The appeal of players rolling saves

[OgreBattle]

Been thinking about what defenses are passive (offender rolls vs TN) vs what are active (defender rolls vs TN or opposed roll)

In D&D swording someone is typical, so passive, but a cave collapsing is a reflex save as it's weird if you roll the cave in attacking the player. Mental attacks are also not as common so a WILL save to resist fear and whatnot feels good. It takes up a bit more time to roll a save though, so it shouldn't be something that a player does every turn.

Counter-abilities can also activate from a save. The skirmish game Infinity has a lot of reactive abilities like shooting back or diving away (movement) that require winning a roll off

Is there an ideal in your mind of what sort of attacks are met with passive or active defenses? There's a ton of factors to take in like overall complexity of the game, actions per turn and so on yeah, but what's yer preference anyways?

[deaddmwalking]

There's a ton of factors to take in like overall complexity of the game, actions per turn and so on yeah, but what's yer preference anyways?

Mathematically, there is really no difference between attacker rolls to overcome defense (like D&D attack rolls) and defender rolls to resist attack (like Will Saves). There is a difference in 'feels'. Usually, a single attack isn't going to drop your character. A single failed will save, could. For that reason, most players 'feel' that they have a chance to 'win' by rolling high. Instead of a passive victim, they're resisting.

In general, it's probably better to let players roll as much as possible. Let the wizards 'overcome' the defenses of the enemies; let players 'resist' the attacks of their enemies. However, that can't work if players sometimes fight each other.

The more often players do something to the enemy, the more they'll want to roll the attack. The more significant the penalty to them, the more they'll want to roll the defense.

[OgreBattle]

How about opposed rolls.

I've been looking at various skirmish games that have melee attacks result in an opposed roll instead of "I hit you... then you wait your turn"

I figure that's good for 'chaotic' situations like melee combat, or wizards blasting their juice at each other.

[Kaelik]

There is actually no difference in any way, and your believe that mental attacks should be passive attacks rolled defensively by the PCs is ENTIRELY a function of that's how the systems you learned did it.

[RobbyPants]

The only other issues could be things like a wizard casting a spell against a bunch of opponents: if each opponent saves, they get different results for different opponents (and the DM has to roll a bunch of dice). If the wizard rolls one attack, the same outcome happens for all opponents. Alternately, the wizard can roll one attack per creature in the area. So long as the encounters don't have a shit-ton of opponents, that can work just fine.

[Mord]

I like a system where everybody involved in the action gets a roll. Rolling defenses means that at least the guy whose initiative pass is over has to pay attention sometimes instead of being on his phone for the next 30m. Something like "attacker rolls for magnitude of effect (usually damage), defender rolls to resist (whether that be a save or an AC-equivalent)".

To frame this in DnD 3E terms because I am a rat in a maze, I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for there to be a passive AC in a world where you also have a Fort and a Reflex save. Between the 2, they've basically eaten AC's entire conceptual space; how can you describe what it is about you that caused the medusa to miss her shot (rolled low vs AC) that can't be described as dodging (reflex) or tanking (fort)?

[OgreBattle]

To frame this in DnD 3E terms because I am a rat in a maze

10mins have passed so you're good.

I don't think it makes a whole lot of sense for there to be a passive AC in a world where you also have a Fort and a Reflex save. Between the 2, they've basically eaten AC's entire conceptual space; how can you describe what it is about you that caused the medusa to miss her shot (rolled low vs AC) that can't be described as dodging (reflex) or tanking (fort)?

I figure it could be replaced by an opposed roll, but that would require a rejiggering of D&D action economy and turn order fundamentals. "and they run each other through" is something that happens often in fiction and reality melee's, but never in D&D.

[DenizenKane]

You could make the players always be the active roller, and the GM is always passive.

[Antariuk]

You could make the players always be the active roller, and the GM is always passive.

Numenera works like that. Players roll to attack and defend and whatever other actions the MC pulls out of his hat (or reads from his monster stats). The only MC rolls are on random tables.

[angelfromanotherpin]

You could make the players always be the active roller, and the GM is always passive.

You have to make a decision about what happens in PC-vs-PC actions. Do those situations have double the RNG? Also, NPC vs NPC actions, which in this situation might be interpreted as no RNG (That's how the Buffy RPG did it, and it sucked).

[GâtFromKI]

You could make the players always be the active roller, and the GM is always passive.

You have to make a decision about what happens in PC-vs-PC actions. Do those situations have double the RNG? Also, NPC vs NPC actions, which in this situation might be interpreted as no RNG (That's how the Buffy RPG did it, and it sucked).

A system like D&D is symmetrical, it's the same if only the attacker rolls or only if the defender rolls (...actually, to be perfectly symmetrical, the AC should be 11+bonus, spells DC should be 11+bonus, etc. close enough). Hence you can decide that PC always roll and NPC don't, and in case of PvP or EvE you come back to the situation where the attacker rolls and defense is passive. It's not the only system working this way (including some systems where the "PCs always roll" is the default).

Numenera doesn't work like this, the system becomes clunky when used for PvP or EvE. It's a serious flaw in the system (that, and the fact the PC can't use ennemy's magic items because the rules aren't the same). it's not the only system working this way.

Conclusion: when you design a system, it's better if attack and defense are symmetrical and if it's easy to switch from passive attack vs active defense to active attack vs passive defense. Then you can decide which roll is active (usually always attack or always PCs), but it's easy to houserule it the other way around depending of each MC's preference, and it's easy to handle PvP/EvE.

[tussock]

Letting players have a defence that feels like defending is good.

Like, in AD&D there was spells that killed you if you failed a save, which was a pain, and also Psi which killed you if your opponent rolled a low % chance.

People were annoyed by, but accepted the first, and rage-quit D&D permanently after the second. People hated first edition Psi, massively out of proportion to it's effectiveness, just because the DM rolled something and then you suffered the effect "and there was nothing you could do".

If you're going to have consequences in a game that are bigger than "fall forward" or whatever, you need to let the player roll something to avoid it, or have some pool to soak it like HPs where attacks can't blow through in a single hit anyway, or at a minimum roll something to counter it when their turn comes up.

But however you do it, it's also more immersive if the monsters use the same mechanics, and lets you have monsters on-team and PC types off-team transparently.

--

I mean, there's also stuff about game tempo and who has time for math. While the Wizard is summing up 10d6 for fireball the DM can roll a few saves; while the DM is rolling dragon breath, every player is rolling a save; DM can roll attacks and damage for multiple monsters as each player rolls appropriate saves or marks off HP. Fighter rolls attacks and damage, DM looks up AC/resistances or whatever and marks off HP. That all works a bit smoother with team initiative, but it's still there in 3e style.

PS. Team turns also mean everyone's paying attention multiple times per round, not just zoning out while another player struggles with math.

PPS. Go easy on the math.