Level of success

[Sean Waters]

Here's an idea. When you roll a skill or make a roll to hit in combat, you roll 3d6. Count the Body. You'll get a number form 0 to 6. Let us assume that a 3 always hits and an 18 always misses. This means that a success will yield a Body result of 0 to 5 and a failure will yield a Body result of 1 to 6.

 

Body result for success:

 

0: Bare success -3 s/f effects

1: Marginal success -2 s/f effects

2: Passable success -1 s/f effects

3: Average success 0 s/f effects

4: Remarkable success +2 s/f effects

5: Heroic success +4 s/f effects

 

Body result for failure:

 

6: Bare failure +3 s/f effects

5: Marginal failure +2 s/f effects

4: Passable failure +1 s/f effects

3: Average failure 0 s/f effects

2: Remarkable failure -2 s/f effects

1: Heroic failure -4 s/f effects

 

Success/failure effects

 

+1 OCV or DCV

+1 Body

+3 Stun

-1 time unit*

+1 on future attempts

More information

More cooperation

 

The precise bonus will depend on the skill and the circumstances and should be determined by the GM with player input if appropriate.

 

Example: you need 14 or less to hit an opponent in combat and succeed with a roll of 8, comprising a 1, a 2 and 5, or 2 Body. You have succeeded but the success is just passable, a –1 success. The GM might determine that the attack does 3 less stun, or that you will be at –1 OCV next phase.

 

If you’d succeeded with a roll of 14, comprising 6,6,2, you would have 5 Body, a remarkable success, which could be worth up to +12 Stun, +3 Body, +3 OCV or DCV, or some combination (say +6 stun, +1 OCV and +1 DCV next phase).

 

Similarly if you were trying a conversation roll and needed to roll 12- to succeed, and you failed by rolling 13, comprising 6,5,2, that is a Body result of 4, or a passable failure: even though you have FAILED you get a small bonus, perhaps +1 on your next attempt.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

* - 1 time unit: every action should have a defined time it takes: 1 phase, 1 turn, 1 minute, for an average attempt. Say a conversation attempt requires 5 minutes of time, normally. A time unit, for conversation, would be the next time down the time chart; in this case 1 minute, so if you manage an remarkable success (+2) you could reduce the time the attempt takes from 5 minutes to 3 minutes. Similarly if you succeed barely, the attempt might take as much as 8 minutes.

[archermoo]

Re: Level of success

 

Well, I think that if people are confused by a system where rolling low is good, they'll be totally flummoxed by a system that you look to roll under a number, but by as little as possible. Personally I'd be more interested in a system that had rewards and penalties based on the amount that you succeeded or failed by.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Level of success

 

Well' date=' I think that if people are confused by a system where rolling low is good, they'll be totally flummoxed by a system that you look to roll under a number, but by as little as possible. Personally I'd be more interested in a system that had rewards and penalties based on the amount that you succeeded or failed by.[/quote']

 

Without intent of being a "me too" baby, I'm simply going to summarize part one by saying "What Gary said" and then expound to part two:

 

I don't understand the mechanic, personally. I'm kind of lost. So with that in mind, what I use isn't "tell me if you made it" or "tell me what you rolled," I tell my players, "Tell me what you made it by."

 

This way I can gauge overall level of success, versus the inherent difficulty of the task, all without any muss or fuss. I'd be curious to have a deeper understand of your proposal, though, 'cause right now I's jest lawst.

[lemming]

Re: Level of success

 

It's a neat idea and could see it used in some games, but most extra rules that get added tend to slow the game down more than they're worth. (Unless all your players are into it.)

 

I had a complicated crit system that worked fine for fantasy, but could get icky elsewhere.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Level of success

 

This way I can gauge overall level of success' date=' versus the inherent difficulty of the task, all without any muss or fuss. I'd be curious to have a deeper understand of your proposal, though, 'cause right now I's jest lawst.[/quote']

 

What you complaining about Thia - I can remember that not so long ago you were complaining that you understood every word of Sean's posts - at least the world is working properly again!

 

 

 

Doc

[Crypt]

Re: Level of success

 

At first this seems very elegant (more than classic success margins)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

Without intent of being a "me too" baby, I'm simply going to summarize part one by saying "What Gary said" and then expound to part two:

 

I don't understand the mechanic, personally. I'm kind of lost. So with that in mind, what I use isn't "tell me if you made it" or "tell me what you rolled," I tell my players, "Tell me what you made it by."

 

This way I can gauge overall level of success, versus the inherent difficulty of the task, all without any muss or fuss. I'd be curious to have a deeper understand of your proposal, though, 'cause right now I's jest lawst.

 

 

What Doc said (Normal service....)

 

The procedure would be: roll to hit: did they hit or miss? Ask ''what Body did you roll?'

 

Calculating the Body on 3d6 should be practically instantaneous for a Hero gamer AND you don't actually have to tell them what the target number was, or give that information away, which can be tactically revealing.

 

The level of success IS linked to the relative skill of the participant and the difficulty of th etask - it is only possible to get the best results for success if you are doing a task that is routine for you, and only possible to get the worst results for failure if you are trying something that is almost beyond you. It has that additional random element though because a success with a roll of (say) 11 could have 4,3 or 2 Body.

 

The thing is this is a critical system that works for both skill and combat rolls, so, whilst it may not seem intuitive that a roll of 3, whilst it might always hit, is just a bare success, if you work it through a time or two it works quite nicely AND should be very quick to implement.

 

I do tend to think in odd ways, and it is a long shot, but it just might work....

[Outsider]

Re: Level of success

 

Well' date=' I think that if people are confused by a system where rolling low is good, they'll be totally flummoxed by a system that you look to roll under a number, but by as little as possible. Personally I'd be more interested in a system that had rewards and penalties based on the amount that you succeeded or failed by.[/quote']

 

 

A system based on the margin of success or failure is more intuitive, but it might lead to even more skill/ocv inflation

 

Speaking of combat only, if there were to be a margin of success/failure mechanic, it should definitely be less efficient than putting levels into damage.

 

Currently, 2 CSLs can be used to add +1DC to an attack, or +1 BODY damage to one's damage roll. The down side being that OCV (or DCV) is down by 2, most likely making hitting less likely. If the marginal success mechanic adds one of these effects for a success margin of 1 or 2, why would anyone ever use the damage mechanics?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Level of success

 

I think it's really counter-intuitive, personally. If I have a 14- chance to succeed, and I roll a 7 (5,1,1), then my traditional margin of success is 7 points and making a half roll (which is intuitively an outstanding result), but under this system, it would be a highly undesirable result. I'd never use this. Sorry, Sean.

[Outsider]

Re: Level of success

 

When I said "A system based on the margin of success or failure is more intuitive" I didnt mean Sean's proposed system. I meant what you're talking about.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Level of success

 

When I said "A system based on the margin of success or failure is more intuitive" I didnt mean Sean's proposed system. I meant what you're talking about.

Oh, I know. The fact that my post followed yours made it seem like I was responding to you, but actually I was just responding to the original idea in general.

[Vondy]

Re: Level of success

 

Wait a minute. I think I'm misunderstanding. For instance, I roll a natural three on my to hit roll. Its the best roll I could make. But it results in 0 body. According to your chart I get:

 

0: Bare success -3 s/f effects

 

But, lets say I needed a 17- to hit and rolled 5, 5, and 6 (5 BDY). I barely made my to hit roll, but I get:

 

5: Marginal success +4 s/f effects

 

It works, but seems like the better my roll the worse my result. Its not wrong, but it feels counter-intuitive. When determining results for opposed skill rolls and characteristic rolls we use the greater MoS (the one who rolled the farthest below their target number wins), while this system rewards me for rolling as close to a high target roll as possible. Also, the highest MoS level I have is limited by my skill roll.

 

Now, I may be completely misunderstanding your system. But if not, shouldn't the table for success be inverted with 0 (a roll of 3) giving the best results and 5 (a roll of seventeen for someone with an atrociously high skill or characteristic roll) providing the worst result?

[Sean Waters]

Think of it like this, using combat as an example, a roll of 3 pretty much guarantees a hit. Stick me in the ring with the current world champion at any martial art you like and tell him or her they can't hit me back, and I'll probably be able to tag them eventually , but I doubt I'd ever be able to get a solid hit on them. That is I could hit with a roll or maybe 4 or less, say.

 

I'm never ever going to get a solid hit though. That's the point though: you roll a 3 it doesn't mean you've cracked the skull of whoever you've hit, it just means you've hit them.

 

Now do it the other way around. This time I'm not allowed to hit them. They hit me with a roll of 3 and, sure they've got a big margin of success BUT - and this is the point - any chump can hit when they roll a 3. It takes someone with real skill and a significant advantage over their opponent to hit with a roll of 16.

 

Turning the above example around it should mean that any hit I manage against a really skilled opponent is likely to be a pretty poor one. This system allows for that. I don't see how that is counter intuitive.

 

Now, sure, a system that worked on 'how many did you make your roll by' does that too: I'd only ever be able to make the roll exactly or by one but - and this is something you need to consider - turning it round - almost every hit in the other direction - when they are trying to hit me - is going to be at a significant success level - so almost every hit is going to be a critical.

 

That is not intuitive to me. Sure someone who is skilled is good at placing shots but bear in mind that Hero generally differentiates skill and damage. You really don't want to give too much emphasis to hits by a significant margin as, given a bell curve system, almost every hit by a skilled opponent will be doing significantly more damage. That undermines the value of damage causing power and increases the value of DEX and skill levels.

 

To an extent this is inevitable unless you have an entirely random method of criticals, but the system I've proposed mitigates that a lot: an average roll will be an average hit even if it succeeds by a significant margin. As it should be.

 

The other thing this does is allow, very simply, for a less than perfect hit, or a miss that actually puts you in a better position next time. Try doing that with a level of success system.

 

Mechanically it looks like you need a chart. You don't. Another way to think of it is this: an average roll gives a Body result of 3.Count Body RELATIVE to an average result.

 

That means that, instead of counting the result absolute, count it relative to 3. A 6,3,2 roll (11) is a +1. Positive hits are doubled, negative misses are doubled. So this result would be a +2 effect if it hit, or a +1 effect if it missed. For the same total made up with 5,5,1 which is a -1 result, it would be a -1 hit or a -2 miss.

 

What I'd ask you to do is just try it. Not in game, right here and now. Get 3 dice, decide what you need to hit and then roll them. See how quick and easy it is.

 

I've just done it. I decided I needed 12 or less to hit. I rolled 6,6,4, that is a +2 miss. I missed, but next phase I'll be at +1 OCV, +1 DCV. Cool.

 

Moreover the same system works for combat and non-combat skills. I could weep. I might yet.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

Sorry: the labels on the success/fail were wrong - That's copying and pasting for you. I;ve corrected them in the original post.

[braincraft]

Like a deadly game of Battleship

 

I like your idea of using the whole roll. I hate your idea of adding another chart to every single roll.

 

Change it to a roll-high target, maybe? That has the problem of high-CV combat being an exchange of glass ninjas, though.

[Vondy]

Re: Level of success

 

Think of it like this, using combat as an example, a roll of 3 pretty much guarantees a hit. Stick me in the ring with the current world champion at any martial art you like and tell him or her they can't hit me back, and I'll probably be able to tag them eventually , but I doubt I'd ever be able to get a solid hit on them. That is I could hit with a roll or maybe 4 or less, say.

 

I'm never ever going to get a solid hit though. That's the point though: you roll a 3 it doesn't mean you've cracked the skull of whoever you've hit, it just means you've hit them.

 

Now do it the other way around. This time I'm not allowed to hit them. They hit me with a roll of 3 and, sure they've got a big margin of success BUT - and this is the point - any chump can hit when they roll a 3. It takes someone with real skill and a significant advantage over their opponent to hit with a roll of 16.

 

Turning the above example around it should mean that any hit I manage against a really skilled opponent is likely to be a pretty poor one. This system allows for that. I don't see how that is counter intuitive.

 

Now, sure, a system that worked on 'how many did you make your roll by' does that too: I'd only ever be able to make the roll exactly or by one but - and this is something you need to consider - turning it round - almost every hit in the other direction - when they are trying to hit me - is going to be at a significant success level - so almost every hit is going to be a critical.

 

That is not intuitive to me. Sure someone who is skilled is good at placing shots but bear in mind that Hero generally differentiates skill and damage. You really don't want to give too much emphasis to hits by a significant margin as, given a bell curve system, almost every hit by a skilled opponent will be doing significantly more damage. That undermines the value of damage causing power and increases the value of DEX and skill levels.

 

To an extent this is inevitable unless you have an entirely random method of criticals, but the system I've proposed mitigates that a lot: an average roll will be an average hit even if it succeeds by a significant margin. As it should be.

 

The other thing this does is allow, very simply, for a less than perfect hit, or a miss that actually puts you in a better position next time. Try doing that with a level of success system.

 

Mechanically it looks like you need a chart. You don't. Another way to think of it is this: an average roll gives a Body result of 3.Count Body RELATIVE to an average result.

 

That means that, instead of counting the result absolute, count it relative to 3. A 6,3,2 roll (11) is a +1. Positive hits are doubled, negative misses are doubled. So this result would be a +2 effect if it hit, or a +1 effect if it missed. For the same total made up with 5,5,1 which is a -1 result, it would be a -1 hit or a -2 miss.

 

What I'd ask you to do is just try it. Not in game, right here and now. Get 3 dice, decide what you need to hit and then roll them. See how quick and easy it is.

 

I've just done it. I decided I needed 12 or less to hit. I rolled 6,6,4, that is a +2 miss. I missed, but next phase I'll be at +1 OCV, +1 DCV. Cool.

 

Moreover the same system works for combat and non-combat skills. I could weep. I might yet.

 

I think its simple enough, and it makes more sense with the tables inverted, but it still doesn't sit real well with me. You've basically taken a mechanical problem (that someone who can only hit with a three will only get spectacular results) and reverse engineered an explanation for your fix that doesn't jive with an implicit assumption of the system - namely that a bigger MoS is better (see the crit rules in UMA and the opposed characteristic and skill roll explanations). Its valid and it works, but its not something I'll be using personally.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Like a deadly game of Battleship

 

I like your idea of using the whole roll. I hate your idea of adding another chart to every single roll.

 

Change it to a roll-high target, maybe? That has the problem of high-CV combat being an exchange of glass ninjas, though.

 

The chart really is not necessary: roll 3d6 and count Body. Subtract 3 from the Body. You get a number from -3 to 3. If you HIT then use (Body-3), but double positive results. If you MISS then use (Body -3) but double negative results.

 

You might need a result look up table for the first half hour but it is basically each +1 is (or reverse sign for negative effects):

 

+ 1 OCV/DCV/Body damage/future roll bonus, + 3 Stun damage, improved time, improved information, improved cooperation

 

A complete critical system for skills and combat you can fit in 4 lines of text has to be worth considering

[braincraft]

Re: Level of success

 

That's still at least three steps over the basic damage system, when you can justify at most one. I guarantee that it's going to be a pain in the ass to remember.

 

More to the point, it means that, since most (read: all) rolls will involve targets below 18, the average BODY value on a hit is negative in the best of circumstances. If you assume the average target is 11, it's very, very bad; there are only nine dice results of 11 or less that have more than the average amount of BODY, and 78 (out of 108!) that have less than the rolled average. This will weaken everybody - equally, but still. So this is a mechanic that makes success less successful and failure more catastrophic, and requires more work to break up action.

 

Why? Why would you inflict something like that on anyone? What did your players ever do to you?

 

The idea is sound, but your implementation is uneccessarily punishing.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

That's still at least three steps over the basic damage system, when you can justify at most one. I guarantee that it's going to be a pain in the ass to remember.

 

More to the point, it means that, since most (read: all) rolls will involve targets below 18, the average BODY value on a hit is negative in the best of circumstances. If you assume the average target is 11, it's very, very bad; there are only nine dice results of 11 or less that have more than the average amount of BODY, and 78 (out of 108!) that have less than the rolled average. This will weaken everybody - equally, but still. So this is a mechanic that makes success less successful and failure more catastrophic, and requires more work to break up action.

 

Why? Why would you inflict something like that on anyone? What did your players ever do to you?

 

The idea is sound, but your implementation is uneccessarily punishing.

 

Well the simple answer is because I like the idea of modelling a success that can give you a drawback and a failure that can help a bit.

 

If you don't like that, simply ignore the -3 bit and don't do any of the fancy doubling. For successes count the Body as a Bonus, for failures count (6-Body) as a penalty.

 

Roll 11 (and hit) with 6,3,2 and you have a +4 result, roll it with 5,5,1 and you have a +2 result. Roll a 12 (and miss) with 6,3,3 and you get a -2 penalty, roll it with 6,5,1 and you get a -3 penalty.

 

Personally I don't think that is such a good system: the original does make success less effective as you point out, but also makes failure more likely to result in success next time: almost as if learning from your mistakes was built into the system.

[braincraft]

Re: Level of success

 

I had assumed that failure resulted in penalties, not bonuses, which is counterintuitive; now you have guys hoping to fail as miserably as possible in order to save up future bonuses. Furthermore, with your fix, every single roll of any sort has huge bonuses added on, which gives you the opposite problem of everyone hitting home runs half the time.

 

I also don't like that this system, unlike every other aspect of the engine, does not scale at all, ever.

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Level of success

 

What you complaining about Thia - I can remember that not so long ago you were complaining that you understood every word of Sean's posts - at least the world is working properly again!

 

 

 

Doc

 

No, I said, roughly, "OMG I'm understanding and agreeing with Sean. The apocalypse is coming." And Sean replied, "Don't worry, normal service will be resumed shortly."

 

Normal service (him saying things and me going '... WHAT?!') has now been resumed.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

I had assumed that failure resulted in penalties, not bonuses, which is counterintuitive; now you have guys hoping to fail as miserably as possible in order to save up future bonuses. Furthermore, with your fix, every single roll of any sort has huge bonuses added on, which gives you the opposite problem of everyone hitting home runs half the time.

 

I also don't like that this system, unlike every other aspect of the engine, does not scale at all, ever.

 

I get you don't like the original. I've sugegsted a different version that only gives bonuses for hits and only gives penalties for misses, using the same mechanic.

 

If you want it to scale change +3 Stun to +(1/2 DC) Stun so a 4d6 attack would add +2 stun per bonus and a 12d6 attack does +6 stun per bonus. Body bonuses would be based on +(1/6 Body).

 

OCV/DCV bonuses effectively scale as they are already relative values: +1 OCV should be as useful if the campaign average is 3 or 30.

[Markdoc]

Re: Level of success

 

The idea is sound, but your implementation is uneccessarily punishing.

 

Not only that, but I'm not even sure the idea is sound. It seems like a solution (a well-thought out solution, admittedly) in search of a problem.

 

And it's a solution which brings several problems with it: not only a significant increase in complexity (extra dice counting, non-intuitive result: tho' I admit I saw at once why it was set up the way it was, I'm pretty damn sure most of my players wouldn't) - but also a strong incentive towards skill and OCV inflation.

 

Fortunately, given the drive to simplify the system, we can be pretty sure this suggestion's going nowhere - sorry, Sean I can see your point, but more dice-rolling, we don't need.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Level of success

 

Not only that, but I'm not even sure the idea is sound. It seems like a solution (a well-thought out solution, admittedly) in search of a problem.

 

And it's a solution which brings several problems with it: not only a significant increase in complexity (extra dice counting, non-intuitive result: tho' I admit I saw at once why it was set up the way it was, I'm pretty damn sure most of my players wouldn't) - but also a strong incentive towards skill and OCV inflation.

 

Fortunately, given the drive to simplify the system, we can be pretty sure this suggestion's going nowhere - sorry, Sean I can see your point, but more dice-rolling, we don't need.

 

cheers, Mark

 

You know me so well

 

What I'm thinking is this: some people like critical systems. The most complex sort of critical system, in some ways, is the hit location system we use at present. This has elements of the random (if you aer just dicing for where you hit) and the deliberate (if you are aiming for where you hit).

 

The trouble with random is that it works against the players: there will almost always be more opponents than PCs, and the loss of a PC is almost always going to be more devastating than the loss of an NPC.

 

Because (due to there being more of them) opponents make more rolls than PCs, the absolute number of really good results (criticals) will be higher.

 

Conversely a lot of player criticals will be 'wasted' on unimportant characters who would probably have gone down to a normal hit anyway.

 

So, I'm coming at this not really liking critical systems (and for the record, fumbles don;t really balance - sure the NPCs will get more absolute but a PC fumble can be quite devastating, and, as I said, the PCs are more important than NPCs. In a game, if not in life, it is nice to succeed by dint of good tactics and have luck be less important.

 

Of course you can decide that only PCs and important NPCs get the advantage of criticals, so it balances, but why bother with the extra work - just add 2d6 damge if you are fighting mooks, and call it a wash.

 

So, hit locations ar e a form of critical system, but they do require lookups.

 

I'm after something you can do there and then without a table.

 

Options include: level of success - for instance:

 

Made hit by 0, damage = DCx3

Made hit by 1, damage = DCx3.5

Made hit by 2, damage = DCx4

Made hit by 3, damage = DCx4.5

Made hit by 4, damage = DCx5

Made hit by 5, damage = DCx5.5

Made hit by 6 or more, damage = DCx6

 

Easy to implement and quick - you don't need to roll damage and average damage is higher so combat is quicker - but this works against PCs and overvalues skil levels: 1 skill level will improve the chance to hit AND be worth 1/2DC in damage.

 

Another alternative I quite like the look and feel of is doubles and triples. Roll to hit, and if the result includes a double (double 1, double 2 etc) you get a bonus to damage of (say) DC. I think 90 of the 216 possible rolls will be doubles. If you get a triple (there are 6 possible triples, one of which is 666, so that is almost certainly a miss anyway), then you do +2DC in damage. If you roll 333 then you do maximum damage.

 

You can reduce the damge bonuses if you feel they are too generous. the relationship between skill level and damage done is not quite so linear but still exists.

 

I think enuogh people like the idea of critical systems to include one (or more) but the one I sugegsted is pretty much value neutral in terms of penalty and bonus, so it doesn't overly help or penalise either side and, if it tends to lower damage results, that will favour the players rather than the game. It might not seem attractive, but once you slip it on, you'll feel the quality

[Markdoc]

Re: Level of success

 

You know me so well

 

What I'm thinking is this: some people like critical systems. The most complex sort of critical system, in some ways, is the hit location system we use at present. This has elements of the random (if you aer just dicing for where you hit) and the deliberate (if you are aiming for where you hit).

 

The trouble with random is that it works against the players: there will almost always be more opponents than PCs, and the loss of a PC is almost always going to be more devastating than the loss of an NPC.

 

This has always puzzled me: I worked it out many, many years ago when I was still DM'ing D&D - yet players always seem to want critical hit systems. Can't these people do math? Yeah, so you critted my Big Bad? Well, guess what, buckos? That was a body double! The real Big Bad was watching to see what you could pull out of the bag and now he's comin' to get you! Oh, you killed all the mooks? I gotta million more where they come from.... etc. For the GM, criticals are merely a minor annoyance. For PCs they can be lethal.

 

Yet players really like them ....*

 

As it stands, I use the hit location chart which provides a touch (but no more) of what you suggest, but I honestly can't see much desire to add another series of dice counts to most actions. Plenty of people don't even bother with hit locations and for quick n' dirty games, I don't either.

 

This to me, smells more like a house rule to give a particular flavour than a rules change that many people would use.

 

Cheers, Mark

 

 

*as a GM, I live to serve so when the players demanded a critical hit system, they got one - 18 is a fumble, 3 always hits: and if a 3 would hit normally, you get you choice of choosing the location or choosing maximum damage