Yet another idea for replacing the halving mechanic

Nephilim

Mongoose
I had an idea that's pretty similar to the aforementioned multiple rolls thing. This is a mechanic I was considering for something I was working on a while ago, and I think it would work pretty well here. What do you think about this?

* Skills above 100% basically allow for the possibility of multiple successes.
* For every "hundred" you have in your skill, make a percentile roll. Critical chance is computed off of 100%, so 1-10% is a critical. The typical >95% failure and 00 fumble is in place also.
* For the remainder, make a normal roll as if your skill were the remainder.
* Add up all successes. Criticals count as two. Fumbles count as -1. (Optionally, fumbles could reset success count to -1.)

For single-person skill checks, the number of successes determines how well the person performs the skill. Two high-level successes would equal one critical here, so a person could basically achieve a critical by either rolling a natural critical or accumulating two successes by having a skill greater than 100%. The DM would have to adjudicate what, say, three successes would mean in context, if anything.

For opposed skill checks, the "defender" subtracts his successes from those of the "attacker" to get the final level of success.

This system always gives joe schmo-head a (remote) chance to win a contest against someone with incredible skill. It also allows people with about-the-same-height skills an interesting match.

One thing I like about this mechanic is that it provides a uniform way to hang special "Epic" level effects off of rolls when defining new open rules. More successes = sexier effects. For instance, spells could have extra bonus effects when you get more successes. Magic items could trigger different effects on different numbers of successes.

Example:

Joe Schmo has a skill of 56%, and Jane Buff has a skill of 256%.

Joe Schmo rolls once. His critical chance is 5%, and rolls an 03. Critical! He has two successes.

Jane Buff rolls three times. Her first two rolls are based on 100%, so a 10% critical chance on each. She rolls an 08% - critical - and an 00% fumble! The critical counts as two, and the fumble counts as -1, so she has essentially one success. She then rolls her remainder - 56%. She rolls an 87%, a failure. No successes are added for the third roll.

Comparing the two rolls, Joe has two successes to Jane's one. Through an unlikely set of rolls, Joe wins the contest.

If the degree of the win matters, we subtract Joe's successes from Jane's, for a total of 1. Basically a "normal" success, despite the fact that he rolled a natural critical.

Note:

This is still approximately compatible with the existing rules if you do it right. For instance, you could reinterpret the parry rules by letting a defender try an opposed parry roll after being successfully attacked:

-1 success : adds one success to the original attack roll (makes normal successful attacks into critical hits, for instance)
0 success: attack succeeds as normal
1 success: attack succeeds, but AP of weapon/shield is deducted from damage
2 successes: attack fails, plus defender may riposte

Not quite as nuanced, but much easier to remember, and opens the door for "epic parries" and such.
 
The probabilities appear to be very similar to the approach by which your skill above 100% becomes your critical chance,and thus the chance of an 'extra' success level. I don't see what advantage this has over that system, but it has the disadvantage of requiring extra dice rolls.

Simon Hibbs
 
simonh said:
The probabilities appear to be very similar to the approach by which your skill above 100% becomes your critical chance,and thus the chance of an 'extra' success level. I don't see what advantage this has over that system, but it has the disadvantage of requiring extra dice rolls.

Simon Hibbs

It handles skills over 200%, while the "Skill Over 100=critical chance" doesn't.

It is alsoa little similar to Lord Twig's idea.
 
I'm not familiar with HeroQuest, so I can't comment on the similarity.

Simonh, I like your rule system, too. It has the virtue over my system of being only one roll instead of several, which is nice and simple. Your system also provides hooks to hang new rules off of by defining the effects of a "super critical," which is good.

As I think more about the system I proposed, the more I like it. Some more ideas:

* This system provides another natural way for multiple people to participate in a contest by simply summing the number of successes on both sides. For instance, a tug-of-war between two teams could be handled by having everyone roll their successes and pool them together; whoever gets the most successes wins.

* This would be a way to give people choices about how things work out with their skills by giving them options with which to "spend" their extra successes on if they get more than one success. For instance, you could use "extra successes" on an attack roll for various effects:

- Maximize damage
- Ignore 1d4 points of armor to the hit location
- Get a reroll on the hit location
- Cause knockback

In this case, a critical hit (two successes) could use the first success to hit normally, then the "extra success" to do maximum damage like a normal critical hit, or it could do normal damage plus knockback, or do normal damage and ignore some armor, or whatever, giving the player some flexibility in what "doing well on a combat roll" means in terms of the current situation.

Similarly, extra successes in parry rolls could be used to block more damage, do damage to the attacker's weapon, overextend the opponent, do a riposte, etc.

* For those who don't like the complexity of all the d% rolls, you could do one of several things to simplify it, depending on how closely you would want to approximate the above:

- Each "over 100" die roll becomes a d20 roll. A 1 or 2 counts as two successes, a 20 counts as none. Re-roll any 20, and if you get a 19 or 20, it's a fumble. This is equivalent to the above, and would allow you to roll all your dice at once - read d20's as "over 100" rolls and the d10's as the remainder roll.

- Each "over 100" die roll becomes a d10 roll. A 1 counts as two successes, and a 10 counts as none. Re-roll 10's, and if you get a 10, it's a botch. This increases the chance of a failure, but as the success is practically automatic anyway, that seems like a good thing to add a little more suspense to the roll. This method is a little simpler, but may preclude you from rolling all dice at once unless you had different colored dice for the "over 100" rolls and the remainder roll.

- Each "100%" is treated as an automatic success. This is basically because the criticals and failures/fumbles will pretty much balance each other out over time anyway. This would simplify things quite a bit, but would take some of the uncertainty away. In this case, you'd want fumbles of the remainder roll to remove all successes, since otherwise, once you reach 200%, you could not ever fail at anything. You'd also want to require people to roll even if their skill is evenly divisible by 100% for the same reason.
 
Nephilim said:
I'm not familiar with HeroQuest, so I can't comment on the similarity.

The lineage is from Pendragon. It had a D20 based skill system with criticals on a 1, but skills over 21 increasing the critical chance linearly so a character with a skill of 23 got a crit on a 1-3, etc.

The Elric/Stormbringer system adopted this in percentile form, as per my rules proposal which is ripped diretcly from that source.

HeroWars/HeroQuest closed the circle by adopting this as it's core mechanic, going back to a D20 again. My proposal (which has also been proposed by others I believe, I can't claim any real credit) would renew the cycle of life and death by resurecting this fine mechanic in an RQ context, thus completing the cycle of rebirth and leading ultimately to the perfect world of RuneQuest gaming enlightenment. Or something.


Simon Hibbs
 
simonh said:
Nephilim said:
I'm not familiar with HeroQuest, so I can't comment on the similarity.

The lineage is from Pendragon. It had a D20 based skill system with criticals on a 1, but skills over 21 increasing the critical chance linearly so a character with a skill of 23 got a crit on a 1-3, etc.

The Elric/Stormbringer system adopted this in percentile form, as per my rules proposal which is ripped diretcly from that source.

HeroWars/HeroQuest closed the circle by adopting this as it's core mechanic, going back to a D20 again. My proposal (which has also been proposed by others I believe, I can't claim any real credit) would renew the cycle of life and death by resurecting this fine mechanic in an RQ context, thus completing the cycle of rebirth and leading ultimately to the perfect world of RuneQuest gaming enlightenment. Or something.


Simon Hibbs

I was agreeing with this until it got all metaphysical. Then I blew my Religion check. :?
 
simonh said:
atgxtg said:
It handles skills over 200%, while the "Skill Over 100=critical chance" doesn't.

Well, it does in the full writeup I've done for it.

Simon Hibbs

THis is better excpet that it means a few changes:

1) As written combat roll don't get halved, so we don't need the rule there.

2) as written, you can't get critical in opposed tests. IN fact, if you could, there woudln't be any need for halving. Come to think of it...
 
King Amenjar said:
Nephilim's system is essentially the same as HeroQuest's, only you're rolling percentile dice rather than a D20.

Right now, using the HQ mechanic is the best option I've seen. For those not familiar with it:
  • Subtract away each full 100% your character has, and treat the remainder as your skill.

    Roll against the remainder. Shift the level of success up by one for each full 100% you have in the skill.

    If you shift up to a critical and have "extra" 100% levels that haven't been used, knock your opponents level of success down by one for each of those.
Example: someone with a 140% skill rolls against 40%. If they roll a fumble it becomes a failure. If they roll a failure it becomes a success, etc. If they roll a critical (based on 40%), then they get to lower their opponents level of success by one level.
 
So if I have a skill of 103
01-03 is a double critical,04-05 is a critical, 06-95 is a success, 96-99 is a failure, 00 is a fumble?
 
Yes, that's right: it will look weird for skills just over 100%. The effect of a double critical would simply be to knock your opponent's success down one - so a double critical vs a success would be the same as critical vs failure.
 
King Amenjar said:
Yes, that's right: it will look weird for skills just over 100%. The effect of a double critical would simply be to knock your opponent's success down one - so a double critical vs a success would be the same as critical vs failure.

I've written up essentialy the same rules, and attempted to be pretty rigourous about it here. If there are any edge cases I'm not addressing, or areas where I could be more clear please let me know.

Simon Hibbs
 
THe only thing is, in HQ the same bumping formula is used for HEro Points. THat way a low skilled hero PC couls stand a chance against a higher skilled opponent by spending Hero Points.

If we adopt the HQ rules then we either need to chance the bumping to math the Hero Point rules (second chance rolls-somethingh I suggested before) or chance the Hero Point rules to bump up the success like in HQ.

I fon one don't mind improving the Hero Points to full bumps.
 
atgxtg said:
I fon one don't mind improving the Hero Points to full bumps.

That makes them a lot more powerful. A reroll is only usualy going to be worthwhile to try to convert a fail to a success (not counting for skills over 100%).

An auto-bump in HeroQuest will rarely end a contest, but in RQ it could easily take out an opponent in one go. Just wait untill you succeed while your opponent fails, and then bump to a crit and it's Asta la Vista Baby.

It's one of thos things that realy needs to be playtested.

Simon Hibbs
 
simonh said:
An auto-bump in HeroQuest will rarely end a contest, but in RQ it could easily take out an opponent in one go. Just wait untill you succeed while your opponent fails, and then bump to a crit and it's Asta la Vista Baby.

It's one of thos things that realy needs to be playtested.
Wise words. RQ combat appeared to be as vicious as ever, never mind about allowing success bumps in addition.
 
simonh said:
An auto-bump in HeroQuest will rarely end a contest, but in RQ it could easily take out an opponent in one go. Just wait untill you succeed while your opponent fails, and then bump to a crit and it's Asta la Vista Baby.

This isn't correct. In fact, it's the opposite. In HQ, a single die roll determines the entire outcome of the contest. You roll once, figure out the results of the contest and move on in the narrative. There are no additional rolls allowed after the fact in HQ, as written in any event. In RQ, every roll determines a specific task: swing, parry, dodge, sneak past the guard, etc.

It's the old task vs. conflict resolution deal. HQ is task resolution: one die roll determines if you successfully elude the guards, climb the wall, disarm the trap, steal Raus's treasure, climb back down, and get away 'clean'. In RQ you do at least one roll for each of those.
 
simonh said:
atgxtg said:
I fon one don't mind improving the Hero Points to full bumps.

That makes them a lot more powerful. A reroll is only usualy going to be worthwhile to try to convert a fail to a success (not counting for skills over 100%).

Simon Hibbs

I just think that if we allow bumps for skills over 100 then we need to do the same thing to Hero Points. If we don't change Hero Points, then run the bumps like a second chance roll for Hero Points.
 
simonh said:
Just wait untill you succeed while your opponent fails, and then bump to a crit and it's Asta la Vista Baby.

While you are waiting though, he could be beating the stuffing out of you. Plus he can always use a hero point to counter your bump, as in HQ.

simonh said:
It's one of thos things that realy needs to be playtested.

Simon Hibbs

Yeah, but all these options have to be playtested.

Keep in mind though that unless we want to chance combat, these ides don't apply. The combat system works (sort of-it needs a new chart), the opposed system doesn't. Also, the opposed system as written has no criticals, that is where a lot of the problems are coming from.
 
RMS said:
simonh said:
An auto-bump in HeroQuest will rarely end a contest, but in RQ it could easily take out an opponent in one go. Just wait untill you succeed while your opponent fails, and then bump to a crit and it's Asta la Vista Baby.

This isn't correct. In fact, it's the opposite. In HQ, a single die roll determines the entire outcome of the contest. You roll once, figure out the results of the contest and move on in the narrative. There are no additional rolls allowed after the fact in HQ, as written in any event. In RQ, every roll determines a specific task: swing, parry, dodge, sneak past the guard, etc.

It's the old task vs. conflict resolution deal. HQ is task resolution: one die roll determines if you successfully elude the guards, climb the wall, disarm the trap, steal Raus's treasure, climb back down, and get away 'clean'. In RQ you do at least one roll for each of those.

I agree with you with the exception of two points, both of which you are aware of, and have mentioned them to me.

1) Extended Contests. You might not run them, but they are in there.

2) Consequences for Failure. In HQ you rarely loose your character for failing a contest. It can happen, but not as often as RQ.
 
Back
Top