Suggestions for a somewhat radical change to Timing/Effect.

SableWyvern

Mongoose
I've decided to start a separate thread on this (split from the Anomalies thread) because I think my suggestions below have the potential to significantly simplify the Timing/Effect system while simultaneously addressing some of the concerns that have been expressed with it as it stands.

Simplfication
Under this system, there is no need to ever apply any modifiers to the Timing or Effect die to account for skill or situation. Bonuses and penalties to the skill roll automatically influence the quality of Timing/Effect results.

Adjustment of Probabilities
As a result of that, concerns expressed by some people that excellent Effect and Timing results are most probable are dealt with and fixed. Good results are most likely when checks have positive modifiers, and least likely when checks have negative modifiers.

The basic fix is to make low Timing/Effect results good, and high results inferior, in a fashion similar to the blackjack structure found in some roll-under systems. This achieves two things.

The objective becomes to roll as low as possible, while still getting a total of 8+. Since high Timing/Effect are inferior, checks made at a -4 net modifier and requiring 6-6 for success automatically get the worst possible results if passed, instead of starting with the best possible result and then being degraded by applying modifiers. Positive modifiers to skill checks enable lower (and thus better) successful rolls by default.

The changes required would be as follows:

For general skill use:
- Result of the Timing die becomes a straight multiplier - no need to reference a table or calculate 7 - Die Roll.

- Effect results table is reversed (1-2 is exceptional, 5-6 is mininal success)

For combat:
- Initative structure would need to be reversed. Initiative value increases as you move/aim/etc, drops by two each increment phase, and you act on Initiative 1. Starting initiative would be 1d6-Dex mod. Apart from changing negative modifiers to positive and vice versa, the system as it stands wouldn't really need to be altered. The mechanical results of this system would be exactly identical to the current one.

[Edit: If you really wanted, you could keep the current initiative system, and use the current Timing chart to apply to the Timing die in combat. Just shifting to a low iniative = better system would be much simpler, however.]

- The tricky one is that you could no longer read the Effect die as a straight damage bonus or multiplier. This might be the deal breaker. Then again, we already have a reversed value table for the current Timing system, so maybe it's workable. Or, perhaps there's another way of working damage to suit low Effect = better.

Thoughts?


Edit: One workable option for damage would be to change to an Xd6 damage system, as some people have already suggested. In that case, an Effect of 1-2 could add 1d6 damage, and 5-6 Effect subtract 1d6 damage, which would be easy, consistent with the normal Effect Table, and not require any maths or table lookups to make it work.
 
There is one area where this system has definite undesired affects: when performing multiple tasks.

If the rule that the lowest die must be chosen for timing is kept, then multiple tasks will always tend to be completed quickly unless some other modifier is applied (+1 or +2 to timing result per additional task, perhaps?).

If the rule is changed to require the high die to be selected for Timing, then success across the range of tasks being attempted is improved significantly.
 
SableWyvern said:
There is one area where this system has definite undesired affects: when performing multiple tasks.

If the rule that the lowest die must be chosen for timing is kept, then multiple tasks will always tend to be completed quickly unless some other modifier is applied (+1 or +2 to timing result per additional task, perhaps?).

If the rule is changed to require the high die to be selected for Timing, then success across the range of tasks being attempted is improved significantly.

That was one of my attempted fixes, and it failed. Besides adding another level of fussiness to an already fussy mechanic, the statistics are still unpalatable.

A marginal result occurs only 1/3 as often as an excellent result (13% vs 33%). And requiring the lowest roll to be the effect virtually guarantees that the timing result will be a 5 or 6 (93.3%).

Seems to me you're going to a lot of effort to salvage a defective, clumsy and fussy mechanic that seems hardly worth the effort. Perhaps the effort would be better expended on a more useful replacement.
 
Are you responding purely to the stuff you quoted?

Because my second post is just a comment on a minor negative side-effect of what appears, to me, to be a far less fussy system overall. Where are your 13% and 33% figures coming from? They seem to still be predicated on high Timing/Effect rolls being preferable; the whole point of my proposed change (as discussed in the first post) is to alter that basic dynamic.

It may be that you're pointing out a legitimate flaw in my proposal, but I'm not at all clear on what part of that proposal it is that you're actually criticising.

For clarity, I'm essentially suggesting that:
Timing 1 = Fast
Timing 6 = Slow
Effect 1= Excellent Result
Effect 6 = Marginal Result.
 
Here's something to compare to your stats in the other thread. Under my proposed changes, on a successful check (keeping in mind that low results are good):

-4DM
Chances that the best die is a 6: 100%

-2DM
Chances that the best die is a 6: 25%
Chances that the best die is a 5: 75%

No net modifier
Chances that the best die is a 6: 7%
Chances that the best die is a 5: 14%
Chances that the best die is a 4: 36%
Chances that the best die is a 3: 29%
Chances that the best die is a 2: 14%

+2DM
Best is a 6: 4%
Best is a 5: 12%
Best is a 4: 19%
Best is a 3: 27%
Best is a 2: 23%
Best is a 1: 15%

+4DM
Best is a 6: 3%
Best is a 5: 9%
Best is a 4: 15%
Best is a 3: 21%
Best is a 2: 26%
Best is a 1: 25%

So...
Very hard checks are guaranteed marginal successes when passed. As the difficulty lessens, marginal results become less common, but remain outside possibilities, while excellent results become more frequent, to the point where over 50% of successful checks at a very, very easy +4 give excellent results.

The selection of timing dice haven't been factored in, but since you are presuming Effect is more important in all your arguments, I'll stick with that.

In any case, there are no unusual probability spreads in this system -- easy checks tend towards good results, hard checks towards marginal results.

You may still think Timing/Effect isn't a valuable mechanic, but under this system it can't be claimed that it's broken, or difficult (just read the die, no need to apply any modifiers)
 
These are the margins of success/failure I'd use with this system:

Success:
Effect 1 = Incredible succes
Effect 2-3 = Excellent Success
Effect 4-5 = Succes
Effect 6 = Marginal success or success with minor complication

Failure:
Effect 1 = Marginal failure, or success with serious complication
Effect 2-3 = Failure
Effect 4-5 = Dismal Failure
Effect 6 = Catastrophic Failure (probably mitigated for easier checks, because you don't want real catastrophic failure occuring one in every 36 checks)
 
83 views for just a single comment (and one that appears to have been written without actually reading the OP)? Not even a "sorry, that looks like a waste of time to me"?

I assume if my reasoning was flawed, someone would point that out, and if it was a good concept someone would chime in to offer support, so ... is this just an idea that no one sees any value in?
 
Well, to be honest, I've pretty much decided that the issues that tbeards analysis identifies and that your fix address, aren't ones that really concern me; which surprised me, as I was quite concerned about the skewing of the results...initially.

Here's my response in the other thread, if it helps.
The quick version is that after thinking about it quite a bit, there seem to be two or three big flaws in the argument that this is a serious problem: the rules are not intended to be always used, but only in very specific situations; the analysis only looks at the results of success; and the perception of the problem seems far too wrapped up in what really is a random choice of words that quantify the result of a task roll, that in most cases make no difference at all to the outcome.

Finally, even if one does want to worry about the quantification descriptions, I've decided that a symmetrical result - that is to say, as many half-baked near failures as glowing successes- is not typical of what I'd suppose to be the result of a competent task attempt. So the problem (from my perspective) that more great successes occur than near failures, is a non-starter. Which undermines the rest of the issue considerably, and the need for your rather elegant fix, which deals with the stats issues well enough, but breaks a nice symmetry in play (now having bidirectional results), so, it really seems uneccessary and a bit overbaroque . Good work, though, and well written.

But, as I said, my opinion.
------------------------------------------------------------
Tough issue, (I actually woke up in the night thinking about it) but I am finally leaning towards the system as it is, statistics notwithstanding (and believe me, it pains me to say that) . Here is why:

First, and foremost, I'd say that the optional and situation limited nature of the rule AND the fact that most skill rolls are (or should be) binary anyway (quantification is irrelevant) means that for non combat resolution , it doesn't effect play or degree of success or failure much at all, ever.


As regard skill resolution:

1. The T/E choices will only be needed where time is crucial, or quality iscrucial: when one dominates the other, it makes sense that the character will either fail, or succeed accordingly - ie generally with better time OR better quality of effort. While you will NEVER succeed with a 1, you will still succeed or fail: a low/high or high/high roll will be the players goal; if the latter, all is good; if the former one is sacrificed for the other.

2. The fact that that sacrifice is less likely to be a massive failure is noted....but.....the game is about doing things so I don't have a big problem with that bias....; and the fail results (less than eight ) will also reflect the choice of time or effect, which seems to be being overlooked here.


3. It strikes me that the analysis needs to consider the distribution of failures, , the situation when a T/E read will be called for AND the nature of most resolutions.a 5/2 will still have the effect of the 5 being the desired effect or time, if only to allow a reroll. The fact that the fail results mirror the success rolls, (ie the 1's pile up) is simply what you get when performing under stress in cinematic conditions...great success or great failure. (although, I'd be prepared to argue that the actual observation of motivational effects do show this pattern -).

4. Really, part of the problem seems to be the words used in the quantification, and the desire for symmetry in the results. If they were simply"adequate, acceptable, good", I'd have a lot less trouble arguing that at most tasks one tries (at a reasonable level of challenge - ie appropriate to your training, a skill level ~= the difficulty) the high end for MOST results is reasonable. 50% near failures is not a reasonable description of most competently attempted tasks, ask your supervisor/advisor/boss/spouse Wink

5. Finally, really, the key is to not assume that this is necessary OR needed for many rolls at all - only those where there is a significant trade off issue - ie great stress.

I have no problem with the skewed results in combat.

1. Both sides get it, so there the skew is equal (player and GM characters get it, NOT just the players);

2.it can be posited that the low effect/timing results represent non-crucial or irrelevant successes ("Ow ! creased my helmet !"). Ignoring 1HP scratches is a great feature of the system, esp if you've ever played one of the classic eighties multi table shooter RPGs.

3. The initiative/choice effect in combat is very important, and will similarly balance the results, as a failure still has consequences that must be chosen from. Even a miss need not be a disaster if ones timing is not badly reset.

4. Higher effect and init results make combat nastier (My preference) and keep it moving along.

Cap
 
captainjack23 said:
Well, to be honest, I've pretty much decided that the issues that tbeards analysis identifies and that your fix address, aren't ones that really concern me

Yeah, that's kind of the impression I got from the silence. And, it's a position I understand, because until this idea hit me, I was perfectly happy to play with Gar's original structure. While I do hold the conceit that my system is superior, I don't believe the current official system is nearly as broken as tbeard claims.
 
I haven't deleted skill effects -- skill still strongly influences the probability of getting good or bad Timing/Effect results, and does so consistently.

What I have done is give skill ranks exact parity with all other DMs. For those that feel strongly about keeping Effect free from the influence of characteristic mods, I can see how that might be a negative, though.

Edit: As an aside, the distinct lack of interest or supportive posts makes it clear that I don't have popular support with this idea, and unless Gar is quietly and furiously scribbling away unbeknownst to the rest of us, I'm not going to be seeing anything like I've suggested in the final release. I will probably implement this system in my own game, however, so I'm still interested in other points of view and debating the merits/flaws for the purposes of further refinement. For anyone who could be bothered. :)
 
SableWyvern said:
Edit: As an aside, the distinct lack of interest or supportive posts makes it clear that I don't have popular support with this idea, and unless Gar is quietly and furiously scribbling away unbeknownst to the rest of us...

He could jut be busy and/or on Holiday for a few dyas over X-Mas...
 
While it fixes some problems, I don't really think it's worth it. As far as I'm concerned, Time and Effect add nothing of value to the game and it would be better to scrap them altogether along with the current combat system and start from scratch.
 
Cowboy said:
While it fixes some problems, I don't really think it's worth it. As far as I'm concerned, Time and Effect add nothing of value to the game and it would be better to scrap them altogether along with the current combat system and start from scratch.

Without starting a fight, is this from playing the systems or just a readthru ? I'm confused as you said you wouldn't be playtesting this, earlier.
 
SableWyvern said:
As an aside, the distinct lack of interest or supportive posts makes it clear that I don't have popular support with this idea, and unless Gar is quietly and furiously scribbling away unbeknownst to the rest of us, I'm not going to be seeing anything like I've suggested in the final release. I will probably implement this system in my own game, however, so I'm still interested in other points of view and debating the merits/flaws for the purposes of further refinement. For anyone who could be bothered. :)

Just as a word of advice: It doesn't matter if anyone responds to you or not - if you think you've found a problem or a solution to a problem then go ahead and post til you've said what you've had to say. Don't be put off by a lack of response from writers or other playtesters - they'll tell you if they're looking at it or that it's not an issue.
 
EDG said:
Just as a word of advice: It doesn't matter if anyone responds to you or not - if you think you've found a problem or a solution to a problem then go ahead and post til you've said what you've had to say. Don't be put off by a lack of response from writers or other playtesters - they'll tell you if they're looking at it or that it's not an issue.

Yeah, that's a good point.
 
SableWyvern said:
I haven't deleted skill effects -- skill still strongly influences the probability of getting good or bad Timing/Effect results, and does so consistently.

What I have done is give skill ranks exact parity with all other DMs. For those that feel strongly about keeping Effect free from the influence of characteristic mods, I can see how that might be a negative, though.

I'm one of that latter crowd. My players are hitting 7-9 effect routinely (pun intended) since many tasks are routine to average (+2 to +0), and most have one or two skills at level 2, and several have a level 3 skill.

A simpler solution still would be a third die of a different color, adding skill and difficulty, then dividing it between the two aspects: quality or timing.
 
What about just using margin of success to help determine level of success.. you get a +DM for taking some extra time (to a maximum amount) or a -DM for rushing. Your margin of success/failure determines how well you succeed.
 
ParanoidGamer said:
What about just using margin of success to help determine level of success.. you get a +DM for taking some extra time (to a maximum amount) or a -DM for rushing. Your margin of success/failure determines how well you succeed.

Because many of us like the Timing/Effect dichotomy. When I first heard about MGT, I didn't pay it much attention. But there were people on RPG.net who were getting very excited by basic framework of the combat system, so I eventually had a look. And the uses of Timing/Effect in combat is what sold me on the game.

I realise some people aren't impressed with Timing/Effect, but most of the feedback seems to be positive, and I'm certainly a fan.
 
SableWyvern said:
Because many of us like the Timing/Effect dichotomy. When I first heard about MGT, I didn't pay it much attention. But there were people on RPG.net who were getting very excited by basic framework of the combat system, so I eventually had a look. And the uses of Timing/Effect in combat is what sold me on the game.

I realise some people aren't impressed with Timing/Effect, but most of the feedback seems to be positive, and I'm certainly a fan.
I'm still neutral on timing/effect. I can see it's use and attraction for GMs/Players. But reading the thread I thought I'd throw out an alternative for discussion.

When I first read the timing/effect I found it interesting... a very objective way to determine how long things take and how well they were done. Systems like HERO, GURPS, even d20 have little mechanics to tell you if something was an extraordinary success, a regular success, a failure, a critical failure... but the time you take is pretty much fixed in those systems...
 
Back
Top