. It's waiting for people to decide what they're going to do.
I agree in principle, but there are situations where the die rolling itself can be time intensive, especially in D&D flavoured games.
A level 5 wizard casts Fireball, hitting several enemies. The GM needs to roll a save for each of them; even if he has that many D20s, he might not be able to roll them all at once if there are different monster types with different save bonuses. Then the wizard has to roll and 8d6, which is more than most people can tally in a single glance.
A level 5 monk wants to use Stunning Fist on multiple enemies. He has four attacks, but he can't roll them all at once because will target multiple enemies, but who and when depends on whether the first target fails the save or not. So the attack rolls and saves are all rolled one at a time until the turn is resolved.
Needless to say this only gets worse at higher levels.
3
1
u/BrobaFett 2d ago
I find it faster and, when done well, more intuitive (a good “hit” also means the higher likelihood of dealing more injury)
2
u/Stormfly Crossroads RPG, narrative fantasy 2d ago
Yeah, I think the majority of people who want one roll just know that it massively speeds up combat.
Like sure, you can do two rolls in 10 seconds... but every extra roll increases the chance they'll check the sheet or the rules or get distracted or drop a die or need to borrow one, etc.
I think a lot of people here have played D&D where the turn times is a massive issue and they want to streamline things a lot so each turn goes faster and if you're spending 80% of the time watching others play, at least you're only waiting 1 minute instead of 4.
1
u/Ok-Arachnid-890 2d ago
What are your thoughts on huge die pools for determining success or levels of success but static dmg.
I ask because of the combat system I've been tinkering with personally.
1
u/robhanz 2d ago
I mean, they're going to be slower? Especially if they're add and not counting successes.
How much that impacts gameplay is going to be dependent on the rest of the gameplay.
And there's a visceral aspect to rolling lots of dice that may make it worth it in some cases!
I think that's a key point, right? Like we can talk about the effects of multiple rolls, etc., but we need to consider that within the larger context of the game. Do you have too many rolls in combat? If you have 20 per action, probably. If you have 2, maybe not. If you want that visceral feeling of "WOW SO MANY DICE" for something like a dragon or kaiju attack it might outweigh the cost of tallying the results.
1
u/Ok-Arachnid-890 2d ago
I went with rolling large dice pools for determing success or various levels of success with a static damage or result with criting being a seperate thing.
15
u/DBones90 2d ago edited 2d ago
Random damage opens up a ton of design space for modifying damage and helps get around wonky math. The problem with fixed damage is that "damage" isn't your key metric: "number of attacks" is.
Let's say you and I are going up against an enemy. You deal 4 damage per attack and I deal 7 damage per attack. Our enemies each have 8 HP. In this situation, we're effectively doing the same amount of damage. In both cases, it takes 2 hits to defeat an enemy. So if you took increased defense to lower your damage and I didn't, you get the benefit of that while suffering none of the consequences.
Furthermore, let's say a circumstantial bonus allows us to increase our damage by 2. This does literally nothing for you as it still takes you 2 hits to defeat the enemy. Meanwhile, it doubles my effectiveness. So if you take that option, it's a trap. But if I take that option, I'm effectively dealing twice as much damage as you.
Random damage helps get around this wonky math. If I decide to lower my damage from d10 to d6, then that will always matter. That's always going to be a consequence I have to deal with. Because even if an enemy only has 2 HP, I go from having a 90% chance of killing them in one hit to a 83% chance of killing them in one hit.
And, at the same time, you have way more control over the gradient of impact on a modification. If you and I go from dealing 4 damage and 7 damage to dealing 6 damage and 9 damage to an 8 HP enemy, that modification improved you by 0% and improved me by 100%. But if you deal 1d6 damage and I deal 1d12 damage, that +2 matters for both of us in similar ways. In both cases, it'll make us more likely to take out the enemy faster but it guarantees it for neither of us.
One way you can alleviate this problem with fixed damage is to increase the size of your numbers. If the enemy has 15 HP, then you dealing 4 damage and me dealing 7 damage is going to result in us having different amounts of hits to kill. Also, that +2 will matter for both of us, reducing you from needing 4 hits to 3 hits and reducing me from needing 3 hits to 2 hits. But the problem with this is that increasing the size of your numbers makes them harder to grasp for players at a glance, and it requires you to have tight control over your design. It's, in general, a lot less malleable, which is an important factor when you're handing over your games to GMs.
That's why random damage has stuck around. If you have a tight control over your numbers, and you don't expect them to change much over time, then fixed damage may be a better solution for you. But if you want to offer many meaningful choices related to the damage you deal, you'll likely benefit more from random damage, which increases the design space to offer meaningful choices and pros/cons.
6
u/Hytheter 2d ago
"Hits to kill" is a really important metric that I think a lot of people (myself included) tend to overlook.
3
u/Cruiser_Supreme Designer - Regular Volk 2d ago
Very well explained!
I do wonder how relevant this still is if an enemy can survive around 5-6 hits, rather than just 1-2. Let's consider a monster with 30HP, and the same two characters with 7dmg and 4dmg. Sure, one character needs 5 hits, the other needs 8. It's a similar comparison. But a +2 to damage makes that 4 hits vs. 6 hits. The gap is closing and the stat increase is worth it for both characters, as their actual damage outputs are proportionally closer to one another with the +2.
At that point, even rolling randomly should yield similar results. Let's assume one character rolls a 2d6 (avg 7), the other 1d8 (avg 4.5). It's gonna be a bit swingy of course, but if you have to roll so many times, you're gonna get closer and closer to the average die value anyway, and the wonky differences matter less and less.
So yeah, you're absolutely right, but it's highly contextual
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
This is a very insightful response. Thank you very much for taking your time to type it. I haven't thought about how fixed damage turns your main metric "number of attacks", but you're absolutely right. And you're also right about the design space fixed damage takes away - there's a lot of fun things you can do with random damage (like attacks that do wildly varying damage vs attacks that tend to do average damage).
I held the opinion that while fixed damage made the game easier to "solve" (as in easier to see the best choices), that wouldn't be that big of a problem, and some people would even like it, but your examples got me thinking otherwise. Seems like some variation in damage will surely be healthy most of the time. Thanks again!
3
u/silverionmox 2d ago edited 2d ago
Furthermore, let's say a circumstantial bonus allows us to increase our damage by 2. This does literally nothing for you as it still takes you 2 hits to defeat the enemy. Meanwhile, it doubles my effectiveness. So if you take that option, it's a trap. But if I take that option, I'm effectively dealing twice as much damage as you.
IMO that's a valid approach, giving a little puzzle aspect to a battle. Players are really going to feel good if they figure out a way to exert leverage in that way. They found the weak spot of the dragon, jay! (And they are generally expected to win anyway.)
If you have different enough combats, it's going to even out for both players, both will get their chances to shine.
Random damage helps get around this wonky math. If I decide to lower my damage from d10 to d6, then that will always matter. That's always going to be a consequence I have to deal with. Because even if an enemy only has 2 HP, I go from having a 90% chance of killing them in one hit to a 83% chance of killing them in one hit.
The counterpoint to that is: the difference between 90% chance or 83% chance is only going to matter in 7% of all rolls. So if you roll 10 times in that situation, it's not going to matter in 9 of those, and maybe not at all. (The same goes for a +1 bonus in a typical d20 game: there's 95% chance it's not going to matter at all for any given roll.)
Ironically, because of the random variation, players will likely not even be able to pinpoint the to hit chance based on outcomes either. So the little percentage differences are pretty much irrelevant because they're more precise than the outcome can ever be, and their main function is to reward players with a little numerical increase of the statistics on their character sheet. They'll never be able to tell otherwise. Even if you optimize it's precisely because of all the randomness that little percentages aren't going to make a meaningful difference.
(Unless you run a truly gigantic number of hits and encounters of course, or run a decade-long campaign. Which means you're probably going to give your characters generous HP cushions to avoid them being knocked out of it by accident, which makes the whole exercise even more meaningless, because you could just have used the mean values and got the same outcome in the long run. In general, if you want to deal with very high numbers, computer gaming is superior due to the ability to generate a lot of enemies, ways to trigger the rolls, process the rolls, and communicate the results to the player - similarly with managing fine-grained player HP.)
So this is why I generally prefer to make rules so the players are required to set up tactical situations, rather than just running down a HP counter.
2
u/DBones90 2d ago
IMO that's a valid approach, giving a little puzzle aspect to a battle. Players are really going to feel good if they figure out a way to exert leverage in that way.
If that's the intended outcome, then yeah, it's great. But it does mean that you have to be more careful about how you design other parts. I think what's important is that we're talking about systems, not specific encounters. And, thinking about this as a system, it's dangerous when a +2 can mean literally nothing in one situation and double effectiveness in another. It means it can be difficult to add a reasonable cost to that +2 because its effectiveness can be so variable.
If you have enough combats, it's going to even out for both players, both will get their chances to shine.
This is possible but not guaranteed. It's something you specifically have to design for. Like if you want to give all minions 5 HP and all elites 10 HP, then the difference between 6 and 7 damage is rarely going to matter all that much.
The counterpoint to that is: the difference between 90% chance or 83% chance is only going to matter in 7% of all combats.
I think you're looking at this incorrectly. It's more about giving the players interesting risk assessment. Like, what does letting the enemy live mean? In some fights, it won't mean much. Maybe we're already winning so the difference between those two numbers is whether me or my buddy gets to get the kill. But in some fights, letting the enemy live one more turn might mean the difference between them escaping or not, or them killing my animal companion or not, or them summoning Ghulkdrak, the destroyer of worlds, or not.
And in those cases, the difference between 83% and 90% is an interesting tension. Both are probably going to work just as well, but what are you willing to risk?
Ironically, because of the random variation, players will likely not even be able to pinpoint the to hit chance based on outcomes either.
Regarding this point and its following paragraph, it's quite possible players won't notice or care about these things. Some players likely won't notice or care about the issues I brought up with fixed damage either. But when I play games, I do notice them. And so I want to design games that care about these things.
Also, random damage actually enables smaller numbers because it can offer meaningful choices between small numbers without running into that weird math issues. In my game, weak enemies are 5 HP, difficult enemies are 10 HP, epic enemies are 15 HP, and yet I'm still able to offer many different weapon and approach options with damage variability as a factor.
So this is why I generally prefer to make rules so the players are required to set up tactical situations, rather than just running down a HP counter.
I mean, I agree with this. HP is a really interesting mechanic with a lot of ways you can tweak it, but it's not a load-bearing one. You have to have something else in combat be the thing that's interesting.
2
u/silverionmox 2d ago
If that's the intended outcome, then yeah, it's great. But it does mean that you have to be more careful about how you design other parts. I think what's important is that we're talking about systems, not specific encounters. And, thinking about this as a system, it's dangerous when a +2 can mean literally nothing in one situation and double effectiveness in another. It means it can be difficult to add a reasonable cost to that +2 because its effectiveness can be so variable.
Well, it would have to be treated more like a tool in the toolbox rather than a guaranteed bonus - may or may not help depending on being appropriate to the situation and how you apply it.
This is possible but not guaranteed. It's something you specifically have to design for. Like if you want to give all minions 5 HP and all elites 10 HP, then the difference between 6 and 7 damage is rarely going to matter all that much.
I agree. I was indeed assuming the usual gradually increasing HP of enemies.
I think you're looking at this incorrectly. It's more about giving the players interesting risk assessment. Like, what does letting the enemy live mean? In some fights, it won't mean much. Maybe we're already winning so the difference between those two numbers is whether me or my buddy gets to get the kill. But in some fights, letting the enemy live one more turn might mean the difference between them escaping or not, or them killing my animal companion or not, or them summoning Ghulkdrak, the destroyer of worlds, or not. And in those cases, the difference between 83% and 90% is an interesting tension. Both are probably going to work just as well, but what are you willing to risk?
That still means it's irrelevant in 93% of cases, and will also be irrelevant in 93% of cases where the fate of the world is on the line. You have to increase the volume of rolls tremendously too, to create enough of those. You'd have to have 100 rolls just to have 7 where it makes a difference, and those coincidentally have to be rolls that have some narrative importance. It's all in all a statistical difference, not one that matters in any particular roll.
To that end I prefer mechanics with a limited resource representing particular effort, so players can shine when it matters and have a satisfying story where they feel like they had an impact.
Mind you, there are times when being jostled around by the whim of the dice is fun too. But even then I prefer to have the dice randomness determine random meaningful elements to get to novel combinations, rather than just a random number that gets tossed on the pile.
Regarding this point and its following paragraph, it's quite possible players won't notice or care about these things. Some players likely won't notice or care about the issues I brought up with fixed damage either. But when I play games, I do notice them. And so I want to design games that care about these things.
That's entirely fair, and it's certainly useful to have the design mechanic be more fine-grained than the player-facing interface, so you can always put a knob exactly where it needs to be. But it also means that the mechanic can get in the way of the playing. All depends on the design goals.
8
u/Leonhart726 3d ago
My preferred is usually random but small variance. Games like DC20 use a system where you roll to hit, but not damage. Your weapon deals 1 damage (or 2 for large weapons), but that damage has +1 for every 5 points over the target's AC that you hit. It's fixed damage, but the die has say in a little variance, making it "random". It'd call it, random but based on fixable stats. Typically you'll only do 1 damage, every hit. But on occasion, you deal 2, 3 or even 4 damage, and that FEELS HUGE, dispite being little in variance of numbers.
The other one I like is a system like nimble that says "just roll damage, a 1 misses, a max result crits". This is the route I went for my game and I don't regret it. It gives me so much room to play around with abilities, but also keeps math and rolls quick at the table
5
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
If 1 is standard, then 2, 3, and 4 are hugely more. That's double, triple, and quad!
2
u/Leonhart726 2d ago
1-2 is standard, but you have 4 actions, and some weapons do more but deal 1 damage, while others are big and do less but do 2 damage. Plus there's a ton of ways to turn 1 damage into 2, so I say 1-2 is standard, about 1.5.
Getting 4 damage on an attack is super rare, 3 is amazing but less rare than 4
3
u/Dannybuns_ 2d ago
In the heartbreaker I've been toying with, I've been following the same model of 1s resulting in a miss and the max roll resulting in a crit. As someone else who likes this system, I'd appreciate some input on an iteration I'd like to try:
Normally, the min/max result on the die is static and generally doesn't change, and that has the advantage of simplicity. On the other hand though, I really want to incorporate specific weapons or attacks in the game that have abnormally high miss or crit chances, and this could be accomplished by allowing for the miss/crit range to be variable. See the following:
A 1d12 damage attack with a Miss Chance of 1 and a Crit Chance of 1 would function exactly like you'd expect, a 1 is a miss and a 12 is a Crit.
A 1d12 damage attack with a Miss Chance of 3 and a Crit Chance of 3 would miss on a roll of a 1-3, and crit on a roll of 10-12. If the Crit Chance was instead 5, the Crit Chance would increase to any roll between 8-12. Miss chance and crit chance would be allowed to vary independent of each other, like in the example of "Miss Chance 3, Crit Chance 5."
A. Does that seem intuitive? B. Does this add more complexity than it's worth for the increased depth of being able to differentiate specific attacks or weapons with an abnormally high chance to miss or crit?
3
u/Leonhart726 2d ago
Personally that sounds fine to me, I don't see it as a problem or a huge cognitive load. I actually really like it. I can see it being a little jank for someone who is a bit slow at learning systems, but most people won't struggle with that
2
u/Dannybuns_ 2d ago
Thanks for the response! Do you think there's a way to make it less janky for newcomers?
3
u/Leonhart726 2d ago
Not nessarily newcomers, just that, while most people will get it automatically, others will take a little time, and this falls into the rules catogoty of "just on the edge of will they get it or won't they".
Personally I say it's great as is, though if you really want to change it for more easy to flow wording, I do something similar for a couple specific actions, and I word it as "this attack crits on a 5 or a 6 on the die" in the text of the specific action. But generally, I really like the fact that d4,d6 and d8 have a great built in scale of high crit rate (d4) vs higher average number (d8). Bearing in mind though that a d8 statistically has the highest average result of these EVEN when including rerolling on max numbers and missing on 1s. So you'll need to include plenty of cool effects for crits, or extra attacks, to make d4 a worthwhile option to build around intentionally
3
u/Dannybuns_ 2d ago
I see what you mean! It's definitely one of those rules that I feel probably could use one of those little guides or graphics in the book to really show those select players who wouldn't get it right away how it would work.
I quite like the risk/reward factor to which die you need to use for damage, and a big portion of the various attacks and features in the game I'm working on is secondary effects of attacks occurring on critical hits.
So basically, if a specific attack has a secondary effect, it'll either proc on a crit or it will proc on every hit and be even stronger if you roll a crit. It depends on the skill. As such, things like debuffs have attacks and damage baked into most of them, which keeps combat progression steady even when you're not going for your strongest attacks all the time.
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
I'm leaning towards that, taking what everyone has been saying in consideration. Something like having the biggest part of the damage being fixed with some die rolls to add variance, like 10+1d6, for example. Feels like it keeps the good parts of variance without the issue of hitting and enemy just to roll minimum damage afterwards.
7
u/TheIncredibleHelck 2d ago
In my game I'm going for fixed damaged. Few things feel worse than rolling a critical hit and then rolling a 1 on your damage. My game is all about crafting your own unique magical items, so rolling low on damage would suck the "cool" out of this item you spent time crafting and upgrading.
But generally I think rolling damage sucks, even if you're swinging a broadsword you stole off an enemy combatant. I'm already rolling to see if I hit, then I need to roll and see if I hit WELL? Pure redundancy.
At the point where I roll to hit, succeed, and roll a 1 on damage, I may as well have rolled a miss.
4
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Hard agree on your points, specially if the enemy is a hard to hit to start with.
4
u/Cruiser_Supreme Designer - Regular Volk 2d ago
I just switched my game from damage rolls to fixed damage not too long ago. In the game, you would've rolled 2d6 to attack, and on a successful attack, you'd roll additional d6 according to the weapon or spell. This was cool because a strong attack roll carried forward into the damage roll.
Having generally 4+ dice for damage meant that each additional die didn't add too much all at once, which allowed for a lot of granularity with weapon damage, which is otherwise near impossible to achieve with a pure d6 system.
However, the bell curve gets so steep with 4+ dice that you rarely stray very far from the average value anyway. In other words, if the dice roll always shows the same result, why roll at all. Additionally, 4d6 already averages 14 damage, so monsters (and player characters) needed to have cumbersome HP totals. I'm a math teacher, so I don't mind subtraction double digits on the fly, but accessibility is a core goal of my game. The damage roll just had to go.
Now I do flat damage. Ranged attacks do 2dmg, melee attacks do 3dmg, and special attacks do 4dmg. Plenty good for a rules-lite game.
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Thanks for the input. Yes, acessibility was the key word i was thinking off when i thought about fixed damage against damage rolls. It seems to facilitate a lot of the calculations and, while i don't mind adding dice, i'll have to ask myself how important it is for me to catter to people that might find it cumbersome.
6
u/Answerisequal42 Designer 2d ago
I like not rolling damage but having fixed instead.
No dice searching. No "which one was that" or "can i get more d6s" etc
Speeds up the game
Does not invalidate a good hit or crit. If you roll high to hit, it should be rewarded woth good damage.
7
u/GrizzlyT80 Designer 2d ago
the best solution is to have fixed damage but also degrees of success, which modifies the result
this way the system stays easy to balance, and we keep the random funny part in a restricted area, enough to have fun but not enough to bring too much chaos
2
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
I guess the standard way of doing this is by dice pools or margin of success tables which, unfortunately, don't mix very well with what i have. But i agree that the "controlled chaos" is what you should aim for. Thanks for the input.
3
u/GrizzlyT80 Designer 2d ago
Actually i just wrote an answer to someone that wanted more details, if you need some
2
u/RPG-Nerd 2d ago
If the damage is fixed, what does the degree of success do? An example might help
4
u/GrizzlyT80 Designer 2d ago
Let's say you do 10 damage with a sword
Also let's say we have 4 types of degrees : failure / mid / success / criticalYou could do simple maths like that :
- if you fail you do your damage x 0,
- if you got a mid check you do 10 damage x 0,5,
- if you got a success, you deal 10 damage x 1
- if you got a critical, you deal 10 damage x 2
So the basic maths of your game are manageable and it stays in between small numbers, and eventually goes up on rare events such as criticals
3
u/Arrant-Nonsense 2d ago
This is the way the game I’m currently working on works. Been playing testing for almost two years now and it seems to work great. The players I have love it, but none of them had much prior RPG experience.
1
u/RPG-Nerd 2d ago
That's not "fixed". It's just the D&D double damage (which is rarely "critical") with a half-step thrown in which you named "mid" without any definition at all as to what that is. You have both multiplication and division as part of your common resolution path. That's adding complexity without any tactical depth nor any meaningful decisions being made on the part of the player.
1
u/GrizzlyT80 Designer 2d ago
I explained something which is a detail of a bigger system part, specifically because someone asked me about this in particular.
And no, its not just simply a dnd thing re used, dnd has no degrees of success besides the critical, and you can have a lot more outcomes coming with it that are not mathematicals, but narratives.
In fact, PBTA explored this way much more, what you are calling mid with condescension is an intermediary state that is describe by "a success that comes with a complication", so you have both a mathematical effect, and a narrative effect.
Yes, Yes but, No, No and, etc...
Multiplication and division do add some complexity but lmao we talk about 2 times an output that comes in between 1 and 20, that is not difficult at all, it is quick and easy to do
Tactical depths and meaningful decisions doesn't come thanks to one part of the system only, it comes from the capacity of all its parts to communicate with each other.
Also, it is fixed by definition, you do not calculate your damages based on random rolls, you have it from the get go, and then you apply your degree of success which modifies it a bit, and add narratives to it.
1
u/RPG-Nerd 2d ago
And no, its not just simply a dnd thing re used, dnd has no degrees of success besides the critical, and you can have a lot more outcomes coming with it that are not mathematicals, but narratives.
You added "mid" and did not explain how this gets selected.
Multiplication and division do add some complexity but lmao we talk about 2 times an output that comes in between 1 and 20, that is not difficult at all, it is quick and easy to do
Unnecessary complexity is unnecessary! It adds nothing.
Yes, Yes but, No, No and, etc...
Which is still binary. It's binary resolution with a rider and extra complexity.
Also, it is fixed by definition, you do not calculate
You have a funny definition of fixed. Fixed means it does not vary. Your values may not vary much, but it does vary.
1
u/GrizzlyT80 Designer 2d ago
Because there are many ways to define what mid will be used for and how.
There was no point for me to specify anything more because it was not the subject.
Nothing is necessary, you only do things because it brings something to your ttrpg experience. And in fact, it does bring something, which is simple math so simple balancing, and fun related to unpredictable outcomes.
It is not binary, it is called degrees for a reason, you have more than one main option and one side option that has 1/20 chance to happen.
Besides, complexity isn't a bad thing, complexity doesn't mean that it is difficult to use, it means that is has several layers of understanding because it is way more rich and has way more potential, both in mathematical and narrative sides.
I don't have a funny definition of fixed. That it is: damages are fixed, to the objects, or to the way you crafted them, or the rules or whatever you might prefer.
THEN, and only then, it goes through the degrees of success mechanic, letting GMs narrate way more different stuff, and letting players have some random unexpected outputs.
Random brings fun until it becomes chaos and then its just uninteresting.
Anyway, you dnd lovers are unsufferable.
0
u/RPG-Nerd 2d ago
Anyway, you dnd lovers are unsufferable.
The only thing insufferable are people that try to make stupid accusations because you are too stuck-up to actually engage with what I am telling you.
You asked for feedback. You wanted praise.
My solutions are variable damage, but its based on skills and actual choices, not random rolls. Tactical agency, not lucky rolls. It's as far from D&D as you can get.
You are the one copying D&D, so you must be the insufferable one! Good luck.
4
u/ArabesKAPE 3d ago
Fixed damage comes with a lot of drawbacks if you want versimilitude - most weapons would be just not lethal at all. You can't just slit someone's throat or get a crit or lop off an arm in warhammer. You know exactly how many hits you can take. if that's not an issue then go for it. if the aim is not to mimic reality then make it easy on yourself.
3
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
I would add that for many players it is about enjoying several other aspects as well as verisimilitude. Variety, fun, unpredictability, and making the situation feel like more is going on in the game world, represented by the die rolls.
Also, when a game supposedly about an imaginary situation, has mechanics that are transparently simple and gamey, players who see that will relate to, and make choices based on, the simple game mechanics, and the experience devolves into playing the simple mechanics, rather than the situation supposed to be happening.
2
u/foolofcheese overengineered modern art 2d ago
I think if you put too much thought into combat (and the healing process) it doesn't really feel true to life
bludgeoning off somebody's' arm with a warhammer sounds like a brutal wound, the imagination runs a little wild with the gore, I don't know how the player is going to heal a wound like that - but we aren't chasing realistic as much as pursuing fun
1
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Yeah, it's a tough balance beetween going for versimilitude and also making sure everything is fun, i don't know how much of an issue it would be, but i personally prefer some kind of variance in damage - i think i would feel to disconnected from the game by doing fixed damage (muh immersion!), but i was curious about how people feel about it.
4
u/headdie 3d ago
Rolled damage is fun when the results are mixed but if you end up in a run then it can get frustrating if you roll below average.
Fixed result are mechanical and consistent which some people find better but others the predictability is a problem.
A system I have encountered before uses a fixed base damage with small dice rolls added to that number to make a final value. It means damage is reasonably consistent but not a garentee so there is some "will it, won't it" about if it's enough damage opening opportunities for risk.
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Yup, from what i gathering, you got everything. Most people here agree that rolling low on damage, specially if you already have to roll to hit, sucks. And the predictability of fixed damage also, most agree on, sucks.
So the answer is just what you said - most part fixed damage, so you'll always do something meaningful if you hit, but some variance on top.
5
u/Steenan Dabbler 3d ago
Make damage mostly fixed, but give a bonus if the attack roll is good enough. Keeps things simple, does not require an additional roll, but provides a bit of unpredictability and makes good attacks feel more meaningful.
2
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Most people seems to agree that mostly fixed damage + some variance is the best approach, yes. I was thinking about some simple die to the damage, like 10+1d6, for example, but your suggestion is pretty good too. I'll have to evaluate it. Thanks!
5
u/Dustin_rpg Will Power Games 2d ago
In synthicide, you roll 1d10 + attack bonus to hit. If you hit, you reuse the exact same d10 result and add your damage bonus. It speeds up combat for new players who don’t have to find the correct damage dice to roll.
The system has an interesting effect that I like, but is not for everyone. High armor characters get hit less, but when they get hit it’s a high damage roll. Low armor characters get hit often, and accumulate many lower damage rolls in addition to the high damage rolls. The damage scale and hp scale are such that most characters can only survive 3-4 strong hits. And there are options/effects that can make damage even higher in the right circumstance, so it’s not unusual for a character to lose 50% of their HP from a uniquely strong attack.
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
That's very interesting, i'll have too look it up. My game aims for that kind of hp too, but i'm curious about how synthicide uses armor. I take something like, if you got heavy armor on, only the better rolls go through, so they do a lot fo damage?
3
u/Dustin_rpg Will Power Games 2d ago
Yes there’s no damage reduction. High rolls hit and deal full damage, but you completely negate low rolls. Low armor characters might die from a few weak hits that don’t even touch the high armor character. But a good strong hit wounds high armor and low armor equally hard.
3
u/htp-di-nsw The Conduit 2d ago
My preference is for systems that don't use Hit Points, so, this question is moot.
But if I were playing a game with them for some reason, then I would greatly prefer fixed numbers.
I am maybe not the best representative of the demographic, but I absolutely hate randomness and get zero joy from gambling. I don't get excited when I roll high numbers, I only feel relief when it's something I should be good at. And actually, I am almost as annoyed when I roll high for something I should be bad at as I feel when I roll low for something I should be good at.
2
u/foolofcheese overengineered modern art 2d ago
from the description you are providing I think a success counting dice pool works pretty well - little pools produce weaker results and big pools are more likely to produce stronger results
2
u/htp-di-nsw The Conduit 2d ago
Yes, you have correctly surmised my favorite dice system by a large margin, and also the core system in my own game design.
1
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
I see where you're coming from, though, and agree with the sentiment. Failing a check in something you're supposed to be a master at simply sucks. A lot of people like dice pool systems because it mitigates high and lows, right?
1
3
u/zpinnis 2d ago
I kind of got the 'best of both worlds' in my game by having the Attack Test require 3d6 and then the player gets to choose which d6 to add to their damage and which two are used to break through the enemy's Defence. Okay, the choice is pretty obvious and just requires a little bit of maths, but I've found it to be engaging, and you get two roll results from one roll!
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Wow, that seems really cool. Would you mind elaborating it a little bit?
2
u/zpinnis 2d ago edited 2d ago
I would love to!
My game is class-less and the capabilities of the characters are measured in Skills. There are 18 Skills to distribute Skill Points into and you get 36 Points at character creation (half of which are determined by your profession and species and so on and half of which can be distributed freely). When you later make a Skill Test, you simply roll 3d6 and add your Points in that Skill to get a final result (and then compare that to the Difficulty Number that the GM set for the Test).
Your Offence is a field used for attacking and is equal to your Melee Skill plus half of your Speed Skill (plus your Reach, which is determined by your Size...). Your Defence is a field equal to your Melee+Perception+Speed (plus the inverse of your Size since smaller creatures are harder to hit...). When you attack an opponent, you make an Offence Test by rolling 3d6 and then choosing two of those dice for 'how well you attack'. If your Offence number plus those 2d6 exceeds the Defence number of your opponent, you hit! The damage is then determined by your Dexterity Skill (if you were using a melee weapon) plus that weapon's damage, plus your 'damage die' which is the 1d6 left from your Offence Test.
I think it makes sense when compared to the real world, because if you get a really good hit in, you can usually deal more damage (i.e. you are
forcedallowed to choose a die with a higher number for damage) and if you barely manage to hit, you usually deal less damage (i.e. you are forced to choose a die with a lower number for damage).I originally had the remainder of the Offence Test carry over directly into the damage (so if your Offence Test resulted in 18 and your opponent only had 6 in Defence, you would deal 12 more damage) but that made damage depend too much on luck, so I 'nerfed' that feature a bit by restricting the remainder to only one die. This new way is easier on the brain and probably more engaging since the player has to choose which die to use for damage.
2
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
That's really clever. Love the implications of your Offence/Defence too, like how different fighters can be equally proficient for different reasons. Last question: does the player know what the value to hit the opponent is? Or does he have to take a guess when choosing the rolls?
2
u/zpinnis 1d ago
Thank you! I'm glad you like it, I've done a lot of thinking and testing to get to this point and you are obviously free to copy or take inspiration from this.
The player should know the Defence of their opponent; The rules explicitly state that the GM should generally communicate the Difficulty Numbers of a Test before the player rolls. I've also made simple Enemy Sheets so the GM can keep track of the different stats of the enemies.
3
u/darklighthitomi 2d ago
First, you need to remember what I call Techniques. Techniques are not mechanics but ways of doing things that can make them easier, faster, etc.
In this case, roll the damage at the same time you roll the attack and vastly reduces the time required.
Second, random damage makes things less predictable and harder to "solve." A lot of people, whether they like it or not, feel a need to pick the best options, and 4 dmg is unquestionably superior to 3 dmg, but 1d4+1 vs 1d4 is slightly better but by a much smaller margin feels more open to other aspects mattering more than that +1. Hence rogue characters often going with daggers instead of longswords.
2
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
Yup, one of the above comments provided really good examples on how fixed damage make things easier to solve, and why it's not healthy for the game most of the time. This seems to be one of the main arguments against fixed damage.
5
u/BlackTorchStudios Designer 3d ago
Does your game gain more from rolling the die? Do you have mechanics that interact with it? Does damage variability enter into the math that reinforces the feel of the game?
Draw Steel Does a great job of bridging the gap. Variable tiers, fixed results within those tiers. But then it means you design every effect. Tales from Elsewhere and many others use wounds instead of hp, so you don't need to roll damage.
Our game, After Eden, uses flat damage on unopposed attacks, but rolled damage on opposed attacks. We did so to make not opposing an attack feel dangerous by doing max damage, but opposed rolls can crit, doing exploding damage (roll another die of the same type if it rolls max).
There is no right answer. Just potential solutions to the game you are wanting to build/play
3
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
All exceptionally good questions and examples. You gave me a lot to think about. Thank you.
2
u/SouthernAbrocoma9891 2d ago
Have you designed what your role-play game is about? Is the game more geared towards role-play, exploration or combat? If your game is role-play heavy, then it’s possible that your resolution system for that mode may work really well for combat. If you want to reduce dice rolls and have less numbers, then have more meaningful actions and results.
A way to reduce dice rolls is to give the players choices for their characters. The maneuvers they execute will have a certain effect, and the defender may have a maneuver that interacts with it. Instead of trading damage until one decides they’ve had enough or they are incapacitated, make combat more interactive.
The players have agency and what their characters do without the abstract randomness of a die roll and resulting number. There is no resulting number that must be interpreted. All combatants would have specific actions in their combat list very much like a magic user and their spells.
The best implementation of this that I’m experienced with is from DND fourth edition. You have powers that are at will, per round, per encounter, several per day, daily and others that are situational. We still roll dice, but in certain situations, no dice needed to be rolled because the player used a characters power to clinch the combat encounter. There have been times when the differences and power were so great that there was no point in rolling dice.
We’ve role-played the encounter and I used morale checks to guide what the opponents would do. Taking focus off the dwindling HP totals put us back into the world and what events were transpiring.
2
u/zhivago 2d ago
The point of hp is to let players figure out that they're going to lose while they can still do something about it.
Incomplete knowledge allows gambling on that edge.
Dice rolls are just one way to ensure incomplete knowledge.
So the question should be, how much do your players enjoy this kind of gambling? :)
2
u/Anvildude 2d ago
I personally think you should have either fixed damage, or fixed to-hit. You can't have fixed or rolled for both (I mean, you can, but I don't think it's optimal- just see how often people try to stack for a guarantee on one or the other) because it either removes all doubt and turns it into a pure optimization system (which is it's own genre- that's basically board games or card games like Magic or Munchkin) or makes things so random that you can't even try to predict results and so have to be purely reactive as a player to the whims of the dice.
3
u/CrispySith 2d ago
In a digital context, where calculations are done automatically, damage roll is the super choice, for sure
Hard disagree. Most modern video games used fixed damage.
Ultimately, it depends on your design goals.
1
2
u/stephotosthings no idea what I’m doing 3d ago
there is no consensus which is why games exist that do fixed amount of damage, games where you roll damage, games where you roll to attack but deal a variant of damage, games where you just roll a damage dice no attack so you always do at least 'some' damage. Games where damage and HP is not trracked etc etc etc.
Personally I like both, but I want my players to be happy. Rolling damage in a game where HP or monsters feel like sponges is no fun, for me or my players. Games where they have to be clever and use their skills to get the best out of the dice (like adding more dice for a dice pool) to garanteee the bigger hit doing the big flat damage number or rolling the highest number are always more fun for them.
I find it makes people tune out when they either 'miss' on a roll, or they roll damage and do a 1 when the enemies are in the 10s or more of HP.
I also ran a poll for my group.
Do you like rolling damage?
They voted yes.
Do you like the chance of missing?
They voted yes.
Do you mind rolling 1 on a damage roll?
They voted yes.
So you can't please everyone with everything. Make your game and make it fun for you and your players as much as you can.
2
u/Lightliquid 3d ago
I like Draw Steels approach of rolling 2d10 and based on your result it tells you the damage. Either a weak, solid, or strong result (tier 1-3). So, fixed but with variably. Also, your attacks never miss.
2
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
My opinions are:
My feelings about your pros:
- simpler? Yes, but I do not want it simpler.
- quicker? only slightly. When I want that slightly quicker, I roll both at the same time, which is about as fast.
- number of dice used is not a factor to me
- impact on number of blows: the point is not to change the average
Other points:
- Anyone considering fixed damage is not seeing the value of uncertainty and having the game include the uncertainty of combat. I value it for fun, for variety, for unpredictableness, for abstractly representing how real situations work, for more possible outcomes, occasional exciting survival/victories/defeats against the odds, etc.
- I am amazed you do not get the experience of playing an RPG and imagining you are really facing a foe, and being excited by having to make life or death choices about what to do, and the uncertainty of the results being a big part of that experience. Why would I want that to be artificially predictable?
2
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
I agree with everything you said, tbh. I guess it's impossible to be making a game and not wonder how acessible or fun it would be to other people, but at the end of the day, i can only make a game that would be fun for me first and foremost, and hope some people like it too. Thanks for reminding me.
1
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
Seems to me most or all of the games I find most interesting and excellent, are ones the developers wanted to play themselves.
1
u/silverionmox 2d ago
I value it for fun, for variety, for unpredictableness, for abstractly representing how real situations work, for more possible outcomes,
Most of that is entirely invalidated by reducing every fight to running down a HP counter though.
I am amazed you do not get the experience of playing an RPG and imagining you are really facing a foe, and being excited by having to make life or death choices about what to do, and the uncertainty of the results being a big part of that experience. Why would I want that to be artificially predictable?
I'd rather have the outcome be meaningful depending on choices and identities of the characters involved, than sheer randomness.
It's better that Luke the Lazy was killed because his rusted armor cracked, than because his player rolled badly.
1
u/Polyxeno 2d ago
I also dislike combat systems that mainly involve whittling down HP, but that's a separate (though partly related) issue.
I never said I wanted combat to be mainly about die results. I think the situation, characters, and choices should be the main factors, but again that's a separate topic. A bit of randomness involved makes the situations and choices much more like the situation in play, since no one in combat really knows exactly how much injury each of their blows will cause. When players have artificial gamey information about how combat works, they start relating to the situation, and making choices, based on that out-of-character knowledge of the game mechanics, rather than making choices based on what their character would know.
1
u/silverionmox 11m ago
I also dislike combat systems that mainly involve whittling down HP, but that's a separate (though partly related) issue.
Yes, the need for HP is a reaction to random damage, because you don't want to risk your PCs to be knocked out after the first hit. Or for that matter, the enemy. So they get a HP cushion. So the requirement for multiple rolls is added again to reduce what we feel is too much randomness. So when using it, it would pay off to dose it just right immediately rather than to compensate it again.
I never said I wanted combat to be mainly about die results. I think the situation, characters, and choices should be the main factors, but again that's a separate topic
IMO it's possible to put the focus on those factors even during combat.
When players have artificial gamey information about how combat works, they start relating to the situation, and making choices, based on that out-of-character knowledge of the game mechanics, rather than making choices based on what their character would know.
Game mechanics should support making appropriate in-character decisions. If that doesn't match up, somehow the game mechanics have become separated from the roleplaying. Back to the drawing board then.
1
u/blade_m 2d ago
Lots of games do fixed damage, especially dicepool games since degree of success adds variance to the fixed, base damage without needing a seperate damage roll.
But there are some non-dicepool games out there that use fixed damage--Dragon Warriors is one I can think of off the top of my head.
It can work fine! But, you know, most games with damage rolls work fine too...
1
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 2d ago
I used to prefer fixed damage, but I like the development of recent years to forego on the attack roll instead and in that context I think it is then fine to roll for efficacy/damage. The important part is to have one one roll.
1
u/conn_r2112 2d ago
Speaking personally, I would prefer a game with rolling over fixed results.
All the arguments in the world don’t overcome the fact that I like the random result and I just generally like rolling dice
1
u/torquemadaza 2d ago
I love rolling dice. damage dice give you clues as to how to describe the blow. 1hp from a long sword is a nick. 12hp from a crit or a str bonus, that’s a solid blow. oh it was a scrawny low level farmer… he’s decapitated as he only had 9hp to begin with. no, it was actually a wyvern with 60hp, well that’s still a fifth of his remaining health, so a deep gash that will bleed for days. Didn’t damage the wings though.
if it’s always a fixed amount. 4, 4, 4, crit! 8, 4, 4, 4…I think this can rob some of the narrative cues rolling damage can provide.
also. PSA: roll your damage dice with your to hit die. if it hits, damage already rolled.
I don’t like fixed damage numbers, and really only use them with minions in large groups as the DM as they’re not worth the narrative mustard to bring each of their blows to life. when the ogre chieftain steps out, then I’m straight back to rolling damage. openly… my players need to see the danger: (what he rolls 3d8+6!? mummy!)
dice are there for more than generating a number. they’re a narrative cue in what they rolled, they’re a potential cue in his dangerous something is (12d6 breath weapon… take out 12 dice of anything and your players are blinking and swallowing and praying.) don’t under rate them …. and good luck with your game.
1
u/Sprangatang84 2d ago
Yup! That's how my game works! Armor Damage for grazes, and Life Damage for clean hits. Both are fixed based on the weapon equipped and the severity of the roll.
1
u/llddk 2d ago
For a more recent game, Draw Steel uses a 3 tier system on abilities rolled with 2d10. Each tier is a fixed damage amount as well as increased ability function. For a game that gets heavily mired in combat encounters, the single roll really helps to keep the pace up while still having outcomes.
Fabula Ultima also uses tiers of dice for a single roll in combat. With a strength die of d8 and a dex die of d10 you roll against accuracy checks then may have a damage of High Roll + a flat value for damage giving you variability in a single roll.
1
u/hairyscotsman2 2d ago
I find it a great time saver. In the game I run, 13th Age, the monsters use fixed damage, and the heroes can choose to either roll or use fixed damage. The monsters having fixed damage prevents the occasional swing in damage output. At each level of monster to character equivalent, some monsters are created with double or triple strength for health and damage output. If a triple strength dragon got lucky with a breath weapon where damage was rolled, it would result in a lot more party kills. 2nd edition expects the heroes to use fixed damage by epic tier.
1
u/Puzzled-Pen-2353 2d ago
In a digital context, where calculations are done automatically, damage roll is the superior choice, for sure
Thats an interesting take when most games have fixed damage. Some games have crit mechanics, yes but thats pretty much it. No other damage values are random.
_______________
I prefer fixed damage. I think that random damage can be fine if it's limited to one class and that class does one big thing. That way you will actually get a random result, not just an average and you don't take up more time than others.
1 roll is enough, we don't need multiple instances to see if and how much damage we do.
1
1
u/loneDreamer0 7h ago
Honestly, it can work fine, I've done it in the past and it does simplify the game. Yet if you are doing it it is better to pair it with levels-of-success on the hit roll (essentially merging the two), to retain some variance and keep things interesting. You might want to look at Draw Steel for comparison.
1
u/lennartfriden TTRPG polyglot, GM, and designer 3d ago
Personally, I prefer combining the two into a single effects roll. No effect = miss, bounced of armour, parry etc
1
u/RPG-Nerd 2d ago
You are giving me 2 shit options. I have to pick between my skill not mattering because damage is random, and a fixed value, where again... Skill doesn't matter. In both cases my decisions don't affect damage.
Let's say I am going to try to run you through with a sword, ram it through your midsection. If you stand totally still, what is my chance to hit? How much damage do I do?
Now, let's give you a sword and let you defend yourself. Could I still run the sword through you? Could you parry it aside and take no damage? Could you protect your vital organs, but still take damage in a less critical area of the body?
The better your defense, the less damage you take. The better my offense, my skill at overcoming your defenses, the more damage you take. Damage is a function of where you are injured that is based on the skill of both combatants. The attackers degree of success equals the defenders degree of failure. damage = offense - defense. Thats it. Just 1 subtract.
Weapons and armor are simple flat modifiers. You have active defense, which gives players a choice in how they defend and gives them a chance to do something about it. It's your character's life, so this is an area where agency should be high! It also means players get to play on both offense and defense, which gives twice as much playtime and half the waiting (and there is no action economy).
While it's still 2 rolls, the attacker only makes 1 roll. Separate attack and damage is making 2 rolls for the same action. Separate rolls for separate actions made by separate people flows fine. It checks off all other stuff on your list.
Plus, by having an active defense, you don't need to represent increased defense capability through extra HP. HPs don't escalate. This removes the moving target that makes game balance difficult and makes it almost impossible to answer "am I injured?". Opposed rolls tunes itself!
It fixes weapons too. In many games you are stuck with the fact that ramming someone through with a sword can't kill them because a sword does 1d8 damage and they have 80 HP. That goes away because you absolutely can kill someone in 1 hit. Sneak attack is free too. If I am unaware of your presence, I don't get to defend against the attack. Offense - 0 is a huge number and will likely kill or seriously wound.
Passes your psychology test too. I recommend 2d6+X or a dice pool system - something with a tight bell.
1
u/TheDevilWearsJeans 3d ago
You can just do fixed damage as a choice instead. Let for instance players deal average damage instead of rolling, or maximum damage on crits instead of double dice.
1
u/semiconducThor 3d ago
If attack and damage are the same roll, you can get the best of both. I have a "fixed" damage value for each of my attack roll results "fail", "mixed success", "plain success" and "critical success" (0/1/2/3 respectively).
1
u/Illithidbix 2d ago
Assuming the system has a fairly standard combat system at all.
In general I prefer fixed damage, but active defence rolls by the target.
* If you roll to attack then damage is a fixed bonus that takes into account how successful the attack roll was, and perhaps the target's active dference roll if there is one.
* Or there is no roll to hit, but some methods of roll to damage preferably with some tactical choices- like Myhic Bastionland.
Unless you are deliberately making a game that is meant to be compatible with certain editions of D&D and similar - although personally I find that it doesn't have the right mouthfeel for combat with guns.
But very much depends on the game.
1
u/YakkoForever 2d ago
Reducing player rolls should not be a goal of value. You are just reducing the amount of spotlight time on that player for what? To save a few seconds per round?
Enemies are where you really save time on making damage rolls. Generally every roll a GM makes is time players are not really involved in the game
2
u/Which_Principle_2370 2d ago
I don't get it. Everyone would do damage the same way, so the time for everyone would stay the same? I guess you thought it would only affect player rolls because i used damage to take an enemy down as an example?
0
u/archpawn 2d ago
If with fixed damage an enemy would reach 0 hp in 3 attacks, it would also reach 0 hp in 3 attacks with damage rolls in the majority of cases.
The problem is that if it reaches 0 hp in 3 attacks, then some incremental increase in damage means it either still reaches 0 hp in 3 attacks and the bonus does nothing, or it now reaches 0 hp in 2 attacks and it's a massive increase in damage.
That said, you could get the same result by rolling for HP. And you don't have to do it the dumb way D&D does where you roll 30 dice for CR 30 enemies. You can just do a single roll plus a constant and that will be plenty.
And some systems only have like 3 hp, where each attack does one. You don't get stronger by dealing more damage. You get stronger by hitting more often.
we love our random results, lol.
You can also have randomness by rolling to see if you hit. But if I had to pick one, I'd prefer a system where you always hit and roll for damage.
0
u/__space__oddity__ 6h ago
Game designer discovers RPG doesn’t have to work like D&D, 2026, colorized.
Yeah flat damage is fine.
That’s about it. Especially if you’re just subtracting damage from hp and hp totals don’t impact combat ability, rolling vs. flat doesn’t matter much because it only really affects the last attack, i.e. the killing blow.
28
u/Corbzor Outlaws 'N' Owlbears 3d ago
My opinion on fixed damage is that if you go that route you should keep numbers low.
Like normal attacks do 1 damage, heavy attacks do 2, extreme stuff does 3, normal enemies have 3ish health and boss monster health is like 10.
Don't do things like 18 to 57 HP, with damage numbers of 7, 12, and 16.