I would argue that even at level 1 to take AD&D for example a character is a cut above the rest of the population so dodging arrows etc should be an allowable thing

I still like the old THAC0 system.  Simple and effective and quick

• Do people think that rolling to dodge weapons fire in RPGs doesn’t feel right?
• Could you make it a more static test of can the shooter hit the target?
• Would it make more sense the target to have to use their environment to impose against the shooter?
• Are you just playing a wargame at that point (Frostgrave? Rangers of Shadowdeep)?
• Do people like their, no it is a RPG  and my character is dodgy so I dodge nature of such typical systems.
• What else could RPGs learn from wargaming?
• What other principles would you like to see make the cross over?

There isn’t really any right answer to any of these. I have recently seen a discussion on an Infinity Facebook group about the Infinity RPG and people are complaining about “abstract combat” and an “abstract money system”. All dice rolls in all games an abstraction not a simulation so they won’t ever feel “right” as such, they will only meet a personal preference, or not. Questions like should a characters roll to dodge bullets? Well, why not? The first question you have to ask is should dodging bullets, regardless of how it is abstracted into a game mechanic, be possible at all? You have to decide what it is that you are trying to simulate. Is it the Matrix where some stands on the spot and apparently flails their arms around or is it someone being possessed of quick reflexes and a sharp eye noticing that they’re being lined up for a shot and diving out the way fractions of a second before the trigger is pulled. It may be both or neither depending on the setting of the game. Once you have made a decision whether a particular action should be allowed in the game you can ask the question is it an active action or a passive action

• Passive – occurs automatically without requiring any action by the player.
• Active – player elects to do the action

Then how does the effect manifest? Is it a stand alone roll, is it a versus roll or does it just confer a penalty/bonus?

• Stand alone – player rolls against a pre determined target and this target is not affected by their opponent
• Versus – both attacker and defender roll against the other to see who gets the best score based on whatever mechanics are in use
• Penalty/Bonus – the action requires no roll and either provides some numerical bonus to the player taking the action or provides a penalty to the attacker.

Whilst dodge is the example given the above applies to pretty much everything in both RPGs and Wargames. The dice mechanic is not a simulation of reality it is an abstraction of it, a means of determining whether a stated action is successful or not.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s some really, really bad abstractions out there and the most popular RPGs in the world (D&D and Pathfinder) are absolutely full of things that don’t really make any sense.  And in most games you will find at least one thing that makes you raise an eyebrow. But at the end of the day the rules still serve their purpose

I don’t really think RPGs can learn anything specific from wargames or vice versa. I think, however, there’s some very clever and fun mechanics in use in lots of game of both types that could be fun if ported into other games but that probably cuts both ways

dodging bullets ?

ha ha … nope … unless the bullets travel at the same speed as an arrow … and even then you need super human awareness and above average skill.

But hey … if you decide it is possible within your setting then do your thing 😀

@onlyonepinman mentions a very important bit : active vs passive abilities.

Dodging stuff would be a given when you’re under attack as you’d have to be insanely stupid/brave to walk in a straight line.
Even in close combat that question can be abstracted away, because some combat techniques may simply lean more towards dodging stuff as opposed to getting a thick skin ….

Parrying attacks is kind of silly when the same system accepts that using your shield is ‘standard’.
I used to think that you needed a specific test/skill check for every possible attack … but that sort of thing only ever makes sense if you’re playing Street Fighter RPG and every battle is a simulation of the videogame. It does help players be a bit more creative in combat as they don’t have to go “I hit them with my sword” every round … but at the same time the added detail is more of narrative use as there would have to be a never ending discussion about which offensive technique is best against any given defensive stance/technique.

I suppose the fact that rpg’s tend to mix various levels of abstraction is what makes these systems confusing and less coherent.

I’d argue that money is an abstract thing in all RPG’s because you rarely have to pay your monthly bills or the cost of your room at the inn in the vast majority. As such it is kind of silly to declare a that a sword is worth X gold pieces …

I doubt most games have a functional economy when you start looking at the mechanics of dungeon exploring and its effects on the world.

@limburger why not dodging bullets? Superhero games, cyberpunk games with augmented reflexes etc. There are many reasons why dodging bullets might be possible in an RPG. But even discounting those situations, if you have dodge as an action/reaction in a game and you can use that action against a ranged attack then you are in fact dodging bullets.  The narrative of how you dodge those bullets is entirely up to you to explain.

I don’t really think there’s any one size fits all solution to how that mechanic should be implemented, it only needs to be consistent with the rest of the game and you kind of have to just accept that it’s not intended to simulate real life, it’s an abstraction intended to give you a non-deterministic means of deciding whether an action occurs or not.  You can break each scenario down into as many or as few dice rolls as you like.   So in the example of an attack you could break it down into a single roll – attacker rolls a dice and the attack either succeeds or fails with no input from the defender, any defences the defender has are factored into the attack roll – this is essentially like D&D. Or you can make it so that the attacker rolls to hit, then the defender can roll for defences such as armour or dodge or both – this is more like Dark Heresy. Which you prefer is entirely down to you, neither is right or wrong however in both cases the narrative should be identical.  It should work something like this:

1. Attacker declares an attack
2. Rolls are made, whatever they happen to be
3. Outcome is determined
4. GM describes how the events unfold

The same steps are followed regardless of the specific mechanics or how many dice are rolled

Most RPGs I have played have mechincs for things like surprise whereby if you are unaware of an attack you suffer penalties and/or your attacker gains advantages.  One of those might be that you lose your ability to dodge.  They also usually define if/when certain abilities can or cannot be used.  Ultimately it doesn’t really make any difference as long as the rules are all internally consistent – you can always make a case both for an against an action being usable in any given context.  I don’t see any reason why dodge cannot be used at point blank range, at that range you are virtually in melee combat anyway however you would also expect there to be some additional bonuses to the attacker at point blank that would actually make dodging more difficult.  I am not saying that there are no bad games mechanics out there, maybe in some games the dodge mechanic isn’t particularly good, but in and of themselves they don’t represent a case for RPGs in general needing to learn from wargames, they’re just an example of a bad rule.  Pretty sure if you look at any wargame you will also find some rules that don’t seem to make any sense.  Personally I think the family of D20 system derivative games (D&D, Pathfinder etc) has built its entire reputation and silly mechanics, things that have been wrong with the game since its inception, but people still love it and ultimately it still works as a game

I would also argue that in an RPG all sides should not always play by the same rules.  The GM is responsible for what happens regardless of the dice rolls and there’s some very good reasons why, as a GM, you might actually play by the rules and might want to bend them or fudge them, especially if you realise that you have either over or under estimated the players abilities or they’re just having a bad day with the dice.  The GM’s job is not to make a fair fight but to tell an interesting story and what goes on behind the GM’s screen stays behind the GM’s screen.

In some games the GM and the players don’t play by the same rules at all – in Symbaroum for example the GM makes no dice rolls at all, every action is driven entirely by the players.  When the baddies attack a player, they roll defence with modifiers based on the the attackers’ abilities.

Ive always just wished D&D would just change the wording of few things to help better understand what the mechanics are actually doing.

The biggest problem has always been the “To Hit” roll.  “To Hit” implies striking the target, which is entirely not what you are doing at all.  Which leads straight into the players referring to attack rolls as “hits” or “misses”.  Which again does not have any bearing on what just happened in the game.

You are rolling to bypass ALL defenses the target has, whether you actually strike/hit or not doesnt have a bearing on the roll you just made.

When I explain it to new players I call it a “To Damage” roll (or sometimes I call a “To Wound” roll).   You are rolling to see if you “damaged” your target.  If you succeed you have damaged the target and can now roll that damage and see how badly the target is “damaged”.

The Attack roll truly is a “To Damage” roll.  If D&D just called it that in the first place, you would get alot less problems.

The other is of course AC.  Just get rid of AC all together and call it “Defenses”.