Adding the "Special Success".

[gautxoriak]

I have read the rules several times (but I haven´t played yet), and I miss the "special sucess". Something between critical and normal sucess.

I am thinking about using it in my house rules. But I am not very sure if it would affect to the game system. I wouldn´t like to unbalance the combat system.

I would reduce the % of critical sucess (like old RuneQuest). So the "combat table" would be: Critical Success, Special Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure...

I would increase the number of levels of sucess, but I think It would be more interesting.

What do you think about it?

 

[Deleriad]

I have read the rules several times (but I haven´t played yet), and I miss the "special sucess". Something between critical and normal sucess.

I am thinking about using it in my house rules. But I am not very sure if it would affect to the game system. I wouldn´t like to unbalance the combat system.

I would reduce the % of critical sucess (like old RuneQuest). So the "combat table" would be: Critical Success, Special Success, Success, Failure, Critical Failure...

I would increase the number of levels of sucess, but I think It would be more interesting.

What do you think about it?

It would make Combat Manoeuvres much more likely and you would get a lot of special success vs normal success CMs. You would need to decide which CMs are critical only, special only and which can be used on any success. You would need to rewrite all the critical results in the skill descriptions for special successes and so on.

To be honest, it's usually best to play a game as written first before making changes. Personally I've been using criticals as 1/10% in BRP games since sometime in the 90s. I find it makes for a better pace of additional success than 1/5.

 

[gautxoriak]

To be honest, it's usually best to play a game as written first before making changes. Personally I've been using criticals as 1/10% in BRP games since sometime in the 90s. I find it makes for a better pace of additional success than 1/5.

Thanks. Before rewriting all the rules, I prefer to know other experiences with these changes. I am going to think about it.

I like the "old relationship" between the Skill % and fumble % (and critical %). The best you were, less % to make a fumble.

 

[Simulacrum]

Thanks. Before rewriting all the rules, I prefer to know other experiences with these changes. I am going to think about it.

I like the "old relationship" between the Skill % and fumble % (and critical %). The best you were, less % to make a fumble.

I liked it too - but there's no greater logic to it - it is easy enough to argue that while the chance of a fail reflects your skill, a fumble is a stroke of bad luck that can afflict anyone, no matter who you are. I realise the reason I liked it was simply that for most of a character's career, or for his non-primary skills, the chance of a fumble under the old rules was greater than it is now. And fumbles are fun. For the GM at least.

On the special successes, the play I have done so far on the new rules suggests that manoeuvres make up in spades for the lack of special effects generated by slash/crush/impale etc. I don't know what the statistics are, but I wouldn't be surprised if something interesting happens far more often that on a 20% of skill result system. Having said that it begs CMs to be pushed through into more of the game system for them that likes elaboration - characters having a race or a debating cotest for example. Loz has already done this in Empires for conflict between states and nations.