Jaldon Goldentooth
Mongoose
Magistus said:
From the SRD: Any test result of 01 to 05 is an automatic success
Contested rolls past 100%
- Thread starter Deleted_Account
- Start date
From the SRD: Any test result of 01 to 05 is an automatic success
The official Legendary Heroes rule math is much better, but the re-rolling is funky.
The solution I use, subtracting amount over 100, is Linear - which means that a 20 point advantage is the same be it 120 vs 100 or 500 vs 480.
Halving is Relational, where 100 vs 50, 200 vs 100, and 400 vs 200 are all the same.
The weirdness with halving occurs because when a skill reaches 100 there is no way for it to fail, but when it haves to 50 it fails half the time, and so even though the lower skill is also halved the higher skills chances go way down.
Way back when halving was first ravaged I put forward the best relational solution mathematicaly was to reduce the higher skill to 100 and reduce the lower skill by the same percentage as the higher skill was reduced by.
For example, 300 vs 90: To reduce 300 to 100 you reduce it to 1/3, so you would also reduce the 90 to 1/3, or 30, and resolve the test as 100 vs 30. 240 vs 120 would become 100 vs. 50.
And 367 vs 193 becomes... well, there is the problem. Calculator required. Good maths. Bad rule. (For the record, mathematically it is:
Low Skill/(High Skill/100)
The Legendary Heroes rule got me looking at the odds for it, and they are better. But if you don't mind rerolling, the best solution is this (after halving):
Both players re-roll until they both have rolled under the higher skill. Then determine the winner normally.
In effect, you are rolling a d-whatever the higher halved skill is. 120 vs 60 gets resolved as 60 vs 30, but you in effect roll a d60. 157 vs 95 becomes 78 vs 47, and you roll a d78.
But it is one funky rule. And a problem with both the rule I just put forth as well as the Legendary Heroes rule is that when a skill first crosses the 101 threshold, you have one skill at 50 and the other skill at less than 50, so you can expect frequent re-rolls.
In the end, I havn't found a non-calculator non-funky exxessive re-roll free method that gives good odds. That is why I use the Linear subtract amount over 100 method. I am not planning on running into many super high skills for a long while yet - if one of my games reaches the points where skills in the hundreds become common I will re-evaluate which method I use at that time.
I hope that all made sense.
The solution I use, subtracting amount over 100, is Linear - which means that a 20 point advantage is the same be it 120 vs 100 or 500 vs 480.
Halving is Relational, where 100 vs 50, 200 vs 100, and 400 vs 200 are all the same.
The weirdness with halving occurs because when a skill reaches 100 there is no way for it to fail, but when it haves to 50 it fails half the time, and so even though the lower skill is also halved the higher skills chances go way down.
Way back when halving was first ravaged I put forward the best relational solution mathematicaly was to reduce the higher skill to 100 and reduce the lower skill by the same percentage as the higher skill was reduced by.
For example, 300 vs 90: To reduce 300 to 100 you reduce it to 1/3, so you would also reduce the 90 to 1/3, or 30, and resolve the test as 100 vs 30. 240 vs 120 would become 100 vs. 50.
And 367 vs 193 becomes... well, there is the problem. Calculator required. Good maths. Bad rule. (For the record, mathematically it is:
Low Skill/(High Skill/100)
The Legendary Heroes rule got me looking at the odds for it, and they are better. But if you don't mind rerolling, the best solution is this (after halving):
Both players re-roll until they both have rolled under the higher skill. Then determine the winner normally.
In effect, you are rolling a d-whatever the higher halved skill is. 120 vs 60 gets resolved as 60 vs 30, but you in effect roll a d60. 157 vs 95 becomes 78 vs 47, and you roll a d78.
But it is one funky rule. And a problem with both the rule I just put forth as well as the Legendary Heroes rule is that when a skill first crosses the 101 threshold, you have one skill at 50 and the other skill at less than 50, so you can expect frequent re-rolls.
In the end, I havn't found a non-calculator non-funky exxessive re-roll free method that gives good odds. That is why I use the Linear subtract amount over 100 method. I am not planning on running into many super high skills for a long while yet - if one of my games reaches the points where skills in the hundreds become common I will re-evaluate which method I use at that time.
I hope that all made sense.
Swashbuckler
Mongoose
So, I've read all this and several other threads on the subject, and I find copious (though very interesting) debate and suggestions on this subject.
But what I'm having trouble finding is what is Mongoose's official current position on this broken rule. Use the Legendary Heroes system?
Sorry...maybe this answer should be a sticky somewhere.
--Swash
But what I'm having trouble finding is what is Mongoose's official current position on this broken rule. Use the Legendary Heroes system?
Sorry...maybe this answer should be a sticky somewhere.
--Swash
Yes, the Legendary Heroes rule is the 'Official' response.
If you haven't gathered there is no one 'good' solution. Any rule tries to balance realism/accuracy vs. playability, and a given player will favor one more than the other.
Mongoose went with playability. No maths other than halving. Obviously there are some mathmatical anomalies with the system they chose. And the Legendary Heroes re-roll actually is pretty good math wise, because the whole problem with the math has to do with when both players fail.
Let me (try to) explain. Skill 50 vs 30. If both players roll below 30, it is really 50/50 who wins (whichever player rolls highest). Likewise, if both players roll above 50, it is also 50/50 who wins (whoever rolled lowest).
The higher skills advantage comes from the fact that if he rolls between 31 and 50 he CANNOT lose.
When you halve, you cut the Higher skills zone of CANNOT LOSE in half and greatly increase the Both Roll Above Higher Skill Zone.
Look at 100 vs 60. If both players roll under 60, the odds are 50/50. If the 100 Skill rolls between 61 and 100, he wins. Now halve that to 50 vs 60. We have a 50/50 chance if both roll under 30 or above 50, so that 'zone' is now increased in size from 60 to 80. And the automatic sucess zone was cut in half, from it's old range of 61-100 to 31-50.
Hopefully that makes sense.
The Legendary Heroes rule takes away the 'both fail' zone completely when halving, and since that is the single largest contributor to the higher skill being penalized, it helps smooth the halving bump a lot.
If you haven't gathered there is no one 'good' solution. Any rule tries to balance realism/accuracy vs. playability, and a given player will favor one more than the other.
Mongoose went with playability. No maths other than halving. Obviously there are some mathmatical anomalies with the system they chose. And the Legendary Heroes re-roll actually is pretty good math wise, because the whole problem with the math has to do with when both players fail.
Let me (try to) explain. Skill 50 vs 30. If both players roll below 30, it is really 50/50 who wins (whichever player rolls highest). Likewise, if both players roll above 50, it is also 50/50 who wins (whoever rolled lowest).
The higher skills advantage comes from the fact that if he rolls between 31 and 50 he CANNOT lose.
When you halve, you cut the Higher skills zone of CANNOT LOSE in half and greatly increase the Both Roll Above Higher Skill Zone.
Look at 100 vs 60. If both players roll under 60, the odds are 50/50. If the 100 Skill rolls between 61 and 100, he wins. Now halve that to 50 vs 60. We have a 50/50 chance if both roll under 30 or above 50, so that 'zone' is now increased in size from 60 to 80. And the automatic sucess zone was cut in half, from it's old range of 61-100 to 31-50.
Hopefully that makes sense.
The Legendary Heroes rule takes away the 'both fail' zone completely when halving, and since that is the single largest contributor to the higher skill being penalized, it helps smooth the halving bump a lot.
bluejay said:
Yeah, I actually just got posted saying the math was pretty good on it, and said as much when it was released. It is a good compromise between playability and accuracy.
As I'm not planning on running into skills anywhere near 200+ for a while I am going to stick with the reduce by amount over 100 method, it has worked good for me so far.
So, are you planning on giving MRQ another try or just couldn't stay away from all the good math?
Rurik said:So, are you planning on giving MRQ another try or just couldn't stay away from all the good math?
Well mathematics does tempt me...
I don't know to be honest. I only play with one group at the moment and we're way into Call of Cthulhu. We stopped and played Warhammer for a while but to be honest it just didn't work as well.
Also I don't have a huge amount of spare time so I prefer to work with pre-written materials and CoC has a fair few great campaigns to play with (already played Masks of Nyarlathotep and we've got Tatters of the King and Beyond the Mountains of Madness coming up).
Another thing is that my wife has banned me buying RPG books just 'to read' until we've made some room in the house.
Is Legendary Adventures worth looking at? I actually liked the Legendary Abilities idea in MRQ.
Anyway, I really come here to offer gifts for my friends. I don't have another calculator to give you but I can offer you some battle music to use in the background during your games.
http://www.genomia.co.uk/boards/battle3.mp3
Yes, it's hugely derivative of many film scores (notably The Fighting Uruk-Hai theme from The Two Towers and The Battle In The Swamp from Krull) but it is my own work.
Hope y'all like it!
Deleted_Account
Mongoose
simonh said:
The short version:
Roll normally.
After you roll, you can take -100% to your skill -- as many times as you like -- and upgrade your success level by 1.
An alternative:
Roll your dice. You are now allowed to halve your skill as many times as you want, until your skill is under 100%, at which point you must stop. Each time you halve your skill you increase your "success rank" by 1.
Crits are +1 success rank as well.
So:
A:892% skill vs B:743% skill.
A rolls a 70, B rolls a 75.
A: Halving. 892->446->223->111->55
A can halve 3 times.
B: Halving: 743->371->185->92
B can halve 3 times.
Both have a L 4 success. B rolled higher. B wins.
A: 900% skill vs B: 500% skill.
A rolls 25, B rolls 8
A: 900->450->225->112->56
B: 500->250->125->62
A rolled under 56 -- 4 halves. So a L 5 success.
B rolled 8 -- under 62 and a crit under 62. 3 halves, so a L 4 success.
A wins.
This change makes getting to 101% very powerful -- in effect, you get crits on any roll under 50%, and super-crits under 5%. Probably too strong...
Utgardloki
Mongoose
simonh said:
I guess that's life.
If you have 150% effective skill, then you can essentially bury anybody who does not have at least basic proficiency (50% or more) in this skill.
If you have 75% effective skill, then you're good, but someone with 175% is so much better than you that a direct competition is probably not in your interests.
This is a question of what skills over 100% really mean. The way my house rule math works, a difference of 100% means the lower level guy is really not anything of a challenge.
There is a wrinkle that my house rules allow for effective skill to be rather fluid, which could lead to characters having to seek out any advantages they can. One of these days I'll have to see how this works in practice.
But I am definitely in the school of subtraction.
Jaldon Goldentooth
Mongoose
Utgardloki said:
I'd take a completely different approach. At 100%, IMO, you have mastered a skill: so a swordsman with 100% 1H Sword can pretty much hit all the time (96-00 always fails), a rider with 100% Riding never falls off etc...
The same can be said of skills at 200% or 500%. So, to me, it doesn't seem right to assume that a skill of 200% is twice as good as a skill of 100% (however odd that may seem). The only advantage the 200% skill has over the 100% skill is that it criticals twice as often.
So I'd do opposed rolls of over 100% like this:
- Both players roll. Skills of 100%+ roll against 100%. No halving
- Criticals trump normals
- All other rolls as per the standard opposed rules.
bluejay said:
I did enjoy it but it is too short! Any plans on expanding it? I listened to it a few times but it would get repetitive on a continous loop as a background for some big battle.
But then, it is about a minute longer than anything I've produced so who am I to complain.
Doubt I'll expand this piece, Rurik, as it was a piece I produced for an assignment as battle music in a video game. I agree that it is pretty heavy going but I was told to make it even more intense and add more dissonance!
I bought a new percussion sample package recently (Project SAM's excellent True Strike) so I need to try it out.
Maybe I'll put together a piece of music for an arena battle.
I bought a new percussion sample package recently (Project SAM's excellent True Strike) so I need to try it out.
Maybe I'll put together a piece of music for an arena battle.
Girandural
Mongoose
Jaldon Goldentooth said:
This seems like the most elegant solution I've seen in this thread so far. 100% is supposed to be perfect, so I'm satisfied with a system that doesn't give as great a benefit for advancing beyond 100%. I think I'll adopt this as my house rules.
I'm still not satisfied with the standard opposed role rules since they seem to break the basis paradigm that low rolls are better than high rolls. I'll have to ponder on this one some more. Resistance tables are looking more and more attractive.
Girandural
bluejay said:
I was gonna suggest making it a bit heavier, I fiddled with my EQ and boosted the low end. But while I like a broad range of music (I can appreciate almost anything but 'pop'), I'm a metalhead at heart so that is my kinda my preference. But yeah, a little more of a hard edge wouldn't hurt, being about battle and all.
And that explains the Tomb-Raider in the title too I was wondering about.
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
Rurik said:
I find Blind Guardian makes good epic gaming music
weasel_fierce
Mongoose
its all good, but if you want big epic sound, the last three are where its at. Nightfall in middle-earth can be heartily recommended
Utgardloki
Mongoose
One wrinkle is that I've adopted an idea put forward for specialization. My Runequest Modern concept does not really work well without it. But with specialization, it is a lot easier to approach an effective level of 200% than without it, since specialization essentially allows you to add two skills together to determine your effective level. (e.g. Unarmed Combat + Martial Arts Block).
So for me, the system has to be able to smoothly handle scores of up to 200%. My Runequest Modern game also has immortals, who could have skills higher than 200%.
Your mileage may vary.
