Unofficial Poll(To hit or to engage?)

[surgical111]

I'm just a lowly aspiring game designer who is making my way through my first "serious" project, which is at its base a miniature war game. The question I want to put to the community is simply do you like games where your models move into base to base with a enemy and roll a "to hit" or would you rather your model engage in a test of skill in which either could come out on top, no matter whose "turn" or "activation" it is.

Full disclosure I favor the latter of the two, I think it better illustrates the desperate exchange of feints, counters, parries and attacks that melee combat encompasses. And thus this is the approach I've taken with my project, but if you guys will humor me I wanted to ask and get input on 2 different fronts.

1. Which type of mechanic; "to hit" or "to engage" do you prefer and why.
2. If you do choose "to engage" or if you just want to add your 2 cents to the conversation I want to know how competitive a lower skilled model should be vs. a higher skilled model. I know if models are equally skilled it can go either way as the contest is prone the whims of the Dice Gods, but if one model is ridiculously higher skilled (say skill 8) than the other (say skill 1), should the lower skilled model have a chance in hell. If you say "no chance in hell" would this be a fun killer or just a cold hard fact of reality.

 

[Sicks]

I like the sound of the 2nd idea, I don't really play games these days but if you've ever played blood bowl they had a system where if you roll a 1 you always fail and a 6 is always a success regardless of stats or skills, to me it seemed fun because there was always a chance that something could work, even if it was really slim, it also leads to some interesting tales of unlikelihood, like a single goblin taking out an ogre or this one time on the last turn I managed to score a winning touchdown when the ball was next to my endzone which required about 6 unlikely rolls to get it to the opponent's end to score.

Also I would assume someone trained to fight in an army would know how to hit someone with a sword so thematically rolling to hit seems off to me

 

[surgical111]

I never played Bloodbowl but that does sound fun, a goblin taking out an Ogre. Wowsers!

But its good to hear that others might find the "to engage" style more engrossing and true to melee combat. I wanted to create a realistic but not overly complex set of mechanics that would keep all parties stuck in melee combat engaged and guessing, but that didn't devolve into utter chaos.

Thanks for the reply Sicks, I wish you luck in all your endeavors.

 

[Dragonsreach]

I'm all for the "to engage" model, having seen a Terminator taken out by a Gretchen with a blunderbus!
Sensible modifiers applied between two unequal opponents can makes huge difference, something like applying Speed/Dexterity bonus to a lightly armoured combatant making him/her more difficult to hit.

 

[surgical111]

Just to refocus the "to engage" style governs melee combat that is interactive in a sense; it means that both opponents no matter whose "turn" it is are getting their say in the resolution of that encounter. In my system this is true and any opponent can effect even an opponent with far superior skill, but usually with disastrous consequences for the lesser skilled combatant. But if I'm playing a game where I'm a veteran assassin fighting a member of a peasant militia, I as the assassin should have an overwhelmingly easy go of it. In my game I strive to illustrate the whole spectrum of the universe and its glorious chaos; yes I as the assassin should win this fight consistently, maybe today I get sloppy and the peasant gets lucky and strikes true. I guess where I'm truly conflicted is determining how much of a chance should a higher skilled combatant have over a lower skilled one. But also since I'm not ready to offer clarity on my rules mechanics I'm essentially hamstringing most substantive responses to my query.

 

[Sicks]

It should be rare enough that it doesn't happen very often, but not so rare that it feels like no point in even rolling dice, its hard to offer any solid ideas without knowing the system (although I completely understand why you wouldn't want to share that info publicly yet) but id say something like a 1/10 chance for the underdog is rare enough but not too rare

 

[surgical111]

You captured how I feel, the guy with the higher skill should expect to win but every now and again a surprise is in order. In regards to mechanics I'm moving through playtesting with my partner, then will be doing some group. Once I'm solid and set I'll cast a wider net for input including reviewers, gaming groups and such. As always thanx for the input Sicks.