Why a One Roll Combat?

The idea of one roll combats come from video games – the famous “reaction sequences” from God of War and its numerous clones as well as the Time Crisis arcade games. In those games, usually, out from nowhere, an enemy will launch at you or an event will demand your immediate attention. On the screen a button will flash and you have to hit it at the right timing to avert imminent doom. Resident Evil 4 uses this to good effort, with an entire fights played through by pressing a combination of right buttons.

An armed confrontation, in a RPG, is usually a time for thrill and action-packed roleplaying; but sometimes tactical rules could drag the process down and it becomes a number-crunching, planning-laden process. The motive of thinking up a one-roll combat is to have the thrill of combat without all the lengthy dice rolling.

When to use One Roll Combat?

One of the features of old-school dungeon crawls, and in console rpgs, are random encounters (or planned encounters for the the good old dungeon). The intent is to soften up the adventurers before they come to meet the final bad guy at the end. The idea of one roll combats is for those cases – not for epic, dramatic, pivotal showdowns (which are often slow-downs as well)  but for fighting mooks.

A lot of emphasis on one roll combat is more than just attribute + skill or a roll-under of certain sum of number – but also the use of environment, tactics and strategies to outsmart your opponent. While usually in a normal combat encounter the usage of those is broken into several rounds, for a one-roll combat system this is all abstracted in one quick roll (or several rolls, for each of the player).

Actually, another inspiration for this idea comes from Tunnels and Trolls, where everyone rolls their combat dice and adds and compare it with the monsters. No movement chart, no flanks or attacks of opportunities. Well, no formal rules, anyway. It is possible to use “saving rolls” for other effects, but there’s only GM’s fiat to work that out.

Likely Objections to ORC

Right, typing “One Roll Combat” is tiring my fingers out, so let use ORC as its shorten name instead. One of the biggest objections to ORC is that it takes out all the planning and the fun crunchy part of the game. It’s a valid one; however, ORC is not intended to replace all combat. It is a pacing tool, as one could see later.

A second challenge to ORC is what if it doesn’t incorporate all the nuances of combat? For example, if designing an ORC for D&D 3.5 and it doesn’t take into consideration iterative attacks, fighters may feel ‘nerfed’ when using the ORC system (or for D&D 4, the inability for fighters to mark targets for a long term advantage). For such reason, ironically ORC is good for medium rules heavy game instead of ultra-heavy ones – unless the players are all right with the inconsistency. One thing to stress though is that ORC is a pacing tool – it is  intended for “mook combat” , an alternative to “only 2 combat scenes per game” as fully ran combat could run up to an hour.

A Simple One Roll Combat System for Fate 3.0

To start off simple, let’s consider a ORC for Fate 3.0 (where ORC is the acronym for One Roll Combat). The SRD for Fate 3.0 is online and at any rate it is based on FUDGE. The concept is simple.

1. The mob is given a level, maybe Average (+1) or Good (+3). The GM will roll 4dF for the mob, add it to the it’s level and hide the result.
2. Each player has a chance to use one skill (and if they wish, tag an Aspect or two) in the fight. That skill represents their main thrust of strategy in the combat. A character who uses the Weapon skill is of course, engaging in combat. Another character may use Leadership in an attempt to coordinate the battle. One may use Stealth to try to stay hidden and cause distractions.
3. Players will roll their skill.
4. Each player compare his skill to what the GM has rolled. For each player, if he rolls lower than the mob, he takes a physical stress equal to the number of shift. If the player has rolled higher, the mob takes 1 point of damage. Keep track of the running damage.

For each point of damage taken by the mob, its quality drops by one level. Once it is reduced to mediocre (+0), the mob is dispersed or utterly destroyed. Hence, a mob of Fair quality (+2) upon taking 2 or more points of damage would not be of any threat. If this is too easy, consider this variant – for every point of damage equal to the number of players, the quality of the mob drop by 1. So for 4 characters, if there are 4 points of damage, the mob’s quality will go down by 1.

Only evaluate whether the mob’s threat is neutralised after giving resolving each roll of the player’s.

Of course, some skills would not be applicable during a a pitched battle (for example, Academics), so it’s the GM’s call whether a skill can be used. Depending on the nature of the enemy, certain skills may be penalised. A character going hand to hand with a bunch of gangsters wielding tommy guns may get a disadvantage via tagging of an aspect.

Doing an ORC fo Fate is simple, really. Let try something with medium crunch next – Dragon Warriors.

Now most core rulebooks would suggest that to roll dice only when necessary. However, this is not in the formal rules – it is like more of a rule of thumb. In Spirit of the Century,t hough the game is lighter than most, dice-rolling takes up most game-play time.  True, the Fudge dice roll will ensure that over a long period of time, you will get +0 most of the time but because a game usually involves less than a hundred rolls, you get unexpected results.

Then I played Nobilis. As a GM, I feel strangely…empowered…and at a loss. Last time, whenever the player tries to do something, I set a target number, or apply a penalty (depending whether it is roll and add, or roll-under) then you see the dice roll and decide whether it succeed. In Nobilis, you use miracles. But what happened when a player does not use any miracle at all and try to use social skills to resolve a situation? I was very tempted to make them roll dice – except that this being Nobilis, I didn’t bring any dice.

When it comes to a diceless games, things tend to be black and white – either your miracle (or points bidded) is enough to overcome the challenge, or not. But during the game, where the players are trying to use social means to resolve a problem, I feel it is unfair that I do not give them success, or even partial success, because they do not use any special powers. Plus, they put up a compelling argument. The spirit of the game of Nobilis, after all, is to avoid direct use of force and supernatural powers to get what you want. So I ruled in the party’s favour and have to drop a cinematic “powers unleashed” confrontation (though they did well, I grant them that).

With the dice, I could easily delegated that to random numbers. Part of the responsibility goes to the dice. Sure, GMing guidelines say the GM could ‘fudge’ dice rolls now and then, but that’s not the point. The dice also justifies. “You rolled too low dude, sorry, no game”. It helps the GM to make decisions. That I appreciate.

However, as mentioned upfront, dice-rolling can become a chore. So I would like games that have dice-rolling as an optional part of the game, used only in dramatic situation. Sure, Unknown Armies state that there is no need to roll most of the time, but somehow that doesn’t apply to conflict resolution (character vs. character), which makes up bulk of a game anyway.

So when thinking about Qitai, the characters being Wuxia characters and all that, it would also feel strange to make them roll dices for every actions. I am toying with something like Nobilis and still retain the Fate Points aspect of SoTC. Here is what I have in mind so far.

• If a player’s skill level is equal or higher than the challenge’s level, it is an automatic success.
• In case of automatic success, the player can still roll the Fudge dice for style or to get better results
• If the player’s skill level is lower than the challenge, he will have to spend Fate points to roll the dice. The only thing different is that it is a 4d+ – it is a 0,0,+1,+1,+1,+1 distribution.
• In a stress situation (conflicts), both side will roll the normal 4dF, though the player can still spend a Fate Point to roll 4d+
• The player can instead choose, while tagging an Aspect, to spend 1 Fate point for a +1, 3 Fate Points for a +2 and 6 Fate Points for a +3. Of course, for each +1 he needs to tag one Aspect (and the maximum Aspects he can tag is of course 3) – this is without the need to roll (a normal tag would still give a +2 bonus, but will require a roll)

Hopefully, this would reduce the number of dice rolls needed for the game (the spending of Fate Points to get a flat bonus is pretty much like Nobilis) and at the same time, when the GM needs guidance from the dice, he got it too.

One thing for now is that I think I would put the game out on as “donation-ware” with an optional “buy if you like it”. After all, this is just my first work

First chapter coming up tonight!

I certainty do agree that D&D 4E is onto something with its universal “skill block” for its abilities, even though I personally think it is more suited for MMORPGs and computer games. (Can’t wait for Bioware or Obsidian to come up with Neverwinter Nights 3 with it! I think it’ll be awesome). However, I also sense that it would take away lot of spontaneity for my game.

Fate 3.0’s Aspects are all-purpose ‘properties’ which definition is meaning up to the GM and the group. However, sometimes when attempting to create interesting items with just Aspects, I run into a need for a more specific version of Aspects. First, all the Aspects in Fate 3.0 have the same effect. Second, you could narrow down the scope but it’s usually something between the players and GM, not concrete.

I tried to come up with various ways to give scope and magnitude to Aspects. Here’s the earliest example:

Causes Less Damage (Fact, -1, Physical Damage), Petrifying Curse (Uncommon, +3 vs. Aura, Debuff)

This comes from the weapon Dreadwood Spike. It is supposed to do less damage but has a chance to turn its victim to stone. The first thing I’ve tried to do is to come up with a frequency for Aspects. Usually, in Fate 3.0, you spend Fate Points to tag an enemy’s or your own Aspect (if it is relevant) for a re-roll or a straight +2 bonus (which is quite hefty considering the curve of the Fudge roll).

One the things I have trouble with Aspects and Fate 3.0 is that there are certain properties which holds true all the time. For example, a blade which is super-sharp, an arrow which never missed once fired and so on. Why should the player spend Fate Points for something that is a fact? However, by defining something as a Fact I run into some troubles. For a given item, there could be lots of other facts. Do I have to list them down?

In the end, I decide to just have a Damage skill (or stat) for weapons. It’s up to GM to interpret what does that skill means. For example, a weapon with damage +1 is average. So what’s average? It depends on the world and setting.

However I would still like to retain different magnitude and scope of Aspects. Here’s the chart I come up with

Adding a Fact which just require 0 Fate Points to tag feels kind of nonsensical at this point.  Another difficulty is that I do not wish all Aspects to bestow a +2 all the time. So I came up with three tiers of Aspects. In the end, I did add in an Always but I rarely used it. Should it be there? At this point I have no idea yet. The thing with Aspects it they are only important when the situation demands it, hence the spending of a Fate Point. I believe I may use Always for an Aspect that is always a weakness, or its first tag is free and after that it becomes a Frequent Aspect.

One of the thing that I am still considering to tweak is this is not the usual Fudge ladder. I could have use the Fudge ladder to describe the Aspects, such as Average, Good and Superb – but I feel that the terms Minor, Significant and Major gives a different feel. In the end, I drop the Magnitude terms all together, and just tag a number to the end of the Aspect.

Another issue is when do the aspect apply. For example, the Dreadwood Spike puts a Petrifying Curse on its victim if he fails on an Aura roll (think of it as the spell resistance skill for Fate Fantasy) against +3. However, as times go by and I try to putting out magical items using this syntax, something dawns on me.

Aspects are “properties” of an object, not its “function”. In an object-oriented programming parallel, Aspects are the properties of a character, an item or a scene. Using that parallel, then what is the function (or method) of the class? Skills

As such, I simplify the “syntax” used to describe Aspects (from the Skysplitter Axe)

Lethality: +2, Breaks through Magical Barrier (Frequent Significant), Long Reach, Heavy

At this point I still haven’t settle for using “Damage” to describe damage, but stick to Lethality (hey it sounds cooler then). Also note the removal that instead of using number, I have returned to using the descriptors (”Significant”, instead of +2). Honestly, I was just playing around to see which format is the best.

I think I finally settle on a format which I like when trying to come up with the Winter’s Fang

Aspects: Long Reach, Piercing, Winter’s Fury
Skills: Icy Blast +3 (form: projectile, function: direct damage, affinity: ice)

An Aspect, if not defined with a magnitude and frequency tags, is always assumed to be a Common Significant (or Common +2).  At this point, I stumble upon an idea of defining the various abilities of enchanted items (and perhaps for Fate 3.0 stunts as well). The template is form, function and affinity. Form is a general description of how the ability is manifested, function is what it does, and affinity is just a “tag” of sort to give reader an idea what elements or concept is related with the effects of the skill. I could easily define a poison spray this way:

Skill: Poison Spray (form: spray [1 zone], function: poisons, affinity: snake venom)

I still have no idea how solid this idea is and would be able to hold up to the different tasks I have in mind. However, Ican see a light at the end of the tunnel…

Wound Boxes

Ordinary characters have no wound boxes – upon a hit, they will take a consquence immediately or are taken out. Your character’s levels in Toughness, Might and Atheltics will determine the amount of Wound Boxes you have. For every 2 levels in any of those skill, you will get one wound. However, you can’t get more than 4 wound boxes this way. For every 4th wound box and above, you will need an Aspect to describe your capability to withstand damage, such as “Giant size” or “Durant”.

Damage

Instead of giving a damage rating for all weapons possible, try using this simple system. A weapon that is sharp will give a +1 damage; large weapons which require two hands to wield grant another +1 damage and heavy weapons get another +1. A typical longsword would have +2 damage for being sharp and heavy.  The GM is free to add more modifiers to it – for example, a super-sharp mono-filament sword may have +2 sharpness.

If you strike in combat, you do damage equal to the weapon’s damage rating multiplied by the amount of shifts you have gained. If you generate spin, you may also add an aspect. Depending on the damage, it is either sticky or non-sticky. It is sticky if you manage to cause a roll-up on the wounds track otherwise, it is temporary.

Taking this out for a spin, a longsword with +2 damage with a shift of +2 will do +4 damage, which is enough to take down most characters with a blow. Aspects and Fate Points can be invoked by the defender to reduce the amount of damage taken (-2 for each Aspect invoked).

For firearms, the damage is equal to the roll (not number of shifts, but you must generate at least 1 shift) multipied by the number of shifts. If you manage to generate a spin, you increase your shift by 1. Guns can do deadly damage in this case, but for each type of guns, there’s a maximum damage. For example, a revolver may only have Damage +3 – no matter what your roll is, you will never do more than +3 damage.

Armour

Damage goes to armour first, then to the wounds; so wearing a suit of armour is like having a few more wound boxes. However, certain weapons with the Piercing skill directly ignores armour – the level of the piercing skill determine the amount of piercing damage done which is not absorbed by armour, and is equal to the level of piercing skill multiplied by the number of shifts obtained.

Usually, padded armour gives 1 additional wound box, chain mail gives 2, plate gives 4 and full plates gives 6. It is recommended, though, that characters have a relevant Aspect for being able to wear armour from plate onwards. In Fate Fantasy, there is an Armour Training skill which determine the heaviest type of armour that one can wear.

The wound box given by Armour are put in front of the existing wound boxes which the character. Hence, a character with Toughness 2 wearing padded armour will have 2 wound boxes.

For firefight, the armour would be simple Kevlar chest-plate, full combat suit and so on. Those are generally more effective against bullets than close combat weapons though.

Fate 3.0 Stats
Aspect: Fight till my last breath! , Before any of you shed more blood

Altered Fate Stats
Let Blood Fury take me! ( Common Major Aspect, use by character when have 2 or less Physical Stress boxes unchecked, combat actions only, buff), Berserk Speed (Common Significant Aspect, use by character when have 2 or less Physical Stress boxes unchecked, Initiative only, buff)

Dragon Warrior Stats
Short Sword  (d8, 3 points), becomes a +2 weapons (d8+2, 5 points) when wielder has 3 HP or less and also grant the user one additional attack at the start of the round before anyone else acts. He would only collapse when his HP falls below -3 (which is when he dies too).

This article discusses ways in which aspects can be easily placed in Fate 3.0 during a conflict, making them the central theme of combat and fierce debates instead of high skills and good dice rolls.

Placing Aspects on Close Call

If a named character’s attack fail to connect, consider placing a fragile aspect on the target instead of just letting it pass. A close call could be both sides having the same roll or narrowly missing by a range of 1. As usual, the GM’s judgement call is used to consider if the Aspect being placed is suitable. Examples would include:

• “Even though my enemy manages to block my blow with a shield, my powerful blow knocks him staggered” (Aspect: Staggered)
• “My hail of machine-gun fire may have missed them all, but they are going to drop the idea of flanking” (Aspect: Flanking them won’t work!)
• “Accusing him of murdering his own brother may not have non-nonplussed him at all, but I am not so sure about the audience!” (Aspect: The Audience Doubts Him)

Close Call Attacks against Minions

A group of minion not commanded by a named character gets an fragile aspect whenever there is a close call, and the range is increased to 2 (so if the group’s roll vs. your roll is 2 or less, you get to place the aspect).

Spin on Maneuvers

The original Spirit of the Century rules allow that on a spin during a Manuever, the Aspect becomes sticky. However, it doesn’t make sense that a maneuver which has such dire consequences have no practical impact at all. For example, a martial art master may use his Brawling skill for a maneuver, maybe “I trip him down so that he is off balanced” and achieved a spin of 3+ – so perhaps the opponent’s ankle is sprained or otherwise his movement is hampered; but such a feat should incur some physical stress at least!

The easiest way to rule this is to change allow the Manuever to inflict stess equal to the roll minus  3 (down to a minimum of 1). A more drastic way, for a deadlier game, is for one round the whammied character is considered to have all his stress boxes failed.

Other use of Spins include allowing the character to make one free action against his target, if you like to have a more cinematic game.

Fate Fantasy is a modification to Fate 3.0 for a fantasy-based setting.

The PDFs below are a rules modification for Fate 3.0 (the rule-set behind Spirit of the New Century – from Evil Hat Productions). These rules are more suitable for a sword and sorcery style of game. Currently, they are still pretty raw, unformatted but functional. There has been a single play-test and tweaks are still being made to it.

You are free to download those rules and play around with them!

Fate Fantasy: Skills (208)
Fate Fantasy: Talents (Stunts) (164)
Fate Fantasy: Combat Rules (229)
Fate Fantasy: Magic (216)
Fate Fantasy: Character Sheet (145)

• Frequency (rare, common, frequent)
• Magnitude (minor, significant, major)

The default Aspect has a frequency of common (2 Fate Points to tag/invoke) and a Magnitude of Significant (+2 to dice rolls).

Permanent Aspects or Facts

Some aspects are permanent. They always exist. For example, a wall is hard. That’s a permanent aspect. Tagging a permanent aspect still costs 1 Fate Point – the advantage is that you have to remember that when you tag, it becomes significant. A man can be a drunk and imparied, and normally, he would take a penalty to all his shots. Yet Fate is not a fine-grained system – so the system of tagging Aspects are is used to represent the moment when the fact that the man is drunk is important.

The biggest advantage about permanent Aspect is that they are i) obivous and ii) you don’t need to discover or place them on your targets.

What the GM can change now is how important the aspect is. A +2 or a re-roll is a significant impact; hence if the GM thinks the reason is too contrived, he can instead change it to a minor magnitude (+1 to roll and no re-rolls).