A different different approach to Target Numbers

target-number

#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).


#21

There is this magic moment when players trying to stop GM from making them pain. This kind of conflict on the table. This feeling when they have nothing to say, they don’t have dice in hand, this is the might beast, coming to get them.

As I’ve said - different approach.
In this one it is player, who owns the destiny, who with one move, one dash, can (or cannot) escape.


#22

Check out Delta’s hotspot if you haven’t already, his Target 20 is basically what you’re describing but for od&d. I’ve considered changing to that system myself, just to become directly compatible with his blog which is super interesting. For those not familiar, he breaks down od&d and looks for first-hand sources to examine the plausibility of different rules. Like: how much should falling damage be?

Regarding making all rolls player-facing, it opens up a lot of neat possibilities. Especially for large groups and crunchier games, I think it’s weirdly underutilized.


#23

One huge advantage of only player facing rolls, is the GM can cover their turn on a big group fast.

If the game wants to offer solo play…it’s very simple.

TN is always 20, Room is +5,
Player 1 you get 2 attacks on you,
Player 2 you get 1 attack on you.
Player 3, you don’t get any attacks…they can’t see you.
Player 4, you get 1 attack on you.
Player 5, you get 1 easy attack on you.
Player 6, you are getting 2 hard attacks on you from these bow men.
Player 7, you are still out of range of any of them.

Player 1 what is your character doing?

About as much time as it takes to say it is as much time as it takes to run a heavy GM combat turn.


#24

That’s a great read! Thanks for sharing that link. And, yes, it’s very similar to what I’ve proposed here.


#25

Reminds me of Xeno Dead Zone where the players roll to dodge Xeno attacks which I thought was nice to keep players engaged even more on the GM’s turn.

My question is why not just take the player’s armor bonus (example +4) and have them roll against the room target of 12?

Have boss enemies be HARD (So room DC of 15) to avoid which is what I assume people are already doing in the default method (when attacking enemies)


#26

You definitely could. However, that does skew the numbers… a +4 AC should require a 14 to hit not a 12.


#27

I see what you’re doing, but I would just substract the CR from the TN to get a 10 to 20 TN range, which is basically ICRPG CORE TN range. That way, you don’t have to make all the calculations when rolling.

Another approach (that meets a better compromise) Is rolling opposed checks. Maybe an attacker could try to hit AC while a defender might try to beat the attack roll with DEX (or another stat) to get a counter attack or something.


#28

That is exactly my experience too: it makes combat feel a lot quicker on the players’ side since they don’t have to wait out the referee’s rolls. (The downside, in my experience, is that rounds become too quick if only one player is involved in combat).

Another cool thing you can do is offer a lot of combat options, like block, heavy attack, counter, what have you. Such complexity would be madness if it also applied to referee rolls…


#29

Hmm not sure where you getting 14 in that example. I must be missing something.

I was referring to the default room DC rules with the example target of 12. When an enemy attacks a player character that player rolls a d20 and adds their armor bonus (+4) to the result to see if they beat 12 just like any other check in the game. The idea would just being removing the base 10 armor and just worrying about the bonus like the other stats.

Very interesting topic, I may have to try this.

#edit
Could see a player rolling a NAT1 on defending meaning the enemy scored a CRIT and adds ULTIMATE effort like normal


#30

@Olav exactly!!! Except if you have only 3 players, player 1 may not be done note taking damage when the GM is done with their turn.
The GM can use that time to describe the sounds and smells of combat as he awaits.

Yes, the flexibility of moves is there, but it is also in standard ICRPG.

@Nimlouth having a fixed target number [20] makes it easy for the players to know their needed roll at all times, the Room bonus or whatever you want to call it, is the bonus number players add to their rolls, so a +10 room is typically easier than a + 5 room. You as the player roll your D20, add room bonus and stat bonus and gear bonus…is it equal or greater than 20? If not I miss or I take damage.

It’s not any harder since you are adding it all up. @Shadymutha I think mistyped in his first post about defense. But I could be wrong and I like my modification on the rule if I am wrong :blush:


#31

Yup. I initially came to this idea when thinking how to do Player facing rolls in OD&D where you have things such as parry, press, defensive fighting.


#32

In normal ICRPG if the you as the player have 4 armor…the creature attacking you needs to hit 14 or better, not the room TN. Since these are all player side rolls, it’s all TN 20…and other things give bonus to adjust difficulty.

1 TARGET NUMBER TO RULE THEM ALL