I was reading about One Roll Engine, and thought of something that may have already been tried but I don't know anything.
If the numbers represent where an attack strikes, then it would be reasonable to have defense in the form offsetting die rolls. Like a defense of 3 lets you alter the outcomes of 3 dice by 1 each. Additionally, parts of the body could have different widths required to inflict damage, so you can move the rolls around to "block" with those parts.
The concern there though is turning every attack into a puzzle. The defender has to figure out where to change the rolls so that they will result in the worse results for the attacker. You'd likely need to switch down to d6 instead of d10 for this, because having multiple numbers on one body part messes up the dynamics.
>>43813887
The one roll engine works with any die type in theory you just got to watch the number of dice you're rolling.
One Roll Engine assumes you'll never roll more then ten dice at any given time as you'll have to roll doubles.
Having multiple numbers per body part is intentional. You're more like to hit some parts over others
>>43814004
I forgot to clarify something. In this d6 version, the difficulty of a head shot would instead be represented by an increased width threshold for the head, instead of it having half the amount of numbers on the dice as the other body parts. Breaking up a 5 pair by turning one of them into a 6, as long as there were no other 6s in the pool, would be like ducking under an attack.
>>43814188
hmmm… sorry i can't work out the concept your suggesting here.
basically you can drop dies right?
I think you're seriously overcomplicating what ORE is about.
That being said, there are already rules (both official and house) for squishing dice, turning a 3x5 to a 2x6 or 4x4, for example. I'd have to go looking for them, but I'm not going to go looking. There's also some alternate damage rules floating around, I think I might have them off of Arc Dream's site, either that or Stolze's.
>>43816257
The defender can influence the attacker's dice to break up sets so that fewer/none of them reach the required width to hit.
>>43816461
I thought that was a actually official rule in ORE desu but i must of imagitved it
>>43816461
That's literally how the various defenses already work, anon. They provide gobble dice which shrink attacker's sets until they're worthless.
>>43813887
ORE is meant to be a "roll once" affair, so it is hard to mix up offense and defense. You would also need to change how damage is calculated so you can "soften" a blow by moving the impact somewhere else.
>>43816992
>ORE is meant to be a "roll once"
Yeah I think it gets mentioned in a few places. Like the title.
>>43816664
Gobble dice seem weird.
>>43817152
For what it's worth, Reign describes how gobble dice work much better than Wild Talents does.
For opposed rolls, assuming that you roll a set equal in Width to what the opponent does and it has at least as much Height as the opponent's roll as well, that set you rolled becomes gobble dice, which subtract dice from the opponent's rolls.
Same basic thing as getting hit, really - if you get hit, it takes a die away from the largest set you roll, lowering your chance of success.
>>43817635
Defense seems kind of weak that way though. Also, I think it's redundant to mention width because you won't have enough initiative to resolve the set before getting hit anyway if it's lower than the attack you're trying to avoid.
>>43817739
That's kind of the point. It doesn't matter how perfect your defense is if your opponent brings their attack down on you before you can move to defend yourself.
>>43816398
Yeah, you can generally use the equivalent of Fate Points to increase or squish rolls. There's also passive defenses that can squish either the height or width of a roll for any subsequent attacks.
There's also active defenses, where you use it for your turn and if you beat an attacker's width and/or height you can negate their attack entirely or shift their roll if you succeed but are slower than them.
Another thing I was wondering about ORE is the importance of dice pool sizes not exceeding the number of sides on the die. Is "no guaranteed successes" that important? Smaller dice let you play around with width more because sets are more common, which is why I used it in my example.
>>43817739
There's way to increase your effective width, making it wider and such-like so that's not as useless as it might seem.
In wild talents and reign when power levels are getting high an arm race will often start as both sides try to increase their defense widths to shrink their attacker's offenses while the attacker is trying to increase their attacks' width - of the two reign games I've GM'd though that's only happened once when an enemy whose schtick was Body self-buffs got into a grapple with a PC whose schtick was Coordination self-buffs, and they grabbed each other and basically stood motionless in that position muttering magical words at themselves for 4 rounds until the PC flubbed a roll and got thrown out the window faster than he could counter the throw.
>>43818067
>the PC flubbed a roll and got thrown out the window faster than he could counter the throw.
Clearly defenestration was that enemy's mission/duty/craving. If only the PC had "not falling out of shit" as one of his to counteract that.
>>43818030
The statistical probability for getting matched sets beyond X>F (for values of XdF) gets a bit weird is the short and curly of it; Like your chance of getting multiple sets of width 2 starts to increase faster than your chance of getting a single set of width 3, so everyone starts acting like they're grown a couple extra arms and is able to do a shit load of things simultaneously but at the same time any specific action they do is done at the usual speed.
>>43818147
So you're saying that there should be rules for increasing the max size of your dice pool via growing more limbs. But if you aren't at the cap, what bonuses would the extra limbs give?
