A different different approach to Target Numbers

target-number
#1

I’ve been doing a lot of thinking around ICRPG, B/X D&D, room target numbers, and descending AC vs ascending AC, and using Player facing rolls.

First, some nomenclature so we’re on the same page…

Target = this is always 20. This is the number to meet or beat to be successful with your action.

Challenge Rating (CR) = this is how difficult a room is. The higher the number, the easier. Lower is harder. For practical purposes 10 is easiest, 0 is hardest.

Attack = D20+attack bonus+room target. If it meets or beats 20 then you successfully hit your opponent.

Defense = D20+your AC+room target. If it meets or beats 20 you take damage.

Now, in play…

Fighter (with an Attack Bonus 4 and AC 7) enters a room of CR 6 with an orc in it. The orc swings his club at him. Player rolls to defend, 11(d20)+7(AC)+6(room CR)=24. Fighter avoids the strike because he beat 20.

Fighter attacks the orc. Player rolls 6(d20)+4(AB)+6(CR)=16. Fighter misses the orc because less than 20.

ROLL OFF
#2

Your nomenclature is a bit confusing but the examples clearly illustrate what you mean.

This is certainly doable and is essentially the same thing as the status quo but with the numbers shifted around. Under such a system, ARMOR is a regular STAT, just like DEX.

With regular rules we change the Room Target; with your suggestion we change the room CR. Yet, adding the room CR to the ATTEMPT is weird and more difficult.

#3

For a new player I think it’s easier for them to understand a target of 20. Saying it’s12, 15 or whatever can seem too arbitrary. I realize we’re still dealing with the same variables here, just shifting the formula.

Plus, using a TN 12 and asking players to roll their AC for Defense doesn’t work.

#4

But why?! It is essentially the same thing except you have to do math every roll. I see no benefits but if there are some I’d like to hear them.

#5

It doesn’t get easier than roll a D20, add your bonus, and meet or beat a target that’s clearly displayed for everyone. Lately, we’ve even been sticking with an all-time target of 12.

Making a player roll a d20, add a bonus, and then adding another random CR number, and then comparing to 20 is just an added layer of complication.

I think it’s clever thinking like a lot of rules out there, but at the end of the day, I don’t view it as an improvement on ICRPG’s simplicity.

#6

My 5 year old could understand the concept of the target is 15 roll that or Higher. And he knows as soon as the dice rolls off the table and onto the floor. (Kids ain’t great at keeping the dice on the table)

Your system means is exactly the same. Roll higher than a number. Except that number is always 20 and you have to do math to get there.

Your system is more complicated not simpler.

Assuming that is that the target number is always big and visible for the players so they know.

Also with your system and the CR I think it kinda obfuscates the difficulty whereas with the rules as described if you walk into a new room and the room target changes from 11 to 16. Everyone immediately knows things just got real.

#7

The more you add, the more error prone system becomes. So when you have d20 + attack + room you have more to do in compare to stat + d20. Once I’ve played in system when multiple different factors you had to take into account before result was finally calculated. What I have to say is that such game is harder to maintain and in time, when your numbers groves, it is slower and slower.
One additional thing I see here, is that game master do not roll here, right? It was player, who had to roll defense and it was player again who had to roll attack. I like to roll dices against players, it is a part of fun

But your system will work I think anyway. I suppose attack bonus will be taken from weapon class / type right?

#8

Because I prefer Player facing rolls. Using traditional ICRPG doesn’t work work very well rolling AC to defend against a room of 12. The PC would rarely get hit.

#9

That was the purpose of this thought project. I prefer Player facing rolls.

#10

The advantage of ShadyMutha’s system is that all roles are player facing and the player rolls their armor or defense as opposed to the GM rolling attacks on the player. If you are not interested in doing all player facing rolls I’m not sure there’s an advantage to the system. I happen to like player facing rolls myself as it frees me, the GM, up to worry about other things.

Edit to add looks like we were typing at the same time!

#11

So rather than you rolling for monster attacks against their ac, you want them to roll their own dice to see if they were hit.

#12

The other piece I would add is this: who gets to make a defense roll? Everyone? And I guess the DM does no rolling? So, on that side of the ledger, you just put the burden of all-time saving throws (with that extra math) onto your players. While I know some games have players roll defense all the time, and without getting into the merits of those systems, I am not a fan of that method. You lose so many options as a DM to challenge your players that way.

#13

Correct. That’s what I posted in the OP.

If DM is not interested in Player facing rolls, no need to change things up. But if you do like Player facing, here’s a way.

I initially thought of this in regards to playing old school D&D and considering ascending AC vs descending DC but thought it also can work for ICRPG.

#14

We used player facing rolls in the ICRPG Colonial Gothic game where players rolled strength or Dex against melee or ranged attacks respectively. In a world where armor isn’t really used I can see that, in worlds were armor is commonly used it doesn’t make as much sense to make strength or Dex saves against being hit unless armor becomes ablative.

#15

I’ve got even special red dice, so in time, when I see there is chance to eventually knockout someone with one roll, I pick this one perfect bloody. Players know what is going on, tension is going up in some magic way :wink:
Just different approach

#16

So you think you bringing the pain on a player is more demoralizing than them doing it to themselves? :crazy_face:

#17

Frankly, I appreciate folks responding but am taken aback at the type of responses to a DIY thought project. Everyone quick to shoot the horse before it leaves the gate. It’s almost like telling a D&D group to use a single number for an entire room.

#18

There have been a couple good threads on player facing rolls.

Here:

Here:

Here:

And here:

Lots of ways to skin that topic. The bottom line is this: this is a DIY community. Do it your way. Make it your game. Just be prepared that if you ask for feedback, people show up with opinions. Lol.

#19

Exactly. I don’t think anyone is telling you ”Don’t do it, just follow the rules!”

At least from me I was just providing my opinion that you made every roll more mathy for very little benefit imo. You are welcome to still play however you like. If you and your group are having fun then That is all that matters.

But my opinion is I’m sure there must be a simpler way.

#20

The extra math involved seems like it would slow things down. If you want players to make the rolls, what about just having them roll the attacks against them? For instance, the goblin attacks the fighter. Tell the player the modifier is +2 and have them roll the die. They know their armor so they respond with hit or miss (or even better describes how it hits or misses).