Single Rolls vs Double Rolls

[FatPob]

This is a popular argument, so can anyone elucidate there reasons for there choice of system.

I have not actually played/ran the game yet (will be doing a tournemant adventure on 27th December) so I am curious to here the arguments (and therefore defencs) before I get them on the day from the players.

ps my players prefer munchkin arguments so don't hold back if there are munchy reasons for your choice...

pps re the poll I am aware that tolkien's main works is 3 books, however my first copy was 1 book, of excessive page count.

 

[Halfbat]

Did you mean to do this poll? I voted for the modern day classic.

 

[canology]

I'm not sure I am following the question.

Do you mean "why are we using MRQ?"?

Or just any system in general?

 

[weasel_fierce]

Single roll seems to make a lot more sense to me, and since reactions are supposed to be declared after the attacker rolls, you can even use the chart as printed without any issue

 

[duncan_disorderly]

Double ROll is the only way that the tables make sense. The "players guide" pdf smacks of a hurridly put together document to counter complaints about having to roll twice rather than an actual intended rule. (And if it was an intended rule then someone at Mongoose should be shot for allowing the rulebook of such a heralded release to go to distribution containing such confusing and contrary examples and tables).

However the table is incomplete anyway, since it omits the rows and columns for fumbles, so whatever system you use you will need to houserule, which is not what I consider a good selling point.

 

[Halfbat]

Double ROll is the only way that the tables make sense. [...] However the table is incomplete anyway, since it omits the rows and columns for fumbles, so whatever system you use you will need to houserule

Once joined together the two sentences make the main point: the tables are incomplete or too much whichever way they are looked at. A fumble should only really operate on the first "to hit" roll anyway as the set of tables in the two-roll system assume a hit on the die roll in the first place (see fail vs fail and see the 4-step process). Whilst Continuum apparently tried a two-roll, at the very first Mongoose RQ open day a single roll was all that was used (with MS looking on), so I think it's worth believing him. To be honest, the system which was outlined in the players guide _works_ and works well and smoothly.

However, it still comes down to sheer preference. I've run and am running with single rolls as (a) it stops player frustration, (b)stops too much die rolling in a single combat round, (c) plays well, and (d) gives good results. If someone really wishes, the amended results in the wiki and elsewhere can help add to everything _without_ the extra roll and resulting confusion (and I know peeps will say it's not but my experience is that it is frustrating for the players and, frankly the GM)...

Hope that's what you're looking for Pob.

 

[weasel_fierce]

I dont find any issue with the tables, for one-roll, provided you follow the suggestion that reactions are declared after the attack roll.

 

[FatPob]

Did you mean to do this poll? I voted for the modern day classic.

It's part of the unrealted Poll to Question Forum Post, a crazy new trend..

 

[FatPob]

I dont find any issue with the tables, for one-roll, provided you follow the suggestion that reactions are declared after the attack roll.

If the attack fails, the only reason to defend then would possibly be a riposte/overextended, as fail vs Fail = Success.

However, it still comes down to sheer preference. I've run and am running with single rolls as (a) it stops player frustration, (b)stops too much die rolling in a single combat round, (c) plays well, and (d) gives good results. If someone really wishes, the amended results in the wiki and elsewhere can help add to everything _without_ the extra roll and resulting confusion (and I know peeps will say it's not but my experience is that it is frustrating for the players and, frankly the GM)...
Hope that's what you're looking for Pob.

Anyway I have arguments for the munchkins on the day, so will probably go for 1 roll declare reactions etc

 

[Exubae]

Agreed its personal preference;

We ignore the fail rolls and changed the results for dodge and parry-

Riposte
If attacker hits normally and defender critically parrys, then the defender may opt to reposte & block 2xAps of damage or blocks all damage.

Over-reach
If attacker hits normally and defender critically dodges, then the attacker over-reaches them selves and ignores all damage.

This is no better than the current tables but, it means a missed roll is a missed roll, thus no need for extra defensive rolls.

But it is all down to personal preference.

 

[bluejay]

Although the relative chances of getting a riposte or attacker overextended are pretty tiny and your chance of getting hit increases significantly.

Check out the Probability Calculator if you don't believe me.

EDIT: This is answer to FatPob's comment, not Exubae's houserules.

 

[Rurik]

Although the relative chances of getting a riposte or attacker overextended are pretty tiny and your chance of getting hit increases significantly.

Check out the Probability Calculator if you don't believe me.

EDIT: This is answer to FatPob's comment, not Exubae's houserules.

Hey Mathslave!

Good to see ya' again!

 

[bluejay]

Hi Rurik. Just thought I'd check out the forum again.

I see that my calculator seems to get a fairly strong set of regular hits... I think largely down to a link from Simon Hibbs' website.

Unfortunately I'm just not playing MRQ so I haven't felt the need to buy the entire collection up or keep sounding off about the game. I read a review about it today on RPG.net and it made me think about checking out this forum again.

I really hope someone can come up with a solid mechanic that allows opposed rolls with skill values over 100 to work well. I still haven't done it myself.

Sorry to hijack the thread... Back to normal service!

 

[Rurik]

I have played both double roll and single roll, and am convinced the tables are designed for Double roll.

They work wirth single roll but there are some problems. One of the biggest side effects of the 'switch' to single roll is that weapons become releatively useless for parrying. The parry blocking 2xAP result is fairly common in the 2 roll system.

The only way you can get a block 2xAP result in the one roll system is if you choose to parry a failed attack and you make your parry roll - in which case you convert the failed attack to a hit by making your roll (now explain to me again why anyone would do this).

Same thing happens with Dodge - with the 2 roll system you can actually avoid all damage on a successful dodge if the attacker misses his second roll. In the one roll system a successful dodge always takes minimum damage plus rolled damage modifier unless you critical.

All that aside to directly answer the original question of the topic: 2 rolls felt a bit funky to me and I am using one roll again.

 

[FatPob]

I like the funky sound, also it does go back to an early debate re Mastery rune.
I have rethought and I think I will have a go with 2 rolls, as the 1st game I am running is a legendary 1-off tournement style adventure. The Wepon skills are over 100, so they ain't going to miss, so on the opposed bit (using the half and half again rules) chart thing it could make the game interesting.

 

[bluejay]

Personally I think the two-rolls system is absolutely fine. I have no idea why the system was changed. As Rurik rightly says, not only does the table actually make sense but the probabilities start to work out and certain events actually become likely.

Fatpob, one-roll vs two-roll is not really a problem compared to opposed rolls with skills over 100% ... although of course I can't remember if the halving rule applies to combat.

Anyway, halving rule bad IMHO. Unfortunately I really can't come up with anything better myself...

 

[Quintus]

Even though this thread is a bit old, I'll still comment on it. I had 2 players play Goblins (dont ask...). We had tons of fun. My son joins when were in the 3rd game, with another player that re-rolled a wizard (with a Lightning Spell for heaven sake).

Goblins free wizard and townman/townwatch character from certain death in a giant spider lair in a forest. Goblin A finds a shiny something in a murky pool filled with electric eeels (no clue how they got there - honestly..lol) Goblin fishes out gem. Gem does not like the goblin, sucks out 1 POW and Goblin drops Gem. Town Watch jumps on gem - (mine...mine). A fight ensures...

We use the 1 roll system (after having argued for hours the previous session about 1 or 2 roll system...lots of wasted time and energy, and almost to lost friendships. So we have a classic PVP game going on here (my son's first game - the goblins obsessed with shinies, long story).

My sons character has a shield out. 2 gonblins rush him. 1 a thief with a 80% spear skill, and the other a mercenary fighter type, with a battle axe. Neither had a shield, both wore a Chain Shirt looted from a dead Orc.

Combat takes...foreeeeeeever. Goblins cant hit. When they do hit, my son parries. (Each goblin has 4 actions, my son only 3 actions). So we have 8 swings and only 3 parries, with an extra parry for having a shield. My son wanted to club them on the head. I told him, that with -40% to hit, he wont do a thing. Just swing.

He swings. Never got a crit. Never rolled anything more than a 5 with his sword. He has a +1d2 damage bonus. Guess what happened?

2 DEAD GOBLINS....

Yet, they have been terrorising the countryside. 1 Shadowcat, 1 harmless warrior, killed by a single shot to the head, 2 orcs also shot and killed when they fell down, lost their actions, and then got taken out. 2 more Orcs that failed to ambush the 2 goblins, killed them when they fell down after receiving leg hits, and lost their actions.

Conclusion: having used the combat system before and now. I find that the combat action thing rules the game - too much. If you loose 1-4 combat actions for taking a serious wound, you die. If you have a shield, you will live. Dont worry about armor. You loose that on a parry. A parry is better than the few points of armor you may wear without too much fuss. NEVER WEAR ANY ARMOR OTHER THAN THE LEGS OR ARMS.

Everything else is a waste of time. Roll a d20 a bunch of times...you'll see why. All we ever roll, and that is 6 players rolling, is arms and legs. Chest and Abdomen have enough HP's to soak damage. Legs and arms dont.

No minuses to hit from wounds. Dumb. A right arm hit would hurt. I'm seriously thinking of just ditching this "system" and going back to Harn. Harn has it all figured out, and it works absolutely awesome. This system just has too many quirks...for no reason whatsoever. Why have Actions, when just about everyone gets 3 actions anyway? Make everyone get 1 action a round. And loosing actions because of a hit, also means you loose Reactions...because there are no Reactions, just Actions - Reactions are a result of having Actions. So when you loose Actions (like 4...) you can just roll up a new character. Forget the 1 or 2 die rolling argument.

The real problem (as I see it) is the Actions. They make no sense. And they DO NOT dictate who wins a fight or not. In 8 rounds of fighting, my son was assaulted by 64 actions, in which he had 24 Reactions. he should not ever have survived. But he did. Why? Parry...and not wearing but leather armor.

(This was all done using the 1 roll system, in which I believe in...)

The other bummer is:

No Special Hits, except on crits. In the old system, Specials were the Impale and the Knockback. Now one must crit. And only a fumble on 100? WHy? If I'm really, really terrible with a sword, why should I only goof up as badly as a master swordsman? If a crit and a fumble is similar (beeing oposite in most peoples perspective from each other, the one good, the other bad) then the same percentage equevalent ought to apply to Crits and for Fumbles. 10% chance for either...so if you have a 30% weapons skill, you Crit on a 00-03, but fumble on a 94-00. This is the only way you get the 10% to add up: 3+7 = 10...ehh? Fumble charts for Doging, Parries and Attacks should have been included. Over-extend and the other result could have been built into these charts, or, by using the Special ruling from the old system, that was a lesser form of Crit, but better than a normal hit. Anyway, rambling now. Something is wrong, or many things. But 64 actions vs 24 reactions should have killed my sons character, as they say in the book, and in every thread - get more actions, and you win. Nope...unless you have alot more skill then the other person, or less armor anyway.

Q>..

 

[weasel_fierce]

My main bone of contention with hte double roll is two-fold:
First of all, it adds another die roll to the sequence.

Secondly, and much more importantly to me, Im not keen on rules that change what you see. If you roll a hit, you shouldn't need to roll again to see if you actually did hit. Seems counter-climatic to me.

but thats just personal preference

 

[Quintus]

Absolutely agree...you see the joy in their eyes when they get that all important crit..and then it fades to nothing, as they miss their second roll. Blehhh...

 

[Rurik]

Well, it is worth pointing out that if you look at the combat tables 'failing' the second roll for the attacker does not convert his attack to a miss.

Parying: If the attacker misses his second roll and the defender misses his parry the attack hits. If the attacker misses his second roll and the defender successfully parries 2xAP are blocked - but that is only 4-8 points if he is blocking with a weapon, so you may still get damage through. If the attacker makes his second roll and the defender parries only the AP of the parrying weapon is blocked, a whopping 2-4 points unless it is a shield.

Dodging: Attacker misses second roll defender misses dodge results in a hit. Attacker misses second roll and the defender dodges results in a miss (because of the dodge). Attacker makes second roll and defender dodges the attacker does minimum damage plus rolled damage modifier.

So the second attack roll never converts a success to a failure. If you miss the second attack roll, and the defender misses his roll, you still hit.

And on criticals, I allowed crits through as crits if the second roll was a simple success, so in effect the attacker has 2 shots at a crit. Not entirely fair to the defender, but I like the added lethality.

All of this brought me to a realization on how to use the tables as is without two rolls.....