Rolling High

[Silbeg]

Re: Rolling High

 

I also use the 11+OCV-Roll method. For one it saves me as GM time calculating the chance to hit, and for two, it takes observation, not knowledge of the game mechanics, to know how easy/difficult it may to be hit our target. If two allies attack one target, and one roll enough to hit DCV 9 and misses, and another rolls enough to hit DCV 10 and hits, you're gonna have a good idea of how hard it is to hit the target yourself. But if you're that first guy, how are you gonna know?

 

This method also make the use of CSLs more tactical. If you hit a DCV 10 and hit last Phase and hit, but hit DCV 12 this Phase missed, you know they other guy has CSLs or a maneuver that is increasing his DCV, or in play terms, the target has started acting defensively.

 

Well said!

[torchwolf]

Re: Rolling High

 

"Just remember ... six-six-six BAD."

At that note, 13 is certainly an unlucky number on the Hit Location Chart. Ouch.

[Ice9]

Re: Rolling High

 

11 + OCV - Die Roll = DCV hit.

Even this is slightly clumsy - you're doing two operations instead of one. Now you can speed it up by pre-adding the 11 to your OCV, but you're still doing a subtraction instead of an addition, which is marginally slower for most people. And the way it's described in the book, (you state OCV, DM states target number, roll, IIRC), is slow as heck. Flipping it is simple though - Die Roll + OCV vs 10 + DCV.

 

Another place is opposed skill checks. With the current system, you have to determine the margin which you beat your skill by. With a roll-high system (Die Roll + Skill vs 12), you know immediately that the higher total roll is the winner. Technically it's just an addition instead of a subtraction, but again, many people can determine it a bit faster.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling High

 

And yet there continue to be folks who are just plain more comfortable doing it that way. Since it's easy enough to accomodate them, why not?

 

 

As long as my roll low isn't taken away I see no reason. Roll low I've felt is a thing of beauty since the fantasy trip. if people want to use a clunky nonsensical roll high by all means let them.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Rolling High

 

"Just remember ... six-six-six BAD."

 

Unless it's a 3d6 RKA!

[rjcurrie]

Re: Rolling High

 

Even this is slightly clumsy - you're doing two operations instead of one. Now you can speed it up by pre-adding the 11 to your OCV, but you're still doing a subtraction instead of an addition, which is marginally slower for most people. And the way it's described in the book, (you state OCV, DM states target number, roll, IIRC), is slow as heck. Flipping it is simple though - Die Roll + OCV vs 10 + DCV.

 

Another place is opposed skill checks. With the current system, you have to determine the margin which you beat your skill by. With a roll-high system (Die Roll + Skill vs 12), you know immediately that the higher total roll is the winner. Technically it's just an addition instead of a subtraction, but again, many people can determine it a bit faster.

 

Perhaps it says more about today's educational system that people are even making it out of elementary school with such poor skill at basic arithmetic.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling High

 

Maybe it is but then we would be foolish to swim against the stream.

 

Mathematically it makes no difference whether you roll high or low, so long as you apply the result int he right way.

 

And, of course, we use 3d6 for combat AND skill rolls, so whichever way we do it we need to account for that.

 

So...here's the answer

 

Simply record skills differently. Combat values are fine as they are.

 

Don't record skills as 14-, because if you do you have to roll low or do another sum to work out what you should be rolling. Instead record it as PRE+3 (or DEX, or INT or whatever). PRE is (PRE/5-2), which looks nasty but always gets worked out in advance, so for a 10 characteristic, PRE would be 0.

 

If you want to roll high take the attacking value, add the dice roll and if you get DCV +10 or more you hit/succeed (the 'DCV' for a standard skill is 0)

 

If you want to roll low take the attacking value + 11 and subtract the dice roll, and if you get DCV or more then you hit/succeed.

 

So, if we record things differently it doesn't matter if we prefer high of low rolling - the system easily covers both.

 

 

 

NB the above menthods are for illustration - they are not the only way you can roll high/low - obviously.

[Markdoc]

Re: Rolling High

 

Even this is slightly clumsy - you're doing two operations instead of one. Now you can speed it up by pre-adding the 11 to your OCV, but you're still doing a subtraction instead of an addition, which is marginally slower for most people. And the way it's described in the book, (you state OCV, DM states target number, roll, IIRC), is slow as heck. Flipping it is simple though - Die Roll + OCV vs 10 + DCV.

 

Another place is opposed skill checks. With the current system, you have to determine the margin which you beat your skill by. With a roll-high system (Die Roll + Skill vs 12), you know immediately that the higher total roll is the winner. Technically it's just an addition instead of a subtraction, but again, many people can determine it a bit faster.

 

Yeah, this is my take too. I've taught a lot of people to play Hero system over the years, and my experience is that while "roll low for skills" is easy to explain "This is your skill number. You need to roll under it. Higher numbers are therefore better" the "roll high" technique for combat has prove consistently easier for newbies to get.

 

"Add OCV and dice roll to get target number" has proven easier for many people than "Add 11 to OCV and subtract dice to get target number"

 

That said, I'm not too fussed about it. Since I have almost always been teaching newbies, I normally use "roll high" in combat. When I have established Hero system players, I use "roll low" in combat. The math is the same, working out CVs in combat works exactly the same, and the latter is only marginally more difficult.

 

cheers, Mark

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling High

 

You can (and 5ER gives it as a suggestion IIRC) treat combat as a skill:

 

11 + CV or less

 

(So, for an 18 DEX character, the combat skill is 17-)

 

You treat the opponent's DCV as a penalty to your skill* like an opposed roll.

 

(So, against a 15 DEX opponent whose DCV = 5 you hit on 17-5 = 12 or less)

 

It is exactly the same but presented differently.

 

You have problems only when in a situation that halves a combat value: that doesn't work so well here. mind you I think all such maneuvers and situations should be replaced with a straight penalty anyway.

 

 

*Or, if the GM doesn't want to tell you what your opponent's DCV is just see how many points you made the roll by - so if you have 17- combat skill and roll 11, you made the roll by 6 and would therefore hit a 6DCV.

 

Whilst it is the same thing mechanically and mathematically I think it might be more 'acceptable' as you are not seen to be 'taking off the roll' - the whole thing is more intuitive.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Rolling High

 

Lord L’s got a point that “low is good” is counter-intuitive. I think some people are confused because it’s so ingrained in us to think more=gooder. It’s psychologically unsatisfying for some people to want to roll low.

 

However, the reason we’re Hero-gamers, to flog a dead cliché, is because we think outside the box....

I can fully appreciate that perspective. However, in the interest of increasing the system's popularity and of actually having people to play with, sometimes we need to make compromises for those box-thinkers.

[Kenn]

Re: Rolling High

 

The advantage of a Always Roll High system is that then one only needs one set of "cheat" dice. In the current system, one needs to remember which dice in the set are the ones that roll low and which ones are the ones that roll high. You can get by, maybe, with different colour dice. But there's a greater risk of someone noticing that you always roll skill and attack rolls with the red dice and always roll damage with the green dice. If you only have to roll high then you can use the same dice for both the attack roll AND the damage roll.

[Ice9]

Re: Rolling High

 

Perhaps it says more about today's educational system that people are even making it out of elementary school with such poor skill at basic arithmetic.

Real classy there. Look' date=' just because I [i']could[/i] use a system based on matrix transformations, doesn't mean I would want to. The goal of a gaming system's math is not to be solvable, but to be solvable as quickly as possible. If addition is even 10% faster than subtraction, we should use it.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling High

 

Real classy there. Look' date=' just because I [i']could[/i] use a system based on matrix transformations, doesn't mean I would want to. The goal of a gaming system's math is not to be solvable, but to be solvable as quickly as possible. If addition is even 10% faster than subtraction, we should use it.

 

True enough but for weirdos like me who find roll under easier the present way is better. That said an ALTERNATE roll high system sounds just find for the aesthetically challenged.

[Tasha]

Re: Rolling High

 

One thing I like about roll high is that it makes the system feel more open ended. When making skill rolls we all roll 12-, 13- it makes it seem like there is an 18- limit when there is no such thing. With roll high you have your skill listed as +3, +4 or +10,. It makes skills seem like they can be bought up to what ever limit you set. Also it's so much easier to teach Newbies who have played any other system how to play.

 

IMHO Roll high was one of the Best parts of Fuzion. It is something that should be part of the main system.

 

Tasha

[SteveZilla]

Re: Rolling High

 

The advantage of a Always Roll High system is that then one only needs one set of "cheat" dice. In the current system' date=' one needs to remember which dice in the set are the ones that roll low and which ones are the ones that roll high. You can get by, maybe, with different colour dice. But there's a greater risk of someone noticing that you always roll skill and attack rolls with the red dice and always roll damage with the green dice. If you only have to roll high then you can use the same dice for both the attack roll AND the damage roll.[/quote']

 

Is this such a significant problem in the player population that we need to take it into account in game design? I really, really hope not. And I think that anybody using such dice in a consistent manner would eventually get noticed and booted for their behavior. The other players and GM are not fools.

 

Think of it this way: The game system a group is using is all roll-high. One of their members is found to have been using loaded dice. Do they:

A. Change the game system to be a "mixed bag" of roll high/roll low and keep the player, or,

B. Kick the cheating S.O.B. out with extreme prejudice.

[torchwolf]

Re: Rolling High

 

 

Simply record skills differently. Combat values are fine as they are.

 

Don't record skills as 14-, because if you do you have to roll low or do another sum to work out what you should be rolling. Instead record it as PRE+3 (or DEX, or INT or whatever). PRE is (PRE/5-2), which looks nasty but always gets worked out in advance, so for a 10 characteristic, PRE would be 0.

 

Or maybe Inter+3 (Interaction Skill modifier, precalculated from PRE)

 

If you want to roll high take the attacking value, add the dice roll and if you get DCV +10 or more you hit/succeed (the 'DCV' for a standard skill is 0)

 

If you want to roll low take the attacking value + 11 and subtract the dice roll, and if you get DCV or more then you hit/succeed.

 

So, if we record things differently it doesn't matter if we prefer high of low rolling - the system easily covers both.

 

NB the above menthods are for illustration - they are not the only way you can roll high/low - obviously.

 

Actually, I thought of one argument for high roll - those who want to use exploding dice (open-ended if you prefer) might prefer 3d6 high rolls.

"Imploding" dice with 3d6 low rolls would work just the same, but is a bit more time-consuming to calculate (like someone said, "I rolled negative 7!").

 

Personally, I vote for the altered notation system... can be used with 3d6 low or high; 2d10 low/high; 1d20 low/high - all with about the same distribution but different probability curves depending on taste.

 

Some advice can be noted on the in-game effects, though:

a flat probability distribution tends to encourage gamers to try more outrageous stunts because you actually succeed sometimes, but can also cause ridiculous results.

 

Once, I spent a whole fight alternately losing and regaining control of my horse without being able to do anything else... (as always, GM advice on running any system is good, too)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Rolling High

 

Is this such a significant problem in the player population that we need to take it into account in game design? I really, really hope not. And I think that anybody using such dice in a consistent manner would eventually get noticed and booted for their behavior. The other players and GM are not fools.

 

Think of it this way: The game system a group is using is all roll-high. One of their members is found to have been using loaded dice. Do they:

A. Change the game system to be a "mixed bag" of roll high/roll low and keep the player, or,

B. Kick the cheating S.O.B. out with extreme prejudice.

 

 

Or

 

C. Have the GM bring along a bag of dice and everyone has to roll them

[Klaus Mogensen]

Re: Rolling High

 

One thing I like about roll high is that it makes the system feel more open ended. When making skill rolls we all roll 12-' date=' 13- it makes it seem like there is an 18- limit when there is no such thing.[/quote']

I also find that when the system says "roll under your skill to succeed", GMs are less likely to assign modifiers than in systems that say "TN 10 is easy, TN 15 is medium, TN 20 is hard" (or some such).

 

Let's say we use Skill+3d6 >= TN to succeed, where Skill = levels+CHA/3, then the standard (medium) TN will be 13 (corresponding to rolling under 8+levels+CHA/3). TN 10 would be easy, while TN 16 would be hard, etc. The GM would then say e.g. "Beat a hard difficulty" rather than "Roll under your skill with a penalty of 3". Nicer and less math-y.

 

For combat, characters can have their "defense difficulty" (DCV+10) written on their sheets, and players would just roll OCV+3d6 versus this.

 

- Klaus

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling High

 

I also find that when the system says "roll under your skill to succeed", GMs are less likely to assign modifiers than in systems that say "TN 10 is easy, TN 15 is medium, TN 20 is hard" (or some such).

- Klaus

 

really? I guess I'm the unlikely GM then . I thought that was the whole point of the easy to difficult etc modifiers under skills.

 

I know this is just my perception.I just feel more competent with roll under. Wow1 look at me if I roll under 13 with my skill I succeed . Ha! Ha! Feel my basassness. As opposed to "I have to roll a 5 or better or I fail. Well, a five should be pretty easy "sigh".

[Kenn]

Re: Rolling High

 

really? I guess I'm the unlikely GM then . I thought that was the whole point of the easy to difficult etc modifiers under skills.

 

I know this is just my perception.I just feel more competent with roll under. Wow1 look at me if I roll under 13 with my skill I succeed . Ha! Ha! Feel my basassness. As opposed to "I have to roll a 5 or better or I fail. Well, a five should be pretty easy "sigh".

 

8 or better would have the same odds as 13 or less (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 failing compared to 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 failing). I'm just sayin'.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Rolling High

 

8 or better would have the same odds as 13 or less (3' date=' 4, 5, 6, 7 failing compared to 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 failing). I'm just sayin'.[/quote']

 

LOL I told you roll under felt more powerful to me.