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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 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]

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

[Sean Waters]

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....:D

[Outsider]

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.


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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 :D I can see your point, but more dice-rolling, we don't need.

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

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 :D 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]

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

[Sean Waters]

..........................
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



Blimey I am becoming transparent :D

It is a system variation to add flavour, disguised as a critical system to make it socially acceptable. Oh well.

Mind you, I have, since pondering all this, been thinking of using the double/triple system, with a slight tweak.

Hit with a single (no duplicated dice) and do DCx3 damage. Hit with a double and do 4xDC. Hit with a triple and do 5xDC. Hit with a 3 and do 6xDC.

Removes the single longest bit of Hero combat (finding that one damage die that shot off the table and went under the sofa) and relates hit roll to damage without making the connection too automatic. Hmm. Might give it a try.

It'll be chaos, but I might give it a try...

[Markdoc]

Blimey I am becoming transparent :D

It is a system variation to add flavour, disguised as a critical system to make it socially acceptable. Oh well.

Mind you, I have, since pondering all this, been thinking of using the double/triple system, with a slight tweak.

Hit with a single (no duplicated dice) and do DCx3 damage. Hit with a double and do 4xDC. Hit with a triple and do 5xDC. Hit with a 3 and do 6xDC.

Removes the single longest bit of Hero combat (finding that one damage die that shot off the table and went under the sofa) and relates hit roll to damage without making the connection too automatic. Hmm. Might give it a try.

It'll be chaos, but I might give it a try...

This is an interesting idea - it'd randomise damage a bit more, which depending on your gaming style might be exactly what you want. It also has the potential to speed combat up if you have attacks that use a lot of dice - they'd always do a fixed damage multiple.

It doesn't specifically interest me, but it looks perfectly usable.

cheers, Mark

[Crypt]

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


Damages in HERO are already modified by success margin.
Ok, this is very indirect, not automatic nor smooth but it's still true =>

Let's say you have 4 CSLs:
At the extreme ranges you could use this CSL for +4 OCV or +2 DC (or any combinaison but let's keep this simple. I do not speak about DCV increase, this is another story.)
Let's say that using all your CSL in OCV is the default action.

If you use this CSL for +2 DC instead and hit => this means you've succeed even without using your CSL in OCV increase. You could have do that but you did not. So this is the same as saying : "because you've hit this is a 4 pt margin success and get a +2 DC increase." This 4 pt margin is purely potential. You've decided to take some risk by not using your full OCV potential.

If you've chosen to use all your CSL in OCV and hit ==> there is not success margin. You've chosen to limit the risks.

You see what i mean ?
(for me it's a bit hard to explain in english.)

Obviously it does not work as the Rolemaster's very smooth and automatic success margin task resolution...


Because of this (less OCV = maybe more DC) and because of hit locations rules (less OCV = to hit a more "fragile" location = more damage) we cannot apply any more success margin damage rule nor "1/2 roll = max damage" rule... *
The "easy rule" where you start at average damage and increase by 10% per 1 pt success margin is bad too.


* because it would be more OCV= more damage AND less OCV = more damage at the same time.


So i think the only way to link roll and damage would be to use the pure 3D6 roll without any modifier.
For instance:
3 : max damage
4-7: 75 % damage
8-13: 50% damage
14-17: 25% damage
or something like that.

for instance =>
http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/d_roll.jpg
But this would mean that you cannot do little damage to a very hard to hit target. If you hit him, you do a big % of damage.
You can do a little % of damage only to easy to hit targets.
===> for instance you make your attack, roll 3D6 and, without any modifier, get a 5 : if this is enough to hit (after applying normal modifiers, OCV, DCV, etc) you will do 83% of the maximum damage you can do (whatever your margin is !). (so you do not have to roll damage die. If your weapon does 2D normal damage thus it will do 10 stun and 3 body. )

----------------------------
EDIT:
of for something more regular:
17-16 (4.17% chance) = 25% dmg (4/18 + 5/18)/2 = 0.25
15-14 (11.57% chance) = 36% dmg (6/18 + 7/18)/2 = 0.36
13-12 (21.3% chance) = 47% dmg (8/18 + 9/18)/2 = 0.47
11-10 (25% chance) = 58% dmg (10/18 + 11/18)/2 = 0.58
9-8 (21.3% chance) = 69% dmg (12/18 + 13/18)/2 = 0.69
7-6 (11.57% chance) = 80% dmg (14/18 + 15/18)/2 = 0.80
5-4 (4.17% chance) = 91% dmg (16/18 + 17/18)/2 = 0.91
3 (0.46% chance)= 100 % dmg 18/18 = 1.00
That's probably the one i would use.

[Crypt]

EDIT:
of for something more regular:
17-16 (4.17% chance) = 25% dmg (4/18 + 5/18)/2 = 0.25
15-14 (11.57% chance) = 36% dmg (6/18 + 7/18)/2 = 0.36
13-12 (21.3% chance) = 47% dmg (8/18 + 9/18)/2 = 0.47
11-10 (25% chance) = 58% dmg (10/18 + 11/18)/2 = 0.58
9-8 (21.3% chance) = 69% dmg (12/18 + 13/18)/2 = 0.69
7-6 (11.57% chance) = 80% dmg (14/18 + 15/18)/2 = 0.80
5-4 (4.17% chance) = 91% dmg (16/18 + 17/18)/2 = 0.91
3 (0.46% chance)= 100 % dmg 18/18 = 1.00
That's probably the one i would use.


Here is the resulting chart:
http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/chart.jpg
I've add a 18 column because this chart may also be used for any effect roll. (so the same probability repartition could be used whatever the number of dies of the effect roll. For instance you have to roll a 9d6 drain : you may roll 3d6 instead and check the chart => for instance you roll 7, the result is 43)

[Sean Waters]

..............................But this would mean that you cannot do little damage to a very hard to hit target. If you hit him, you do a big % of damage.
..................

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one, but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?

[Crypt]

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one, but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?


I'm not sure what your question is.

Let's say you have OCV 5 / Dmg 4D and your target has DCV 3.
(using this chart: http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/chart.jpg )

You roll 3D6 => 8 ===> 17(6) dmg
11+5-3=13- ===> 8<13 ==> success

Let's say your target has DCV 9.
You roll 3D6 => 8 ===> 17(6) dmg
11+5-9=7- ===> 8>7 ==> miss
You have to roll at least 7 or less to hit.
====> This also means that, if you hit (rolling 7 or less) you do more damage ( 19(6) or more) because hit roll and damage roll are combined in a single roll here.

It may sounds like an issue. I don't know...it doesn't shock me. What is your opinion ?



Now, maybe your question was about a previous post where i said:

* because it would be more OCV= more damage AND less OCV = more damage at the same time.

more OCV= more damage ==> by using damage increase with success margin.

less OCV = more damage ==> by using CSL in DC instead of OCV or by choosing an OCV penalty in order to hit a fragile location.

Those ways of increasing damage are not compatible because the second one automatically reduces the potential success margin.

[archermoo]

I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one, but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?

Which is why I've always thought that if you are going to have the to hit roll impact the damage done it should be based on by how much you succeed. Barely tag them, do little damage. Hit them solidly, do more damage. Seems to make sense.

Which is why your proposed system doesn't make much sense to me. Basically it says that the closer you came to missing, the more damage you should do.

[Crypt]

Which is why your proposed system doesn't make much sense to me. Basically it says that the closer you came to missing, the more damage you should do.


which one ?

(mine says that the harder to hit the target the more damage you should do to hit = the better you should roll.
It's not worse than making a very good roll and being unlucky by doing a very poor damage roll....
)

[archermoo]

which one ?

(mine says that the harder to hit the target the more damage you should do to hit = the better you should roll.
It's not worse than making a very good roll and being unlucky by doing a very poor damage roll....
)

Um, the one proposed by the person I was replying to. If I was refering to someone else's system I wouldn't have used "your". I'd've used "Crypt's" or something like that. :)

[Sean Waters]

Which is why I've always thought that if you are going to have the to hit roll impact the damage done it should be based on by how much you succeed. Barely tag them, do little damage. Hit them solidly, do more damage. Seems to make sense.

Which is why your proposed system doesn't make much sense to me. Basically it says that the closer you came to missing, the more damage you should do.

That's right: if you hit with a roll of 12, it means that you must, logically, have a better OCV than your opponent's DCV, thus you CAN do more damage, so to that extent it IS a 'how much can you succeed by' system, it is just that it is less intuitive that that is what is happening. If it helps, think of it this way: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

The advantage of the system I presented (to my mind, at least) over a straight 'level of success' system is that it is less linear: damage will tend to the average even if you have a significant OCV advantage (because of the bell curve) but you have the potential for doing significantly more (or less) damage than average.

To take an example:

DexMaster has a CV of 12, DamageSoaker has a CV of 6. On a straight level of success system, DM could expect to regularly get +6 or +7 levels of success, just with an average roll. Link that to damage and virtually every hit will be doing better than average damage by a long way. OCV becomes too important as it determines both the chance to hit and the damage.

With my variation, any roll form 6 to 15 can do average damage, but a roll as low as 10 can do better than average damage and a roll as high as 11 can do less than average damage.

[archermoo]

That's right: if you hit with a roll of 12, it means that you must, logically, have a better OCV than your opponent's DCV, thus you CAN do more damage, so to that extent it IS a 'how much can you succeed by' system, it is just that it is less intuitive that that is what is happening. If it helps, think of it this way: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

The advantage of the system I presented (to my mind, at least) over a straight 'level of success' system is that it is less linear: damage will tend to the average even if you have a significant OCV advantage (because of the bell curve) but you have the potential for doing significantly more (or less) damage than average.

To take an example:

DexMaster has a CV of 12, DamageSoaker has a CV of 6. On a straight level of success system, DM could expect to regularly get +6 or +7 levels of success, just with an average roll. Link that to damage and virtually every hit will be doing better than average damage by a long way. OCV becomes too important as it determines both the chance to hit and the damage.

With my variation, any roll form 6 to 15 can do average damage, but a roll as low as 10 can do better than average damage and a roll as high as 11 can do less than average damage.

Oh I understand the system. I just don't like it. :)

[Crypt]

Originally Posted by Sean Waters
I think the idea of using the actual roll rather than the amount you succeed by is a sound one, but the bit I've quoted above is the reason 'low is good for damage' doesn't make sense to me: surely if an opponent is really hard to hit the chances aer that, if yuo do hit, it will be a glancing blow?


'low is good for damage' => could you explain what is it about ?

did my post (Mar 4th, '08 01:09 AM) bring an answer ?

[Sean Waters]

Oh I understand the system. I just don't like it. :)

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post then :(

How would you do it?

[Sean Waters]

'low is good for damage' => could you explain what is it about ?

did my post (Mar 4th, '08 01:09 AM) bring an answer ?


Sorry, should have read 'high is good for damage, low is good to hit'*. A low roll will almost always hit, but it is just a 'tag' - low damage. A high roll will do more damage...if it hits.



*Actually it read: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.

[Crypt]

Sorry, should have read 'high is good for damage, low is good to hit'*. A low roll will almost always hit, but it is just a 'tag' - low damage. A high roll will do more damage...if it hits.



*Actually it read: Low roll is good to succeed, but high roll is generally good for damage.


ok, i don't know if we talk of the same thing but in this chart:
http://cryptmaster.free.fr/HERO/MODS/chart.jpg
low roll is good for both hit and damage.


Now i must confess something => i convert every roll 3D6 under X- to 3D6 + (X-11) vs 10. So my own version of the chart is reverse (high is good for EVERYTHING. No, i don't like D&D3, don't bother me with that :hush:)
I hope it add even more confusion :D

[archermoo]

Sorry, I misunderstood your earlier post then :(

How would you do it?

I wouldn't. I like the current system just fine. Roll once to see if you hit, roll again for damage.

The previous post was just commenting that I didn't like the idea of just barely hitting meaning you did the most damage. I understand your reasons for it, I just disagree with them.

[Sean Waters]

I wouldn't. I like the current system just fine. Roll once to see if you hit, roll again for damage.

The previous post was just commenting that I didn't like the idea of just barely hitting meaning you did the most damage. I understand your reasons for it, I just disagree with them.

Thing is there are some people who like the idea of a system where there is some relationship between success and result (above 'you get to do damge'), and I was aiming this more at that sector of the market. I'm not that bothered about a 'critical system' myself as I think it is generally not helpful to the PCs but some people like that sort of thing, hence the discussion.

[archermoo]

Thing is there are some people who like the idea of a system where there is some relationship between success and result (above 'you get to do damge'), and I was aiming this more at that sector of the market. I'm not that bothered about a 'critical system' myself as I think it is generally not helpful to the PCs but some people like that sort of thing, hence the discussion.

Sure, which is why I threw in the comment that I wouldn't be interested in a system that had attacks that barely hit doing the most damage, when attacks that hit solidly did the least. The only way I've ever done criticals in HERO have been either on a roll of 3 or on a roll 10 better than was needed to hit. I know that people have expressed the fear that basing such things how much you hit by emphasizes CV too much, but I've never seen it be a problem. I'm much less worried about theoretical problems than actual ones, particularly when talking about house rules. :)

[Sean Waters]

Sure, which is why I threw in the comment that I wouldn't be interested in a system that had attacks that barely hit doing the most damage, when attacks that hit solidly did the least. The only way I've ever done criticals in HERO have been either on a roll of 3 or on a roll 10 better than was needed to hit. I know that people have expressed the fear that basing such things how much you hit by emphasizes CV too much, but I've never seen it be a problem. I'm much less worried about theoretical problems than actual ones, particularly when talking about house rules. :)

I can understand how it would seem nonsenical if you look at it like that.

The attacks that do the most damage, the solid hits, are not the low rolls. Any monkey can roll a 3 and hit, only the seriously talented (or those at a massive advantage) can roll a 17 and hit: THAT is the solid hit (because it gets a high Body total).

I can't see the point in a critical system that only kicks in every couple of hundred rolls personally - it doesn't seem worth the bother, and if there is any kind of market for a critical system it has to be something that you can get your head around easily.

I appreciate that a number of seasoned Heroites find the concept of a roll that only just hits difficult to intuit, but it isn't something that a newcomer would have any problem with, especially as the suggested system actually relies on the Body count of hit roll to determine damage rather than the actual roll to hit, and high rolls are always good for damage.

[archermoo]

I can understand how it would seem nonsenical if you look at it like that.

The attacks that do the most damage, the solid hits, are not the low rolls. Any monkey can roll a 3 and hit, only the seriously talented (or those at a massive advantage) can roll a 17 and hit: THAT is the solid hit (because it gets a high Body total).

I understand that is your point of view. I just disagree with it. :) I look at it as 3 being the most solid hit you can get. For someone that needs a 3 to hit at all, that isn't necessarily a very solid hit. For someone that only needed a 17 to hit, that 3 is a pretty solid shot.

Different POVs. So while I am one of those that likes critical hit systems (one of the things I love most about Rolemaster), I'm not interested in yours because it is counter my POV on what the rolls mean. I'd potentially be interested in a similar but reversed system though. :)


I can't see the point in a critical system that only kicks in every couple of hundred rolls personally - it doesn't seem worth the bother, and if there is any kind of market for a critical system it has to be something that you can get your head around easily.

I appreciate that a number of seasoned Heroites find the concept of a roll that only just hits difficult to intuit, but it isn't something that a newcomer would have any problem with, especially as the suggested system actually relies on the Body count of hit roll to determine damage rather than the actual roll to hit, and high rolls are always good for damage.

I submit that MOST people would find it difficult to intuit a system where the lower you roll the more likely you are to hit while at the same time the lowest rolls provide the worst damage.

[Ganesh]

I ran in a system for a while that involved wanting to roll below certain numbers, but so long as both were a success, the high roll won the tie. Less subtraction, same statistical result, and if the concept of "margin of success" wasn't already blindingly intuitive to you, worked just as well.

One of my players described it as a "The Price is Right" system -- you want to be as close as you can, without going over.

Probably not surprising, but I like sean's system -- it uses the distinctive Hero "counting body" system to good effect. It might be more intuitive when used with a "roll over" skill system rather than a "roll under" skill system. That might also involve a POV change: are high rolls misses, or hits? Depends on what the system says...

The ultimate extension, however, would result in difficulties as static numbers that you're trying to beat on a variable pool of dice that goes up with skill level, probably translating +1 skill to +1 on the roll, +2 skill to +1/2d6, +3 to +d6...and then skill rolls and damage rolls would look just the same, which is a great or terrible thing depending on who you ask.

[Tonio]

Sean, I understand your rationale completely. One thing that irks me about that system, though, is how it works counter to the general die-rolling feel. Rolling a "3" in the current system gives you a "YEAH!" feel, while rolling higher, closer to your exact-roll-to-hit, might even prompt you to re-calculate to see if you actually DID hit. So while it makes sense, mathematically, it doesn't "feel" right. If I roll a "14", and it turns out I hit, I feel like "phew, almost didn't hit". Yes, if I manage to hit on a "14", I'm probably better enough than my target to warrant big hits, but I don't think those big hits should come when I roll "14".