runequester
Swordsman
- Joined
- 29 Apr 2018
- Messages
- 474
To get this out of the way first:
A: What is Ping-pong?
This is the potential for combat to be a series of "I attack he parries, he attacks I parry" where nothing happens.
B: Ping-pong is usually a factor of: Moderate-to-high parry chance, little consequence of parrying and being able to parry attacks as they come in.
C: Ping-pong can be fixed in a number of ways (and many games have).
D: I don't think the potential for ping-pong is ideal in a game and I do prefer games that reduce the chances, but I think the problem also gets over-stated online. I am telling the truth when I say it was never something that got brought up in groups I played DoD and later Stormbringer and Runequest with.
Having run a fair bit of DoD and other old BRP games in the past couple of years, I wanted to discuss why I think the issue is not as big as people tend to make it out to be. I am going to focus on DoD 87 and Expert here, but most also applies to 91 as well (and rollspel.nu hates 91 usually so we can ignore it
).
The reasons are as follows, in my opinion:
1: Parries are more limited in DoD than in most BRP games. Not counting 20+ skill, you can parry OR attack with each weapon. Unlike Runequest 3, this applies even to two-handed weapons meaning if you have a single weapon you can attack OR parry. If you have two weapons you can attack twice, parry twice or (usually) attack once and parry once).
This inherently means that any character can be overwhelmed easily because they will simply be unable to parry every attack. This is actually more likely on a grid (remember DoD has no zone of control rule, meaning players can easily direct 2-3 attacks at a single enemy in one round).
2: Many attacks do not allow a parry at all. Crossbow bolts can be blocked with a shield (random chance in expert) but the chance is very small and not increased with skill. Otherwise, you are almost certainly getting hit.
This applies to spells, dropping rocks on people and a number of other attacks as well.
3: No monster can parry. You can only parry with a weapon and there's no dodge rule (except in 84).
As a result, a huge array of creatures you meet will take every hit you land on them.
The above combines to mean that many enemies cannot parry at all, many attacks cannot be parried and even in melee vs humanoid foes, many character types will not have shields (soldiers will, but random bandits might not and a thief in a back alley certainly does not) which strictly limits their ability to parry.
4: The GM decides what the bad guys are and what they do. If every encounter is against well-armored enemies with shields, then ping-pong will be more likely than a game where characters are facing monsters, back-alley thieves and so on. As a general rule, I think it is almost always more fun for the game if the bad guys attack than try to defend, so generally a svartalf with a single weapon should attack, not parry. Your opinion here may vary.
* * * * *
In addition to the above, there is a rarely discussed factor at play as well:
Almost any opposed roll system that fixes ping-pong also skews combat towards higher skill characters more than it currently is.
This seems obvious but it means that player characters with a lower combat skill are far worse off than they were before.
In DoD as written, a character with a 30% chance to parry has just that: A 30% chance to parry if they end up in a melee and just have to survive a round or two before their warrior friend comes to save them.
In a "highest roll under" they will often be unable to parry at all because the attackers roll will simply be too high to match. (f.x. if I have a 70%, any attack roll of 31-70 means your character gets to suck it).
This means that the lethality to characters increases, which is rarely compensated for elsewhere in the systems people tend to propose. HT solves this by making characters pretty durable of course, while Pendragon assumes you have tons of armor and even then you are assumed to die in combat eventually.
Now, you may view this as a positive (a scholar should be toast if he ends up in melee with a warrior) and that's fine. But i suspect that tends to discourage people from playing non-combat characters.
* * * * *
So what are the conclusions? In short: While ping-pong IS a problem in DoD, it is in my opinion over-stated and many of the common solutions to it carry other problems that must be addressed as well.
The question to ask, in my opinion, is not "How big a chance should the heroes have of hitting the monsters" but "when a troll swings at you, what chance should it have of hitting your character?"
As always, replies in Swedish are totally fine.
A: What is Ping-pong?
This is the potential for combat to be a series of "I attack he parries, he attacks I parry" where nothing happens.
B: Ping-pong is usually a factor of: Moderate-to-high parry chance, little consequence of parrying and being able to parry attacks as they come in.
C: Ping-pong can be fixed in a number of ways (and many games have).
D: I don't think the potential for ping-pong is ideal in a game and I do prefer games that reduce the chances, but I think the problem also gets over-stated online. I am telling the truth when I say it was never something that got brought up in groups I played DoD and later Stormbringer and Runequest with.
Having run a fair bit of DoD and other old BRP games in the past couple of years, I wanted to discuss why I think the issue is not as big as people tend to make it out to be. I am going to focus on DoD 87 and Expert here, but most also applies to 91 as well (and rollspel.nu hates 91 usually so we can ignore it
).The reasons are as follows, in my opinion:
1: Parries are more limited in DoD than in most BRP games. Not counting 20+ skill, you can parry OR attack with each weapon. Unlike Runequest 3, this applies even to two-handed weapons meaning if you have a single weapon you can attack OR parry. If you have two weapons you can attack twice, parry twice or (usually) attack once and parry once).
This inherently means that any character can be overwhelmed easily because they will simply be unable to parry every attack. This is actually more likely on a grid (remember DoD has no zone of control rule, meaning players can easily direct 2-3 attacks at a single enemy in one round).
2: Many attacks do not allow a parry at all. Crossbow bolts can be blocked with a shield (random chance in expert) but the chance is very small and not increased with skill. Otherwise, you are almost certainly getting hit.
This applies to spells, dropping rocks on people and a number of other attacks as well.
3: No monster can parry. You can only parry with a weapon and there's no dodge rule (except in 84).
As a result, a huge array of creatures you meet will take every hit you land on them.
The above combines to mean that many enemies cannot parry at all, many attacks cannot be parried and even in melee vs humanoid foes, many character types will not have shields (soldiers will, but random bandits might not and a thief in a back alley certainly does not) which strictly limits their ability to parry.
4: The GM decides what the bad guys are and what they do. If every encounter is against well-armored enemies with shields, then ping-pong will be more likely than a game where characters are facing monsters, back-alley thieves and so on. As a general rule, I think it is almost always more fun for the game if the bad guys attack than try to defend, so generally a svartalf with a single weapon should attack, not parry. Your opinion here may vary.
* * * * *
In addition to the above, there is a rarely discussed factor at play as well:
Almost any opposed roll system that fixes ping-pong also skews combat towards higher skill characters more than it currently is.
This seems obvious but it means that player characters with a lower combat skill are far worse off than they were before.
In DoD as written, a character with a 30% chance to parry has just that: A 30% chance to parry if they end up in a melee and just have to survive a round or two before their warrior friend comes to save them.
In a "highest roll under" they will often be unable to parry at all because the attackers roll will simply be too high to match. (f.x. if I have a 70%, any attack roll of 31-70 means your character gets to suck it).
This means that the lethality to characters increases, which is rarely compensated for elsewhere in the systems people tend to propose. HT solves this by making characters pretty durable of course, while Pendragon assumes you have tons of armor and even then you are assumed to die in combat eventually.
Now, you may view this as a positive (a scholar should be toast if he ends up in melee with a warrior) and that's fine. But i suspect that tends to discourage people from playing non-combat characters.
* * * * *
So what are the conclusions? In short: While ping-pong IS a problem in DoD, it is in my opinion over-stated and many of the common solutions to it carry other problems that must be addressed as well.
The question to ask, in my opinion, is not "How big a chance should the heroes have of hitting the monsters" but "when a troll swings at you, what chance should it have of hitting your character?"
As always, replies in Swedish are totally fine.
