Some new skill system observations

[Rurik]

The combat rolls are attack/parry, whoever succeeds by the greatest margin wins as usual. If the attacker wins he takes the margin (5 if rolling a 2 with a skill of 7, say) and multiplies it by the weapons' damage modifier, which would be x3 for a shortsword. Damage 15. I like it so much I've been considering just using it as is instead of converting Tekumel to BRP.

Sounds like a solid system. I was saying the system made sense if you used a d10 and did something with each level of success - which Tekumel seems to. Sounda like a good system. I would try Tekumel as is and if you don't like it, then convert to BRP. The amount of work to try is as is, wait, err, drop the three, round the result, divide by zero, errr... NONE!

 

[atgxtg]

Err, a little misunderstanding here, folks. Tekumel isn't a percentile system, it uses D10's for resolution. All D10's, no percentiles. You each roll under your skill level and the amount you roll under is the degree of success. Higher degree of success wins. Every thing is done with this same system of resolution.

I really liked the way USagi Yojimo handles task resoultion. You roll you dice, comapre results, and the highest roll wins. For each extra die that beats the loser's high roll, the winner earns a critical.

Simple, elegant, has a combat matrix that pulls off what many other games have attempted to but failed at. It even has the dodges and parries giving ground. In fact some of the critical can result in giving ground (Impales automatically cause a loss of one wound level in addtion to the damage roll, sort of like getting an automatic location to 0HP plus roll damge in MRQ-but you can avoid the impale by retreating)

It just isn't a D100 system though, so it is hard to swipe the mechanics.

 

[andakitty]

It sounds VERY complex to me. Tastes vary. A lot.

 

[Rurik]

I don't see the apples to oranges bit. Take the tens die, it looks to me like an identical mechanic. Just me.

That was the whole reason I said it work with a d10 based system - if you are only looking at the 10's die, why roll the 1's die at all?

 

[andakitty]

To make MRQ work?

I can't get anyone to play Tekumel, so far. The setting has a reputation for being so baroque as to be hard to get into or understand. I'm converting it for something to do, hobby-wise, while I don't have an active game going. The CoC game is over, so I'm at loose ends. If I can find somebody, that Tekumel game with the GOO ruleset is likely what I will run next. I am getting increasingly frustrated with MRQ and Mongoose. They should probably take that as a warning.

Badkitty day.

 

[Archer]

Roll Skill or less =success
Roll under 1/2 skill = 2 success
Roll under 1/10 skill = 3 success
Roll under 1/100th skill =4 success

Sounds overly complicated. Why not use something simpler.
Example; You roll vs 80%, you roll 63. You get 6 successes (counting only the 10ths).

That was how my own Genesis system was going to work.

Becuase simplier is not always better, and sometime over-complicated is really just factoring in for things that you might not have considered or decided not to factor in.

(...snipet...)

Now if we modifeed you system a little, it could get interesting. For example, we could add in "automatic" success for skill scores over 100. THis would give Rusk an extra 5 success for a 150% skill. THis would be good except it will become impossible to overcome a 100 point skill difference. We would proably want a crtical hit system to offset this.

LOL, I was going to wait to see if someone began arguing against my idea, before I revealed it further. But it seems the idea are so simple, that everyone just assumed correctly on how it was going to work, with a slight difference.

You are correct, I was going to give +1 Success / 10% above 100% as a bonus.

But to resolve the problem of overcoming a 100+ difference the following was going to be used in the Genesis system (as it it now, Genesis might see the day after all, it all depends on what I think about MRQ when I get my hands on it).

To resolve the problem 100+% difference, the following mechanic was going to be used on Criticals.

If you roll a critical (which was a double roll under your %, imposing a limit on the chance to crit) and your % is belov 100, you roll a second skill roll, and if that is a success, you add the successes of that roll to the first.

Example; Rurik Runespear has a 80% skill, he rolls 66 (a crit) which gives him 6 Successes. He then rolls again against his 80%, and rolls 54, adding another 5 successes to his previous 6 for a total of 11 successes.

A character that has a skill of 100+% and rolls a critical rolls again as above. But after the second roll, if that is successful. He may choose to roll yet another roll and add to the first. But this comes at a price (the gods of luck are fickle, and may not favor you).

First of all, the third roll reduces 100% from his % to succeed. And if this roll fails, he retains only the original sucesses on the first roll, but has to half them.

So say, that a character with 150% rolls, he gets 54 on his first roll (5 successes), rolls a second time for 84% (8 successes), and opts to tempt fate (which is what the rule was called) by rolling a third time, this time at 50% (150-100=50), and rolls 51% A FAILURE (he gets too overconfident and manages to turn an advantage into a disadvantage). The gods laugh at the foolish mortal that tempts fate, and he gets only to keep his original 5 successes, which are halved to 2.5 (rounded down to 2).

A character with 200% may attempt a fourth roll, a 300% character a fifth roll and so on. But each additional try uses the Tempt the fate rule, and he may end up paying a heavy price for his arrogance (trying to show off can fail miserably).

On opposed rolls, you only compare the number of successes rolled. Highest number wins.
An optional rule was that you could reduce the winners number of successes by the amount the looser got.

Number of successes in Genesis was used instead of dice rolls for damage etc. So damage from a weapon depended on your skill with a modifier depending on the weapon. This meant that a dagger could potentially be as lethal in skilled hands as a longsword in a less skilled persons hands.

Damn, now I am tempted to start working on my Genesis system again. It was going to be an OGL system, which basically is quick and easy to use, but draws on my 20+ years of experience as a player and GM, in what works and what does not work. Which adds up to a heavily modified BRP.

Optionally, we could just give Rusk two rolls, one at 100%, and one at 50% and count the successes. THis would balnce out nicely for the lower skilled characters, but maintain Rusk's advantage. It is, however, a bit clunky.

Just as you can see above, that was basically what was done. But you have the Tempt the fate rule to make it a bit of a risk. Not every player are going to risk it all the time.

Yes, it is a bit clunky. But considering that that was the most clunky rule in the whole Genesis system, I found it to be acceptable.
The situations where it came into play were few, and during the playtest of the Genesis system, it was not as much slowdown as doing division on the fly is. Removing an even 100 from a 100+ score is a no brainer.
With the Tempting fate rule, it also added a lot of tension, especially when things were balanced and the more skilled opponent found that he had to risk it all in order to overcome what is essentially an inferior opponent.

An equal amount of successes resulted in a tie, which was going to be used for all sort of intressting things.

 

[Enpeze]

I don't remember this mechanic from Warhammer 2, but then I didn't read it carefully. I'll take your word for that.

There are amount of "successes" in WFRP2 which mean the lower you roll under your skill the more successes you have. For every 10 points under your skill you get 1 success. In an opposing roll most success wins.

 

[Trodax]

The only issue with the roll high/count success system is it doesn't account for skill over 100%. That can be easily remedied by simply adding an automatic success (if the roll was in fact successful) for every 10% of skill above 100%.

Example: Rurik has a skill of 124% and rolls a 63%. He gets 8 successes (6+2 for being 20% over 100%).

Simple enough...

Yeah, that's quite elegant actually. I like it.

That was the whole reason I said it work with a d10 based system - if you are only looking at the 10's die, why roll the 1's die at all?

Well you are still using the information from the 1's die if you calculate degrees of success as has been discussed. For example, someone with 32% would get 3 degrees if he rolled 30-32 (in a high-roll system) and fail on 33 or more, while someone with 38% would get 3 degrees on 30-38 and fail on 39 or more.

It could be argued that this is looking at the 1's die as much as in the regular system; I mean if I have 35% I actually only have to look on the 1's die if I roll a 3 (or a 0) on the 10's die when I roll normally.

 

[andakitty]

Only taking the tens die into account is emulating another system, GOOs' modified Tristat for Tekumel.

 

[Trodax]

...SNIP...

I really like the basics of your system, Archer. Having the roll directly determining the degrees of successes and criticals turning up on doubles is very elegant with no calculatians whatsoever necessary.

The only thing I'm a bit iffy on are the multiple rerolls on criticals, but I'm sure that doesn't happen often enough to be cumbersome. Still, couldn't it work with some simpler rule; perhaps if you simply doubled your degrees of success on a critical?

BTW, how do you handle opposed rolls if both fail? Reroll?

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

Only taking the tens die into account is emulating another system, GOOs' modified Tristat for Tekumel.

Or BODGERS, cough......

 

[King Amenjar]

On a crit you could simply be counted as if you'd rolled 100 but succeeded i.e. 10 successes plus any bonus for being over 100% skill.

 

[Rurik]

That was the whole reason I said it work with a d10 based system - if you are only looking at the 10's die, why roll the 1's die at all?

Well you are still using the information from the 1's die if you calculate degrees of success as has been discussed. For example, someone with 32% would get 3 degrees if he rolled 30-32 (in a high-roll system) and fail on 33 or more, while someone with 38% would get 3 degrees on 30-38 and fail on 39 or more.

It could be argued that this is looking at the 1's die as much as in the regular system; I mean if I have 35% I actually only have to look on the 1's die if I roll a 3 (or a 0) on the 10's die when I roll normally.

The first system I was comparing to was the one described as low roll better, where a skill of 79 would have a 0 successes on a roll of 70. You are right, the system works better in a roll high under your skill method.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

Hey archer, I once came up with a very similar mechanic, although I did not allow the re-roll for high skill (or the risk roll), I just slapped on an extra success per 10% over 100% (although skills generally didn't get much higher than 150%). Re-rolls on doubles I did do (inspired by UA). The system was a nifty idea I was toying with. The thing is, everything must be success based, rather than having a -30% penalty, you need 3+ successes. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just an observation from my own testing.

The only thing I'm a bit iffy on are the multiple rerolls on criticals, but I'm sure that doesn't happen often enough to be cumbersome. Still, couldn't it work with some simpler rule; perhaps if you simply doubled your degrees of success on a critical?

You only have a 10% chance of getting a critical, so I don't see it as a problem.

 

[atgxtg]

I guess that the number of success actually mean something in the Genesis system. Perhaps the base damage taken?

So you could give weapons a modifer to the damage roll, like broasdword +3 por somesuch, and add it ot the number of successes.

I like the general concept, but still think the critical system and skills over 100 need to be tweaked a bit. With the roll twice idea, a character with a 99 skill still has to roll a critical to have any chance of beating a character with a 100 point skill advantage.
I'd recomment dropping the +1 per ten and just giving characters one roll per each 100% of skill, plus a roll for the remainder.

For criticals you could just double the result.

Note that while a 100% advantage is still going to win most of the time, there is the chance of a 300% character rolling 3 very low rolls and being betting by a 50% character who rolls a 44 for 8 succeses.

 

[algauble]

If I were going to run a MRQ variant, I would probably use something very similar to what was being suggested upthread by claymore and atgxtg, but without the degrees of success as multiples of 10's, but keeping deg. of success as in crits/reg/fail/fumble. Within each deg. of success, it would be blackjack - high roll without going over wins. If the skill is over 100 and the roll is under (skill - 100), then add 100 to the rolled number for purposes of who wins the blackjack contest...

Quoting myself from an attempt to explain this elsewhere:

... your Runelord with Sneak 115% is trying to get by, let's say, a Duck Guardsman with Listen 30%,

-you would treat any roll of 01 to 11 as a crit, with the 11 being the best result (the Duck would hear you only if he critted too and with a higher roll than yours);

-any roll of 12 to 15 would be a regular success, but for blackjack comparison purposes, it would be treated as 112 to 115 thus beating the Duck if the Duck rolls a regular success since the Duck's highest regular success is only 30 vs your 112-115 (the Duck would win if he critted with a 01-03)

-next would come 16-96. Daffy hears you as long as he rolls higher than you without going over his 30% skill.

-as for failures, I tend to think that the higher roll should win versus the lower roll here, too. I don't think I understand the argument why low roll for failures winning is the way to go. If anyone cares to elaborate on why this is so, I'm curious.

I think this would scale well into the 200's and 300's. For example, a skill 230% would crit on 1-23, be reg. success of 224-230 on a roll of 24-30, 131-197 on 31-97.

-al

 

[Archer]

...SNIP...

I really like the basics of your system, Archer. Having the roll directly determining the degrees of successes and criticals turning up on doubles is very elegant with no calculatians whatsoever necessary.

Thank you, that was my goal with the system (of which you have just seen some of the basic mechanics).

The only thing I'm a bit iffy on are the multiple rerolls on criticals, but I'm sure that doesn't happen often enough to be cumbersome. Still, couldn't it work with some simpler rule; perhaps if you simply doubled your degrees of success on a critical?

That was the way I did it first. But then, someone with a high enough % would basically always win due to the over 100 bonus.

BTW, how do you handle opposed rolls if both fail? Reroll?

Thats a tie. And its effect depends on the situation.

In combat it would be where two fighters stand weapons locked, trying to break away or break the lock to attack the opponent. Neither has an advantage. Though normally combat does not use opposed rolls that much. Using it is more an optional rule for attacks/parries/dodges which can bring intresting results.

In armwrestling, that is the tense situation where both participants are even. Rerolls needed.
Ties in Genesis requires that the GM uses his common sense to judge whatever a tie represent.

I think ties are perfectly good outcomes of opposed rolls. It is just a matter of what they should represent in the setting.

 

[Claymore Driftwood Pub]

I like the concept of a tie in some circumstances, without a clear winner. You get this alot in combat, but rarely with skills.

 

[Archer]

....The thing is, everything must be success based, rather than having a -30% penalty, you need 3+ successes. I'm not saying that is a bad thing, just an observation from my own testing.

Nope, in Genesis Successes are used for comparison against others, or for effect. Never for judging success/failure. You have succeeded, so it is just a question of how well you succeeded.

Example: A blacksmith skill 50% tries to work dark iron (a setting metal) into a longsword. A hard thing to do, so he suffers -30% on his roll, which also means that even if he succeeds, the result of his success would also suffer. He manages to roll 20, and gets 2 successes (barely). These two successes are then used to determine the quality of the weapon he created.
He could use 1 success to make the weapon stronger +1 Breaking value, and 1 success to make it deal more damage (+1 Damage modifier in addition to the +2 granted by long sword), or he could just trade in the 2 successes for a +4% balance bonus, making the weapon more balanced and easier to handle.

Example: A Kharg warrior (kharg are a human tribe of barbarians in the setting) attacks his opponent with a longsword ( +2 damage modifier), using his Longsword 50% skill. He rolls and gets a result of 47, granting him 4 successes. 4 successess + 2 damage modifier = 6 points of damage.

The whole system works like this. You have + and - penalties to your % depending on difficulty and circumstances. And the successes (perhaps should be called effect) are used to determine the quality/effect/damage/etc. of what you tried to do.

It is a test / effect principle that links test success with effect. And it almost exclusively uses just these two parts to solve anything in the rules. With one die roll you get success/failure, and you get secondary effects such as damage, quality and so on.

Only in very few cases do I see a need to "require" a certain number of successes ala Shadowrun (I do not like doing things that way).

Example; Derek the thief tries to pick a lock (Resistence 5 - a very tough lock) with a piece of wire and his Lock Pick 85% skill. He rolls 74% and gets 7 successes. Comparing 7 with Resistence 5 the GM declares that after 2 minutes of fiddling with the lock, Derek finally hears a click and the lock is unlocked.

It could as easily be done;
Example; Derek the thief tries to pick a lock (a hard lock -50%) with a piece of wire and his Lock Pick 85% skill (now reduced to 35%). He rolls a 74%, which is not enough to succeed. Derek better try again.

Both are perfectly valid ways you could use the Genesis system.
But as much as possible, the second will be used, unless the action perform actually creates something (dealing damage - creates wounds, crafting something, doing a performance, casting a spell). Or the roll is made to overcome an opponents roll.

 

[atgxtg]

If I were going to run a MRQ variant, I would probably use something very similar to what was being suggested upthread by claymore and atgxtg, but without the degrees of success as multiples of 10's, but keeping deg. of success as in crits/reg/fail/fumble. Within each deg. of success, it would be blackjack - high roll without going over wins. If the skill is over 100 and the roll is under (skill - 100), then add 100 to the rolled number for purposes of who wins the blackjack contest...

One idea I was toying with was to rate skills on a 1-20+ scale and then read the result as mutiples of the skil. So if you had a 15 skill and rolled a 47, that would be over 3xskill. THe idea being that the lower mutiple wins, and using the differnece in skill muliples as a degree of success.

It is nice in that if you take two characters and give one twice the skill of the other and they both roll the same result on the D100, the character with twice the skill will get twice/half the test result.

I wonder how man gamers can handle basic multiplcation and division though, at least to the x10 range or so.