Reversing the roll to hit

[Joe Walsh]

On 1/30/2022 at 6:18 PM, Duke Bushido said:

I use the to-hit roll as the mechanic:

 

Your 14 (or less) plus 11 minus the "defenders" 12-.  Roll 3d6  (apply any modifiers, of course).

 

It eliminates ties, and I use the "level of success" to determine just how long the search might have taken, roughly.

 

I'll have to give that a try! I've long wished HERO had been designed with a unified mechanic.

 

How do you handle complementary skills?

 

Do you use RAW for plain old ordinary skill throws (not skill vs. skill, not complementary)?

[dmjalund]

3 hours ago, GM Joe said:

How do you handle complementary skills?

blush, then say thank you

[Duke Bushido]

 

 

Not sure where this went; I posted a reply from work a couple of hours ago, but here's a short recap:

 

6 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

I'll have to give that a try! I've long wished HERO had been designed with a unified mechanic.

 

How do you handle complementary skills?

 

First, I have to say that they don't come up too terribly often in the group where I first piloted this.  No; there's no special reason for that, but it could be related to the fact that we do _slightly_ broad interpretation of skills.  Not too broad, as there are eleven players, but if you have, say "Astrogation," I'm not going to make you buy it per ship size or per quadrant or anything like that.  I'm pretty happy with "per spiral arm."   

 

That being said, they do come up now and again.  "How we handle it" depends entirely on the mood at the table at the time.  if it's all mellow and everyone is attentive, roll the complementary skill as normal to determine a die modifier (if any).  If things are hectic and lots of people are trying to act, assume a die modifier of (Skill Level -11)/2 or (Skill Level-11)/3, depending on how relevant the complementary skill is determined to be-- rounding works the same way: if the skill is clearly something that will improve your odds, round up.  If it's a _maybe_ this will help  kind of thing, round down.

 

Now I remind everyone following along that the entire thing was conceived to help manage time and off-topic conversation (when you have a lot of players, and two or three are acting, if you spend more than a couple of minutes with each actor, the rest gravitate toward chatter.  Anything that speeds up the mechanicals helps to forestall that).

 

 

6 hours ago, GM Joe said:

 

Do you use RAW for plain old ordinary skill throws (not skill vs. skill, not complementary)?

 

Yes.  

 

 

 

I should probably add that the players-- granted, most (not all) were experienced when I started doing this-- took to it immediately.  There was no hesitation or resistance; it made a kind of sense to them, as you were competing directly against someone else, just as you are in a combat roll.

 

 

[Joe Walsh]

 

Not sure where this went; I posted a reply from work a couple of hours ago, but here's a short recap:

 

First, I have to say that they don't come up too terribly often in the group where I first piloted this.  No; there's no special reason for that, but it could be related to the fact that we do _slightly_ broad interpretation of skills.  Not too broad, as there are eleven players, but if you have, say "Astrogation," I'm not going to make you buy it per ship size or per quadrant or anything like that.  I'm pretty happy with "per spiral arm."   

 

Same here. I haven't needed micro-skills in a long time.

 

 

That being said, they do come up now and again.  "How we handle it" depends entirely on the mood at the table at the time.  if it's all mellow and everyone is attentive, roll the complementary skill as normal to determine a die modifier (if any).  If things are hectic and lots of people are trying to act, assume a die modifier of (Skill Level -11)/2 or (Skill Level-11)/3, depending on how relevant the complementary skill is determined to be-- rounding works the same way: if the skill is clearly something that will improve your odds, round up.  If it's a _maybe_ this will help  kind of thing, round down.

 

I like it! Just assume the character with a complimentary skill is able to contribute to the effort unless there's some reason to do otherwise, and base the impact of their assistance on their level of skill. Nice and quick!

 

 

Now I remind everyone following along that the entire thing was conceived to help manage time and off-topic conversation (when you have a lot of players, and two or three are acting, if you spend more than a couple of minutes with each actor, the rest gravitate toward chatter.  Anything that speeds up the mechanicals helps to forestall that).

 

If anyone's running a big game and doesn't ever have to deal with that, I'd like to know how. 😅

 

 

Yes.

 

I should probably add that the players-- granted, most (not all) were experienced when I started doing this-- took to it immediately.  There was no hesitation or resistance; it made a kind of sense to them, as you were competing directly against someone else, just as you are in a combat roll.

 

Good to know!

 

So, with this, we end up with a unified "conflict mechanic," but there are still other types of rolls for standard skill checks and (when needed) complimentary skill throws. It's at least a more logical division than the current way, where conflict is handled in two different ways.

 

Thanks for elaborating on your method, Duke.

[Duke Bushido]

Glad to help, Sir. 

 

 

[Tasha]

On 1/30/2022 at 3:20 PM, dsatow said:

So, I was wondering while driving, which I often do, what if we change the appearance of OCV and DCV.  Your OFFENSE would be effectively by 11+OCV.  The target's DEFENSE would be DCV + 3d6.  If your defense is lower than the attackers offense, you are hit.  

 

Example:  PC has a hero called Prayer with a OCV 8 and DCV 8.  GM has a OCV 7 and DCV 7.

PC: "I attack God Monster.  I have an offense of 19."

GM: Rolls 3d6 = 10 or 10+7 = 17.  "Prayer hits.  Roll damage"

 

GM: "God Monster is peeved.  He attempts to attack Prayer."

PC: The player rolls an 8 on 3d6.  "I have a defensive value of 16."

GM: "God Monster hits you."

 

Would this confuse you or could you adapt?

I would love to do this, and Have done this with a branch of the game's rules AKA Fuzion. IF you are going to flip it and want to keep the same spread, it should be OCV + 3d6 vs DCV +10. You would have to change stuff like being stunned (aka 1/2 DCV), and other things that half DCV. Which wouldn't be bad, doing division during combat can be rough for newbies.

Most arguments against it tend to boil down to "I am used to how it is, don't really want to change. So I don't see the point"

[Hugh Neilson]

OCV 10 +3d6 vs DCV 10 + 10 requires a roll of 10+ (62.5%, same as 11-).  OCV 10 + 3d6 vs DCV 5 requires a roll of 5+, same odds as 16-.

 

I don't think halving DCV changes, but I could be missing something there.

[Mr. R]

On 1/31/2022 at 11:00 PM, unclevlad said:

 

 

I'm formalizing it as 

roll high:  OCV + 3d6 >= DCV + 10   

 

vs. the standard 

roll low:  OCV + 11 - 3d6 <= DCV  

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am going to try this and go one step further into using a variation for skill rolls

 

Skill + 3d6 >= 21

 

This will make it easier to calculate Margins of Success but also Difficulty Modifiers

 

Ex 

Acrobatics 14 (most martial artist have this)

Average maneuver 14+3d6 >= 21   

Means basically role 7 or better.

 

Ex

Research roll to find out that Red Death was a reporter whose life was ruined by an industrialist 

Info is hidden but nothing is ever gone esp on the net

TN is 25

Research is at 13 and they are willing to spend 24 hours at it

13 + 3d6 + 4 (for time) >= 25

8 or better

 

Ex

FH campaign has a RSR on all spells

Caster is preparing Arcane Bolt 8d6 EB ( usually -1/10 pts, now flipped to +1/10 pts)

Caster has Power Skill at 17

SO..

17+ 3d6 >= 25

8 or better 

 

If and when I get a chance to use it, I'll let you know how it worked.

 

 

 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Mr. R said:

I am going to try this and go one step further into using a variation for skill rolls

 

Skill + 3d6 >= 21

 

This will make it easier to calculate Margins of Success but also Difficulty Modifiers

 

Ex 

Acrobatics 14 (most martial artist have this)

Average maneuver 14+3d6 >= 21   

Means basically role 7 or better.

 

Ex

Research roll to find out that Red Death was a reporter whose life was ruined by an industrialist 

Info is hidden but nothing is ever gone esp on the net

TN is 25

Research is at 13 and they are willing to spend 24 hours at it

13 + 3d6 + 4 (for time) >= 25

8 or better

 

Ex

FH campaign has a RSR on all spells

Caster is preparing Arcane Bolt 8d6 EB ( usually -1/10 pts, now flipped to +1/10 pts)

Caster has Power Skill at 17

SO..

17+ 3d6 >= 25

8 or better 

 

If and when I get a chance to use it, I'll let you know how it worked.

 

 

 

 

Yup.  Difficulty mods go to the right'  bonuses go to the left.  Everything is a positive number.  

Margin of success doesn't change.  Made by 4 is made by 4.  It's just "4 over" rather than "4 under."

Complementary skills are also trivial.  If you get a bonus from a complementary skill, it gets added to the left side for the next roll, like any other bonus.  

 

 

[Tasha]

1 hour ago, Hugh Neilson said:

OCV 10 +3d6 vs DCV 10 + 10 requires a roll of 10+ (62.5%, same as 11-).  OCV 10 + 3d6 vs DCV 5 requires a roll of 5+, same odds as 16-.

 

I don't think halving DCV changes, but I could be missing something there.

It matters IF you display DCV + 10 as the WHOLE DCV. Which works for everything ex things that half DCV. If you keep DCV as it's own number that people have to add to 10 each time it's less of an issue

Honestly, I would LOVE to eliminate the last multiplication/Division needed in combat. but that's a different discussion

[Tasha]

1 hour ago, Mr. R said:

 

 

I am going to try this and go one step further into using a variation for skill rolls

 

Skill + 3d6 >= 21

 

This will make it easier to calculate Margins of Success but also Difficulty Modifiers

 

Ex 

Acrobatics 14 (most martial artist have this)

Average maneuver 14+3d6 >= 21   

Means basically role 7 or better.

 

Ex

Research roll to find out that Red Death was a reporter whose life was ruined by an industrialist 

Info is hidden but nothing is ever gone esp on the net

TN is 25

Research is at 13 and they are willing to spend 24 hours at it

13 + 3d6 + 4 (for time) >= 25

8 or better

 

Ex

FH campaign has a RSR on all spells

Caster is preparing Arcane Bolt 8d6 EB ( usually -1/10 pts, now flipped to +1/10 pts)

Caster has Power Skill at 17

SO..

17+ 3d6 >= 25

8 or better 

 

If and when I get a chance to use it, I'll let you know how it worked.

 

 

 

Skill rolls work different. you change the formula to be (Char/5) which gets added to the roll. ie my character that in base 6e has a 15- roll, turns to a +6 to the 3d6 roll

Difficulty is Defensive number + 10. ie you have a character that is defending against a skil roll with in RAW 6e has a 15- roll. With this roll high they have a 16 to defend against the person's Skill mod + 3d6 roll.

[Tasha]

9 hours ago, Massive Metakine said:

 I meant the simplest way, where 18- becomes 3+; please roll that or higher on 3d6.

Technically you should alter the skill rolls in advance, with a plus sign instead of a negative sign.

18- becomes 3+, 17- becomes 4+, 16- to 5+ & so on. 20- becomes 1+; 22- becomes -1+, can you roll higher than a negative number?

That seems VERY over complicated to me. Nothing I can easily do in my head. How I described it is far easier IMHO. It doesn't require a table either. Gives GMs an easier time coming up with Target numbers.

For Newbies who are likely to be coming from D&D it is very similar to the dominant mechanic there. aka Roll the Dice, add that number to the skill/stat modifer. compare it to the target number ie Armor Class. If you equal the Target number you succeed.

The only difference between D&D and roll high Hero system would be that you roll 3d6 instead of a D20.

[Hugh Neilson]

18 hours ago, Massive Metakine said:

Since you've failed to argue for them with explanations, could you please remove your prejudices from the poll questions?

How about "Yes, even though it isn't palatible" &/or "No, we needn't adapt & it's easier for newbies" ?

"Yes, we can adapt" & "easier for newbies" are actually poor arguments that you bolster by making it seem like a positive thing, our adaptability for new comers.

 

Perhaps:

 

"Yes, I can't grasp the concept that bigger is not always better"

 

"No, if people can figure out high is better in bowling and low is better in golf, they canl manage this too"

[SCUBA Hero]

On 2/7/2022 at 12:21 PM, Tasha said:

Most arguments against it tend to boil down to "I am used to how it is, don't really want to change. So I don't see the point"

 

Exactly, since it's all the same math. So it's either "I'm used to it" for an experienced player, or "This way seems more intuitive/easy to me" for a noobie.

 

So for example "For Newbies who are likely to be coming from D&D it is very similar to the dominant mechanic there. aka Roll the Dice, add that number to the skill/stat modifer. compare it to the target number ie Armor Class. If you equal the Target number you succeed.  The only difference between D&D and roll high Hero system would be that you roll 3d6 instead of a D20." is an "I'm used to it" argument.

 

The way my brain works, I think the easiest method is:

 

[Roll low]  OCV plus one for every point you roll below 11 OR minus one for every point you roll above 11 = DCV you hit.

[Roll high]  OCV plus one for every point you roll above 10 OR minus one for every point you roll below 10 = DCV you hit.

[Duke Bushido]

On 2/7/2022 at 12:21 PM, Tasha said:

Most arguments against it tend to boil down to "I am used to how it is, don't really want to change. So I don't see the point"

 

Mine is simpler than that.

 

Mine is "why?"

 

That's my whole argument.  The answer tends to come back is "it makes it more like game X."   Ultimately, that's just not a motivation for me.  I am nowhere near as well-rounded as those of you fortunate enough to live near gaming stores or in areas with strong gaming communities, and while I can honestly say I don't remember all the games I've played at least once, I'm also wiling to be that the actual number might be as low as a dozen; I am sure most of the other folks here have dabbled with way more than that.  Of those games, though, Traveller and D&D were the only two "roll high" games I have played that I can actually remember being roll high games-- and even then, probably only because these threads bring up D&D so often, and because I still play Traveller.   I am not a particularly gifted person, but I never had any difficulty playing one game because it was different from another, so I never got worked up about which way was the best way to roll any more than I get worked up about not being able to make multiple jumps in Chess even though the board looks a lot like Checkers.  At the end of the day, I can loan a rule book to a new player and be pretty certain that he's going to read "roll this or less," so why bother changing it if we're all on the same page already?

 

However, I find that I invariably enjoy the math conversations on these threads, so I follow along when they come up.   

 

And as far as MM's ideas, they are pretty simple; he is just suggesting changing Skill notation more to what Traveller uses: Vacc Suit: 8+ would indicate that you need to roll an 8 or more on your dice for success.

 

The only issue I can see, really, is those occasions where a character's Skill exceeds 18, though I suppose a Skill of 22  ( I know: very unlikely, but it still happens, particular for themed supers) could be written as -1+, or perhaps (-1)+.  It wouldn't take more than one explanation to grasp that, though finding it in a long list of 6+, 8+, 4+, 9+, etc, it would probably be self-evident to most people.

 

 

[Duke Bushido]

Oops--

 

I need to clarify, as I have given some misleading information:

 

Classic Traveller used-- while not actually describing it as such-- both roll high and roll low.  If you were a Player, you wanted to roll low to succeed at something.  If you were the GM checking for various things-- mechanical failures, environmental changes, and other PC-testing developments, you'd roll high.

 

Roll high and roll low in the same game, and never once do I recall anyone having any difficulty grasping it.

[Duke Bushido]

Depends:

 

Do you play for serenity, or do you play for adventure? 

 

Seriously, though:  

 

No.  There are multiple instances where you roll high for success, and where you roll low for success.  As a general-- but not absolute-- rule, Players rolls are roll high; GM rolls are roll low, but there are exceptions to both.  As I sit here, I recall the instance some years back where the target number was 10+, but rolling a 12 exactly was bad-bad-bad.

 

What do you call that?  Roll right here?   

 

I suspect we have just inadvertently demonstrated how unimportant it is that we roll one particular way: it's a game that I still play and don't give rolling under or over enough thought to find a way to rename the rolls such that they all come across as one or the other.   

 

You guys want to roll over because you don't think D and D players are clever enough to adapt, that's fine.  I don't do it because i have yet to see a reason that it's important.  There are a lot of memes and jokes about the attraction to "the colored math rocks," but the only things I've ever round related to which way we must roll them is right here, on this board, generally defended as important for variants of "this makes it more like D&D."   You want to do it, it's all fine with me.  I don't care; I don't have a dog in this fight, and went out of my way to say that.

 

We all made, as very young children, the transition from color-coded cards to spinners and to dice when we moved from Candy Land to anything else, and never once had trouble doing anything more than popping the spinners together without tearing the paper.   I have absolutely no doubt that anyone capable of reading the name of the skill on his character sheet will not get terribly confused by the idea of having to roll high or roll low.  

 

Pick whichever one you want, and have fun discussing it and the math involved (I do like following the math), and we can even continue to carry on as if one or the other was better, but let's not continue the line that it's important so that we don't confuse people who are playing a different game.  I am pretty sure that we all play at least one different game, and haven't gotten confused yet.

 

[Hugh Neilson]

How do we deal with the hit location chart?  😵

 

Sure, we can swap the head and the feet, but those vitals are still in the middle!!

[Tasha]

6 hours ago, Hugh Neilson said:

How do we deal with the hit location chart?  😵

 

Sure, we can swap the head and the feet, but those vitals are still in the middle!!

Why WOULD you need to change the Hit Location chart. It's basically stand alone, so roll high or roll low looks the same.

I GUESS if you wanted to keep the roll high is best, then flip the chart completely

ie

3-4		Feet			
5-6		Legs			
7		Thighs			
8		Vitals			
9		Stomach			
10-11		Chest			
12		Shoulders			
13-14		Arms			
15		Hands			
16-18		Head			

 

[Tasha]

The reason you should care about this is that it's hard to find players that will shift from D&D to other game systems. They aren't 'stupid', we should just be looking for ways to make the transition from D&D to Hero as easy as possible.

[unclevlad]

21 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

The only issue I can see, really, is those occasions where a character's Skill exceeds 18, though I suppose a Skill of 22  ( I know: very unlikely, but it still happens, particular for themed supers) could be written as -1+, or perhaps (-1)+.  It wouldn't take more than one explanation to grasp that, though finding it in a long list of 6+, 8+, 4+, 9+, etc, it would probably be self-evident to most people.

 

Not at all unlikely.  Power skill is gonna ROUTINELY exceed 18 because there's a consistent penalty.  (No, not all VPPs will need one, but many will.)    Contortionist may well exceed 18 because every point of success adds a die to the breakout/escape roll.  Granted this isn't *real* likely,  IIRC, Acrobatics has a similar aspect.  

 

 

[unclevlad]

1 hour ago, Tasha said:

The reason you should care about this is that it's hard to find players that will shift from D&D to other game systems. They aren't 'stupid', we should just be looking for ways to make the transition from D&D to Hero as easy as possible.

 

More importantly, I think it's clearer and simpler.  Building a character doesn't have to be complex if the player's not trying to squeeze out every dime.  (I will grant that having help with scale considerations, until you're used to them, is VERY useful.)  It takes more mental effort to work through the X-...most of us have simply gotten used to it so it feels reflexive, but IMO it isn't at first;.  When you have to think about the mechanics...the mechanics have problems.

[Tasha]

I agree, With the x or less notation, it gives the feeling that there is a cap to skills etc. With a skill being a bonus to the roll, it feels more open-ended and not constrained

[Hugh Neilson]

16 hours ago, Tasha said:

Why WOULD you need to change the Hit Location chart. It's basically stand alone, so roll high or roll low looks the same.

 

 

For me, I have no reason to change it.  If, however, "rolling high is always best" is the way to attract new players, then a roll of 15 on the Hit Location chart should be better than a roll of 8.

 

I think that someone who just flat out doesn't want to change from d20 to Hero is not going to be persuaded by a "roll high" mechanic. I empathize with this to some extent - my free time is precious enough that spending a significant chunk to learn a new game system is a tough sell when I can play game systems I am already familiar with.

[Duke Bushido]

There it is.

 

Every time this comes around, it goes back to making it easier on coverting D and D players.  If that's the case, it is not too difficult to map the odds of various 3d6 results and paste them to rough D20 equivalents.  That would make it even easier for them, should they be inclined to switch games.

 

 

The reality that I see when I manage to trek to some place with gaming tables is that there arent D and D players looking for alternative games.  The null od them dont even seem really excited about roleplaying games in general, and are playing D and D because "it is D and D," and that's vogue right now, at least for certain sets of humanity.

 

The bulk of people I see switching games are switching from Pathfider _to_ D and D, and that seems to have more to do with wanting to play "the original."  Even the very few people I see leave D and D that dont leave gaming all together tend to be drawn to tactical battle games with lots of miniatures and terrain (looking at you, Warhammer), and they get done with that once they figure out how much money and work goes into a gloriously-detailed and colorful army and a map.

 

We have thread after thread of doing this-

 

And again, I don't care.  I heartily endorse doing whatever you want to make your game more enjoyable for you and your players: always have; always will.  It is a game, and you are supposed to enjoy it.

 

I just find the excuse of "this is what I want to do because I like it" to be far more palatable than "we need to work on wooing in hordes of people who don't seem to exist."  Moreover, I say that as a person who did not like D and D and ended up playing Champions!  In my own observation, I am the only guy I know who played D and D, did not like it, and continued to stay in the RPG hobby seriously.  I know a lot of people who played D and D,did not like it, but can still be talked into a game every year or two, so long as it is D and D, because they already kind of know it, and because that is what their friends are playing.  They don't like enough to want to learn a different game.  I humbly suggest that twenty-one pounds of HERO System rulebooks is not going to be overcome as easily as pointing out that the system can be changed to allow rolling high. 

 

I know way more disenfranchised players who got into war gaming after leaving D and D-- Starfleet Battles, War Hammer,and that more recent Star Wars one with the cool looking models.

 

There is some potential there: like many legacy games, HERO still shows its wargame roots quite clearly, but the rest of it is just unwanted filler for the average wargamer.

 

The majority of "gamers" I have seen leaving D and D got heavily into Magic and other card games.  They did not enjoy RP the way they thought they would,  but they liked pretending to do battle with their friends.  Most CCG games are simple and relatively quick, particularly compared to a campaign in any RPG.  Again, the HSR books are not going to overcome attraction to quick and simple.

 

But if we acknowledge that there is such a thing- a hidden horde of shadow gamers, trapped in or running from D and D, waiting and looking for something they will  enjoy a whole lot more, I do not find it credible that taking extra measures to ensure the experience is as much like the one they did not enjoy is going to lure them to a Champions table.

 

I would go so far as to suggest that asking them directly what sort of game, group, characters, lore, and adventures would most promote their engagement would go far, far further to attract their attention than any change to any mechanic.

 

But this is just one person's opinion, of course.  If it helps, it is supported by the number of years this conversation has been floated, the number of people who have made the roll-high change, and the number of D and D players who still aren't coming.