Lowest Roll, Autmatic Levels of Success

[robotman]

Been playing Legend for a few weeks now and really enjoy the system. Here are a few things were doing that I would like to get some suggestions, rules resolution on.

Lowest Roll
My group and I have decided that if the goal is to roll low, then the person who has rolled the lowest or has biggest gap within their skill range should be win rolls. Same level of Success Hero has 46% and rolls a 35, a range of 11. NPC has a 59% and rolls a 50, a range of 8. Hero wins.

I feel it should just be the lowest roll, speed up combat. My logic behind this, is that if someone with 75% and someone with 35% roll off, I think its a better achievement for the person with the lower skill percentage to make that crucial low roll on the dice and therefore should win the contest.

This goes against book which states highest roll, doesnt make sense if goal is to roll low.

Last night had the situation of same level of success, same exact roll on dice, and went with biggest gap in die result and skill%. Its about making pkayers happy, but I also want logical mechanics in my game.

Automatic Level of Success?
Have had situations where an NPC/Creature is out of Combat Actions and is being attacked by a Hero and vice versa. In a situation where the defender is being attacked has no combat actions to defend and doesnt roll anything to Parry or Evade, is this consider an Automatic Level of Success based on their inaction? Perhaps this would only incur the -20% for being helpless?

Brian

 

[Simulacrum]

Re Roll Low - I understand why you think that, but whether it produces the same outcome ranges is for those who can do the math... As I understand it your suggested approach means having to look at the dice and check whose roll is lower than their skill chance by the largest amount (ie, a small amount of math) - rather than simply seeing who has the highest number on the die after checking if the roll is actually a success or failure. Succeed/Fail is the first thing you look at anyway, so you can't skip that step. It is a bit odd that the other end of the scale is critical, which militates for a very low roll, but that's handled by degree of success, which trumps comparison of opposing die numbers

On the other point - much more straightforward. Helpless enemy, or enemy with no CAs to spend on defending themsleves = automatic CM if you hit. You still have to roll to hit in most cases, and that will tell you how many CMs you get, treating the lack of defence as a failed parry. If the victim is prone/helpless etc you may also get a bonus to your attack roll - if they are merely out of CAs you don't (least that's my ruling)

 

[strega]

On the other point - much more straightforward. Helpless enemy, or enemy with no CAs to spend on defending themsleves = automatic CM if you hit. You still have to roll to hit in most cases, and that will tell you how many CMs you get, treating the lack of defence as a failed parry. If the victim is prone/helpless etc you may also get a bonus to your attack roll - if they are merely out of CAs you don't (least that's my ruling)

The rules specifically state if you have no CA's left or fail to defend then you are treated as having a failure and the attacker racks up CM's according to the success level of their die roll (middle of p 131).

 

[robotman]

As I understand it your suggested approach means having to look at the dice and check whose roll is lower than their skill chance by the largest amount (ie, a small amount of math) - rather than simply seeing who has the highest number on the die after checking if the roll is actually a success or failure. Succeed/Fail is the first thing you look at anyway, so you can't skip that step. It is a bit odd that the other end of the scale is critical, which militates for a very low roll, but that's handled by degree of success, which trumps comparison of opposing die numbers

Its the suggested approach of my players. We all feel that its odd to be looking at the higher of two numbers of same level of success due to the system itself warranting a low roll for skill checks.

Trying to placate my players with my own reasoning which I can never fully rationalize when speaking.

Comparison of numbers comes in when its the same level of success, which book states is highest number. I feel again based on the system leaning towards low numbers being rolled that low number should win.

 

[Old timer]

The problem i see with this, and this is just IMO, is that if lowest roll counts for opposed rolls, this seems to favour the less skilled character, which is not the intent of the RAW i believe. Higher skilled characters have a much better chance in the RAW, which in my opinion seems fairer, and is the usual intent of d100 systems based of BRP.

 

[Matt_H]

The problem i see with this, and this is just IMO, is that if lowest roll counts for opposed rolls, this seems to favour the less skilled character, which is not the intent of the RAW i believe. Higher skilled characters have a much better chance in the RAW, which in my opinion seems fairer, and is the usual intent of d100 systems based of BRP.

exactly so.

 

[DamonJynx]

The problem i see with this, and this is just IMO, is that if lowest roll counts for opposed rolls, this seems to favour the less skilled character, which is not the intent of the RAW i believe. Higher skilled characters have a much better chance in the RAW, which in my opinion seems fairer, and is the usual intent of d100 systems based of BRP.

exactly so.

+1.

Doing what you suggest (I tried to argue the same point when we first started playing with my group) defeats the purpose of having a high skill.

Say a Goblin with an attack skill of 35% rolls a 30% - success with a 5 point difference. He is attacking a Knight with a skill of 95% who rolls 91% a difference of 4, so the Goblin wins, the Knight if he has to make an opposed roll against the Goblins attack to avoid the penalties of a CM, now has to roll under 30% which is completely unfair and ridiculous - it negates his years of training.

Another point you and your players are probably misinterpreting (I know I did at first), is that the game is not skewed to roll low. The idea in ALL of the D100 games I've looked at including older ones like Chaosium's Stormbringer/Elric is to roll as high as possible within your skill band, particularly for opposed tests. Rolls under a certain % gain a substantial benefit. In Legend that is 10% (rounded up) granting a 'critical' success, in BRP IIRC, 20% grants a 'special' success and 10% a critical success. So the basic premise is roll high, but really low is a bonus. At least that's the way I explain it to newcomers.

Hope that helps.

 

[Loz]

Perhaps the easiest way to sell this to your players is to say this.

The aim is to roll within your skill range. Rolling a low value may take you into a Critical Success which is 10% of the skill value.

When comparing rolls for an opposed test, the highest successful roll of the dice wins. If the dice roll is low enough to take you into a Critical Success then this beats a normal success. Should both sides both roll criticals, then the highest value critical succeeds.

It may seem counter-intuitive to your players, but I can honestly say that with a little practice it will become second nature. It involves no maths and is a very straightforward way of comparing success levels.

 

[Lemnoc]

Should both sides both roll criticals, then the highest value critical succeeds.

Hunh. The rare time this has happened, I assumed something incredible and miraculously mythological happened—Rocky vs Apollo Creed—but neither side was advantaged against the other. Both succeed. That's how I ruled it, anyway.

 

[Mixster]

I guess the high roll within your margin seems a bit counter-intuitive. I was baffled about it at first as well.

But it really makes sense mathematically, so after looking through it, I actually prefer it. I would like the criticals to have been on the edge of your roll (so the highest 10% of your skill would make it a critical), but that would make problems with fumbles, and would mathematically be the same.

 

[Loz]

I guess the high roll within your margin seems a bit counter-intuitive. I was baffled about it at first as well.

But it really makes sense mathematically, so after looking through it, I actually prefer it. I would like the criticals to have been on the edge of your roll (so the highest 10% of your skill would make it a critical), but that would make problems with fumbles, and would mathematically be the same.

It also poses problems for skills over 100%.

 

[soltakss]

Re Roll Low - I understand why you think that, but whether it produces the same outcome ranges is for those who can do the math...

I did a simulation ages ago of roll-highest vs roll-by-most for MRQI and the results came out exactly the same. I didn't believe it so had to check it several times.

So, use whichever suits you.

Personally, I prefer "makes by the most" as it keeps the "lower is better" ethic and I just can't train my dice to roll low and high at the same time.

 

[robotman]

Thanks everyone. I am going woth my gut which aligns itself with the book. Just needed some inputs and interpretations.


Brian
"We've got four eyes, so why yearn for one perspective?" Kings of Conveinence

 

[PhilHibbs]

I did a simulation ages ago of roll-highest vs roll-by-most for MRQI and the results came out exactly the same. I didn't believe it so had to check it several times.

I believe it.

I remember a discussion around this issue a while back, and if anyone wants to change the system to use lowest-roll instead of highest-roll then go ahead, so long as you are aware that it does change the probabilities in a way that narrows the skill gap. I can see why it is dramatically more satisfying as well, because if the high-skill person rolls first and succeeds with a critical that is over the other person's critical chance, then there is no point in the second roll. With a roll-lowest system, there's always the chance of rolling 01.

 

[DamonJynx]

I did a simulation ages ago of roll-highest vs roll-by-most for MRQI and the results came out exactly the same. I didn't believe it so had to check it several times.

I can see why it is dramatically more satisfying as well, because if the high-skill person rolls first and succeeds with a critical that is over the other person's critical chance, then there is no point in the second roll. With a roll-lowest system, there's always the chance of rolling 01.

Isn't that sometimes the point? Sometimes the opposition is too good. Doing otherwise negates the need for improving skills, all it does is reduce the chance of failure.

If an assassin with a stealth skill of say, 80% rolls an 07 vs. a guards Perception of 50%, the guard has no chance of winning and so can't identify the assassin. But in IMO, that doesn't mean the guard is completely oblivious. He should still roll; if he succeeds or criticals he is aware that someone or something has gotten past him or is behind him to a lesser or greater degree, he just doesn't know the details. Very important to remember for surprise and such.

The same can be applied to most opposed skill tests.

 

[GamerDude]

In reading the original post, and all the replies, one thing kept coming to mind... as in Mongoose Traveller (MGT) it is not so much you that you rolled a 'success or failure' as what is your 'margin of success/failure'

To Explain:
In MGT any roll of 8+ (after modifiers) is a success, but the margin of success or failure (msf) has more meaning as it determines the level of success/severity of the failure. A roll of "8" is a bare success - you succeeded but barely and whatever you were doing won't hold up for long: a repair works now but will fail shortly, an attack gets the margin of success added to it so in this case its a +0.

Failing by 1 (getting a "7") is a "failed nothing serious happens" yet failing by 3 or 4 (getting a "5" or "4") means something serious happened due to your failure.

So in Legend, you are not just looking at the literal die result being a success or failure, but how great was that margin. If I succeed by 5 (say an effective skill of 71) and you succeed by 17 (say an effective skill of 34) then you had the greater margin of success and should win. We both made good moves but your move was better than mine.

As for the math, I often speak with people about how lazy gamers (and the US population at large) has become so lazy. How hard is it to have a skill of 71, roll a 66, and compute the margin was 5? You do way more math tossing in modifiers to get the final effective skill you are rolling against.

-*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-
Al B. [B-)
Listowner
FOR MGP MINIS: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MGP-Minis-Aids (since 2012)
FOR TRAVELLER: http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/MGT-Aids The Original, serving since Sept 2008