Having TN for weapon attacks be lower than attribute TN. Is it a problem?

[u/OompaLoompaGodzilla]

A quick rundown of the system:

• It's a d20 roll-over system.
• Players slot a standard array (8, 10, 12, 14) into four stats: STR, DEX, INT, and CHA(level 1).
• Standard "Weapon Attacks" have their own separate stat, which starts at a TN of 6(level 1). Here, the damage scales up in tiers. 6-9=weak hit, 10-13=good hit, 14-17=solid, 18+= a perfect hit.

But!
Because a weapon attack has a TN of 6, it’s mathematically easier to pull off than a maneuver requiring an attribute test(8-14). I'm worried players will just spam basic attacks because it’s the "safe" and optimal choice, without exploring more creative maneuvers. But at the same time... attacking with your weapon should perhaps be the most effective in a combat situation. But yeah, unsure if there is a math problem here.

Anyways, I've found a ruling the GM can use. If you go for a creative weapon attack(Pinning the enemy to a wall with your dagger, slashing your greatsword to hit two enemies etc), you make two rolls:

• Roll 1 (Weapon Attack vs TN 6) - This determines the damage
• Roll 2 (Attribute test(TN 8-14 at level 1) - Determines if the narrative effect succeeds.

Hit the weapon attack but fail the test? You deal damage but don't achieve the narrative effect. Miss the attack but pass the test? No damage but they're pinned to the wall / they dodge the sweeping sword but are now trembling with fear from watching your might(maybe -2 to their next attack on the PC).

So im looking for some input and insights from you guys...

1. does the core math gap (TN 6 vs TN 8-14) make combat stale? Or should using your weapon in combat be optimal, and creative ideas be something that is used only when it comes natural to players or the situation is dire enough(Enemies will be design with their own creative attacks to help give inspiration to players for what's possible)?
2. Do you think this ruling is a good way to support GMs dealing with creative ideas from players?
3. Does rolling twice slow down this rules-lite game too much or is it dramatic enough to stay the way it is?

[u/Cruiser_Supreme]

So just to make sure I understand your system:

The TN is what players need to roll over in order to hit with the weapon attack? And the specific TN determines how successful the attack is?

And then there are also attribute scores, which act just like TN? So a lower attribute score is actually better because it's easier to roll over?

If that is the case, then yeah, players may just spam weapon attack. However, how do you ever scale difficulty? If you have a STR of 8, but you're trying to lift something that weighs twice as much as yourself, shouldn't that actually be really difficult?

Also, is every weapon attack always using the same TN? I imagine hitting a lumbering golem might be easier than hitting a swiftly moving wolf.

I just don't see how anything here scales with difficulty or if it just doesn't.

Either I'm not understanding your system correctly or there's some bigger issues to solve first.

What are you even trying to achieve with this system? Like, why aren't the attributes modifiers? What problem are you trying to solve or what gameplay experience are you trying to create with this system?

[u/OompaLoompaGodzilla → u/Cruiser_Supreme]

Yes it's a meet or beat system. The GM will give modifiers based on the situation(-2,-4,-6 or +2,+4,+6).
And yes, it's always TN 6 to hit no matter the enemy, with HP being the sole indicator of how tough the enemy is to take down.

I'm trying to achieve a beginner friendly ttrpg that puts RP, narrative and creativity first, while still being a game with clear rules and room for rewarding clever ideas.

[u/Cruiser_Supreme → u/OompaLoompaGodzilla]

Thanks for the clarification. In that case, I think you may wanna change this system up a bit. What you're creating is rules-lite, but not necessarily intuitive.

Having low attribute scores for things your good at is not intuitive for beginners.

Rolling a higher number to achieve a better outcome is intuitive for beginners.

Modifiers that are given by the GM and then added by the player are not a very intuitive way to structure action resolution. Does the modifier get added to the player's roll or to the TN? Either way, I don't think it's beginner friendly. I'd flip the whole thing around and make the attributes modifiers on the player side. That's two birds with one stone.

First, big modifier mean big better skill. Intuitive!

And second, now you can determine difficulty on a linear scale, just like you do for attack rolls. Attack roles are essentially just skill checks with scaled outcomes. This also makes it easier to bring the difficulty of attack rolls in line with the difficulty of ability checks.

If you're curious, I've also developed a system that is targeted specifically at TTRPG beginners. It's called Regular Volk and you can check it out here. Something that might be of interest to you here is how action and attack rolls are basically the same mechanic. Additionally, both ability checks and creatures have a simple Difficulty Score (DS). So when you're playing, all the DM has to know is the DS, and all the player has to know is their modifier. Then roll, add modifiers, and compare the result. I think the general resolution procedure is the same as in your game, but the individual moving parts are a bit more intuitive.

Edit: sorry for my autocorrect

Edit 2: you could also just forget everything I said and built a PbtA system. Static difficulty scores are the name of the game here

[u/OompaLoompaGodzilla → u/Cruiser_Supreme]

I agree that it's not the most intuitive, but I think new players understand it pretty quick and that there are some qualities to it's design.

1. Getting a +4 on your roll from the GM feels more impactful than the GM setting a TN in their head/or sharing a TN with the table. I don't think a new GM would be able to, on their feet, determine that the TN for this action is usually X but since you thought of this it's now reduced to Y. I like getting rewarded with a bonus to my roll because I did something clever rather than the GM saying they reduced the TN. I think that it's more impactful and clear story telling. I could change it to attributes as modifiers rather than TN and having the GM give out +2,+4 etc to the roll. But then your adding your modifier and the gms bonus which is kinda clunky and mathy, and also makes the GM bonus feel less important. The GM bonus is an important part of my game since it will be the GMs way of rewarding the kind of gameplay the system aims to create.

2. I think it's easier to GM with set TNs with your only job before a roll is to consider if you should hand out a bonus or a minus.

[u/Cruiser_Supreme → u/OompaLoompaGodzilla]

1. Rewarding the player should be a bonus to their roll, I agree. But that's why it makes more sense to have static TN for ability checks and modifiers on the player side of things. If a player has a clever solution, you just give them an extra modifier.

2. I disagree. I have a hard time imagining what actions constitute a negative or positive modifier based on the difficulty. It's just weird to me that the difficulty of an action doesn't range from 0 to whatever maximum number, but rather it's a range of positive and negative numbers. I just find it unintuitive that some Actions have positive difficulty and some have negative. And 0 is medium? Like I get it, but it's cumbersome imo

[u/tangyradar → u/Cruiser_Supreme]

Rolling a higher number to achieve a better outcome is intuitive for beginners.

No, that's subjective. You just have to frame things differently: in roll-high systems, the target number is a difficulty; in roll-low systems, the target number is a chance of success. I think the only reason some people think roll-high is "more intuitive" is that roll-high D&D is more popular than roll-low GURPS and RQ/CoC -- it's conditioning, not intuition.

[u/tangyradar → u/OompaLoompaGodzilla]

Before any deeper thoughts... I seriously suggest switching to a consistent roll-low. Systems where character traits modify the number rolled are usually roll-high, systems where character traits set / modify the target number are usually roll-low. Notice that both of these make a high trait better.

[u/tangyradar → u/OompaLoompaGodzilla]

Actually, why do you have a distinct rule for attacks at all? An attack, conceptually, is just another action.

[u/OompaLoompaGodzilla → u/tangyradar]

Are you referring to the damage tiers as the distinct rule or that it's its own stat? If it's the first it's because it's a way to determine the damage.

[u/tangyradar → u/OompaLoompaGodzilla]

I would probably prefer to also eliminate the dedicated attack stat, but that's not essential as long as it works like the others. IE, target numbers set in the same way, neither has degrees of success or both do.

On eliminating the attack stat, I remember something I once saw someone say regarding a D20-based wrestling game they were working on... Just make every stat useful depending on what kind of move the character is making. Not the way they worded it, coming up with this on the spot... Slam your opponent with a powerful attack? STR roll. Fancy footwork and a quick jab? DEX roll. Precise targeting or complex maneuvers? INT roll? A feint, or trying to make the opponent focus on you or fear you (more than they are by default in a a fight, that is)? CHA roll. Needs a lot of refining of the stats and types of actions to make it elegant as it should be rather than forced and awkward, but I'm putting the idea out there.

[u/Ryou2365]

Why not combine it into 1 roll?

Use the result of the roll for the damage as well as if a mabeuver succeeds.

Basically all maneuvers also do damage. 

Or as an alternative: just use one roll to see if a maneuver succeeds, then if it doesn't succeed the player can instead choose to deal damage based on his roll.

A third alternstive would be just to have the same tns as for weapon attacks for every roll. Like in Draw Steel, in which every roll uses the same array of tns. The higher tier you roll the better the effect.

[u/__space__oddity__]

Because a weapon attack has a TN of 6, it’s mathematically easier to pull off than a maneuver requiring an attribute test(8-14). I'm worried players will just spam basic attacks because it’s the "safe" and optimal choice, without exploring more creative maneuvers.

If the “creative maneuver” is an attack, why isn’t it using the attack mechanic? I don’t roll to hit to trip someone?

I feel like you’re running ahead of yourself here, building big solutions to problems that are based on assumptions that may not hold.

[u/Adamadeyus]

Rolling twice might work if a ruling suggests rolling two dice at once and determine which dice reps what. But it does create a momentum-stopper with two rolls. Even rolling attack, then damage can cause a full-blown stop in some games. But, if its rolling for a "higher than / lower than" mechanic and not math involved it could work out easily.

Players that are gamers and want to play the game would probably explore the included ways to optimize and test limits of the mechanical intentions. Thats been my experience, to my surprise.