Base Target Number 10

[FeralFly]

Does anyone have any experience with lowering the base target number from 11 to 10? 

 

I tried finding mention about toolkitting the base number for combat, but I think it was only in reference to skill rolls (HS6E1 55). I did see that Combat & Adventuring talked about the bell curve some (HS6E2 280-281), but it only talks about the bell curve, not so much the effect changing the base number would have on the game. I thought I remembered reading somewhere the idea behind setting 11- as the default, but I can't seem to find it now.

 

First, I am just wondering if anyone has any experience with using TN 10- as the base number and what impact it had on the game.

 

Second, I imagine that it might cause Aborting to defense to be a less attractive option since attackers would fail more frequently (although, Aborting to Dodge would become more attractive). For similar reasons, I also imagine it would make Blocks less attractive.

[LoneWolf]

The chances of rolling 11 or less on 3d6 is about 57.87%, it is 48.15% for 10 or less.  So that means you have 9.72% less by reducing the target number to 10.   Many of the rolls in the Hero System are actually calculated.   Most skill rolls are based of the formula of 9 + STAT/5.   That works out to an 11 or less for a STAT within the 8-12 range.   You have a 25.47% chance to make an 8 or less roll.   Your chance to roll a 7 or less drops to 15.74% and quickly gets worse as you go down the chart.   When you get to the point you need a 3 to succeed you are down to a .046% chance of pulling it off. 

 

What is going to happen if you change the base to 10 is that you are going to see a lot more failures.  With the way things stand you succeed slightly more than half the time.  Dropping that to 10 is going to mean you fail more often than you succeed.     An 11 or less roll is supposed to be something that is not that hard to achieve.  Most people under normal circumstances should be able to make the roll.  When you reduce the base chance, you probably need to reduce all the rolls by the same amount.   That gives you very little leeway for having things that are moderately difficult.   Personally, I think this is a bad idea and will make the game a lot tougher and less enjoyable.  
 

[Hugh Neilson]

?? 10- is 50% and 11- is 62.5%.

I already had the stats, but https://rumkin.com/tools/die-stats/#!/?dice=6d6D1 can confirm (great site that @unclevladreferred me to recently).

 

Definitely makes success less likely.  Whether that's good or bad depends on how you prefer your game to play - maybe the players want to be missed more, and are prepared to accept missing more often themselves as the natural result.

 

[Derek Hiemforth]

50 minutes ago, Hugh Neilson said:

Definitely makes success less likely.

 

It does, but I would also add, the amount of change you'd get in the results (even if you and your group think it would be a good change) almost certainly wouldn't be worth the effort involved in re-jiggering the system to shift the core mechanic by one.  You could just simulate this effect by applying an automatic -1 to all Success Rolls across the board, rather than actually recalculating them to a lower base.  However, that might get things out of whack with other parts of the system in ways that aren't immediately obvious, because they're presuming you're using a base of 11.

[unclevlad]

3d6 is also easy to work out exactly.  There are exactly 1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 25, 27 ways to roll 3-10;  flip side, reverse that to roll 11-18.

  

3:  1 in 216 (0.46%)

4-:  4 (1.85%)

5-:  10 (4.63%)

6-:  20 (9.26%)

7-:  35 (16.2%)

8-:  56 (25.93%)

9-:  81 (37.5%)

10-:  108  (50%)

 

So 11- is 62.5%, 12- is 74%, etc.  

 

So one thing this will do...is draw combat out, because misses become notably more prevalent.  11- is 5 out of 8;  10- is 4 out of 8.  If we use a SPD of 4, that's 1 strike every 2 turns.  It'll matter.  And as Derek notes, there are ripple effects.  This would make, for example, AoE 1 Hex attacks a tad more attractive, because you're only hitting a DCV of 3.  Even a -2 OCV Range Mod is getting VERY painful, as would multiple attack penalties.  Autofire...multiple impacts is based on how well you make your roll, so you'd be consistently getting 1 less.  LOTS of things change.

[Hugh Neilson]

Good point. Anything that targets a DCV 3 or zeroes out the target's DCV becomes that much more useful.

[FeralFly]

Thank you everyone for responding! 

 

I figured there would definitely be ripple effects if I changed the base number from 11 to 10, but I can now see it would be more far-reaching. I hadn't thought about the DCV 3 for AOE either.

 

Is there some resource that explains a little bit of the why things are set the way they are in HERO System? I don't mean for everything - that would be a novel - just for things like this. Kind of like a "design philosophy" of a sorts. I imagine setting it at 11 does what everyone mentioned, making successes more frequent, but also incentivizes active defenses, too. Knowing that if I don't Abort to Block or Dodge means I'll probably get hit is a pretty good motivator not to enter a slug fest of You Hit, I Hit.

 

 

[unclevlad]

I don't know for sure, but I'd look at skill rolls.  

 

--You want basic skill rolls to succeed.  It's a game, and failing simple checks half the time isn't fun. 

--Conversely, if 10- is the baseline for a 3 point skiil, then what do you get for 2 points or 1 point?  This is particularly true for background skills, where +1 is 1 point.  Drop a 1 pointer to 7-?  That feels almost like fumbling in the dark, and a waste of a point. 

 

And the other area would be combat design:  I think you want more hits than misses, both the try to keep combats a little shorter, and to keep the PCs on their toes.