Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

[bcaplan]

When I was running some Hero sessions at GenCon, I found it hard to explain the system for ability checks. (What part of less or equal to 9+Score/5 on 3d6 don't you understand?) On the other hand, the grapple rules seemed pretty intuitive - roll d6 per 5 points of Strength, count the Body, and compare. Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

 

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

 

If you've played Hollow Earth Expedition, you might notice that my proposed mechanic is similar to HEX's "count the successes" method. But the count the Body method seems especially good for a generic system like Hero, where some characters really should be able to perform ability feats that are virtually impossible for lesser men.

 

Any thoughts?

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

It would reduce the range of possible results. There are six possible results for each d6 on a standard "count the pips" roll. There are only three possible results for each d6 on a "count the BODY" roll. Personally, I don't think cutting the number of possible results in half is desirable. I think it would make Ability vs. Ability contests too static.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

When I was running some Hero sessions at GenCon, I found it hard to explain the system for ability checks. (What part of less or equal to 9+Score/5 on 3d6 don't you understand?) On the other hand, the grapple rules seemed pretty intuitive - roll d6 per 5 points of Strength, count the Body, and compare. Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

 

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

 

If you've played Hollow Earth Expedition, you might notice that my proposed mechanic is similar to HEX's "count the successes" method. But the count the Body method seems especially good for a generic system like Hero, where some characters really should be able to perform ability feats that are virtually impossible for lesser men.

 

Any thoughts?

 

I think it would be nice to have a central mechanic running through Hero.

 

Personally I would like to see everything resolved the same way we resolve combat i.e. CHA/X (where X is probably 3 or 5) minus CHA/X as a modifier to a 3d6 roll, but Body counting is an option too, although (if it was the Hero Universal Mechanic (HUM)) that woudl involve a lot more changes.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

It would reduce the range of possible results. There are six possible results for each d6 on a standard "count the pips" roll. There are only three possible results for each d6 on a "count the BODY" roll. Personally' date=' I don't think cutting the number of possible results in half is desirable. I think it would make Ability vs. Ability contests too static.[/quote']

 

Well...at present 10 DEX v 30 DEX: is 3d6 + 2 against 3d6 + 6. That's a big enough margin that you rarely win with 10 DEX. Body counting it is 0 to 4 against 0 to 12, with the average values (2 and 6) extremely likely. Arguably a more realistic result...but I'm just playing Devil's Advocate as this wouldn't be my personal pick for how we do it

[prestidigitator]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

If you count success that way Hero actually looks VERY much like the World of Darkness games, right down to the number of dice you get for normal human and (almost) maximum human ranges. Multiply the number of dots in a WoD attribute by 5 (maybe 4) and you get the approximate Hero characteristic value. And then each dot in a WoD ability is like a +1 in a Hero skill as well. Interesting, no?

 

Anyway, I agree that there is a little more detail with counting the standard 3d6 pip total. Would you like to be confined to bonuses and penalties that are multiples of +/-3? That's pretty much what it would come down to, and it seems a little severe at least at the normal human type range of scores. Also, we often don't care only WHETHER we make a roll, but also by HOW MUCH. Sometimes it makes a difference in the system, and sometimes it's just awesome to know you made the roll by 5.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Thinking on this, is there any good reason we could not use several mechanics in Hero, and you pick the one you like the best for your game?

 

If you are keen on WoD then you Body Count, if you prefer a more traditional roll for success you roll 3d6. If you are a die hard 'back in the day' type you can even use 1d20.

 

There should be an official standard that we default to (3d6), but I can see no good reason why we should not spend a couple of pages covering the options (and that is all it would take - mechanics tend to be quick and easy to explain) - I'd like to see Hero become even more customisable, not just in terms of the characters we can build, but in terms of the GAME we can build.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

It would reduce the range of possible results. There are six possible results for each d6 on a standard "count the pips" roll. There are only three possible results for each d6 on a "count the BODY" roll. Personally' date=' I don't think cutting the number of possible results in half is desirable. I think it would make Ability vs. Ability contests too static.[/quote']

 

I think so too -- especially for Characteristics that aren't bought to Superhuman levels. At lower levels like 10 INT (2d6 with this method), they'd have to get boxcars (1:36) to have a halfway decent chance to beat a 15 INT.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

There should be an official standard that we default to (3d6), but I can see no good reason why we should not spend a couple of pages covering the options (and that is all it would take - mechanics tend to be quick and easy to explain)

 

Pages in an already really large book is like precious shelf space in a retail store IMO. If you're going to add something, you're going to need to either take something else out (or reduce it), or have a really, really... really good reason for expanding the store to hold the new merchandise.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Pages in an already really large book is like precious shelf space in a retail store IMO. If you're going to add something' date=' you're going to need to either take something else out (or reduce it), or have a really, really... really good reason for expanding the store to hold the new merchandise.[/quote']

 

I take the point, but this sort of thing really does go to Hero's claim to being 'the ultimate toolkit'. If I were doing it I'd probably remove all the genre section and replace it with a guide to genre building, for example. That is personal preference only, but i believe it would make the book more generally useful and appealing - few new players (and not that many old players) actually need multiple genres but almost everyone will want to tailor the game they are actually playing to better fit their needs and expectations, and being able to change the mechanics you are using seems an integral part of that.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

I think so too -- especially for Characteristics that aren't bought to Superhuman levels. At lower levels like 10 INT (2d6 with this method)' date=' they'd have to get boxcars (1:36) to have a halfway decent chance to beat a 15 INT.[/quote']

 

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

[Markdoc]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

 

When the game is built so that the range runs from "twice as smart" to "more than 200 times as smart" ... then, yeah. I don't think it's a great idea to stack the odds against a success when you move only one step up on what's supposed to be a very long ladder.

 

I dunno if that's realistic (how exactly do we define "twice as smart" anyway?) - but from a gaming point of view it doesn't sound promising.

 

cheers, Mark

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

When I was running some Hero sessions at GenCon, I found it hard to explain the system for ability checks. (What part of less or equal to 9+Score/5 on 3d6 don't you understand?) On the other hand, the grapple rules seemed pretty intuitive - roll d6 per 5 points of Strength, count the Body, and compare. Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

 

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

 

If you've played Hollow Earth Expedition, you might notice that my proposed mechanic is similar to HEX's "count the successes" method. But the count the Body method seems especially good for a generic system like Hero, where some characters really should be able to perform ability feats that are virtually impossible for lesser men.

 

Any thoughts?

 

 

A) This isn't new, people have done this in the past.

 

I go the other way, I prefer to handle STR vs STR as 3d6 Roll Under / Degree of Success Opposed checks and reserve "count the BODY" for STUN damage.

 

 

The Count the BODY method drastically flattens opposed rolls and diminishes the difference between different levels of ability. It also doesn't allow SKILL to enter into the equation unless you allow +1's bonuses to translate into +1d6 (which has some weird statistical variance issues in the opposite direction since it fails to take into account the normal diminishing returns scale of the 3d6- bell curve).

 

 

Also, I don't understand how anyone could possibly _not_ comprehend the idea behind roll 3d6 and every point of difference between what you rolled and what you needed = more better if its under and more worse if its over. It's a really really really simple and flexible mechanic.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Which got me thinking: Why not replace the standard 3d6 ability check with a (d6/5 pts + count the Body) rule?

 

Not only is this mechanic manageable (it's a lot easier to count Body than Stun), but it also makes Ability vs. Ability contests a snap.

 

What effect would skill levels have on this - +1 BODY per level? +2??

 

Doc

[Maur]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

 

But they aren't twice as smart. Just a bit faster thinking (at least according to the HERO 5th Ed Rev. book). INT isn't IQ.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

But they aren't twice as smart. Just a bit faster thinking (at least according to the HERO 5th Ed Rev. book). INT isn't IQ.

 

And doubled IQ is way more than twice as smart.

 

I still adhere to the old Hero theory that +5 doubles.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Is it inappropriate that there is a very limited chance of out thinking someone twice as smart as you are?

 

Here we go again with the ubiquitous use of "+5 = x2". I don't prescribe to that rule for all cases in the system. And even if I did, that would mean that the smartest human around with a 20 INT is only 4x as smart as the average. That doesn't sound like a lot of difference between John Q. Public and Stephen Hawking.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

+5 = x2 works for STR. I see no particular reason to believe it works for any other CHA.

 

If we're talking INT, I think INT = IQ/10 is at least as good a measure as +5=x2.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

+5 = x2 works for STR.

 

AFAIK, the only numbers that support this is the lifting capacity. But on the other side, damage potential (i.e., dice of damage) and leaping distance both increase linearly for some reason.

 

If we're talking INT' date=' I think INT = IQ/10 is at least as good a measure as +5=x2.[/quote']

 

But by that measure, 20 INT (200 IQ) is only as "smart" as 10 INT (100 IQ). Which IMO is even further off -- but again, that's my opinion that 20 INT is *more* than 4 times as smart as a 10 INT (judging by those I would prescribe these values to).

 

If you watch Eureka (Sci-Fi Channel), it's about like saying Nathan Stark is only 4 times as smart as Jack Carter.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

But they aren't twice as smart. Just a bit faster thinking (at least according to the HERO 5th Ed Rev. book). INT isn't IQ.

 

Exactly. INT really just drives PER checks and some skills and that's it. It measures "thinking on ones feet" and being observant, not raw intellect.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

AFAIK, the only numbers that support this is the lifting capacity. But on the other side, damage potential (i.e., dice of damage) and leaping distance both increase linearly for some reason.

 

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

 

 

Arguably the RESULTS are somewhere between linear and exponential: the EFFECT of damage goes up far more than linearly, because the damage applies to defences, which means a small increase in damage can have a big effect (there is a good chance it will ALL go to damage through defences). Also the effect of damage can increase significantly for a small increase in the value - an extra few points can push your opponent into STUNNED/KO'd or even DEAD.. Also leaping goes up linearly, but you actually need more than a linear progression in the force you use to get you further.

 

I try not to worry too much about if +5=x2, but it is something that I often use in other areas of Hero and is a handy rule of thumb.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Exactly. INT really just drives PER checks and some skills and that's it. It measures "thinking on ones feet" and being observant' date=' not raw intellect.[/quote']

 

Unfortunately it also covers things like knowledge skills, so it seems to me it has a significant memory component. We really ought to think about seperating INT and PER.

[SteveZilla]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Arguably the RESULTS are somewhere between linear and exponential: the EFFECT of damage goes up far more than linearly, because the damage applies to defenses, which means a small increase in damage can have a big effect (there is a good chance it will ALL go to damage through defenses). Also the effect of damage can increase significantly for a small increase in the value - an extra few points can push your opponent into STUNNED/KO'd or even DEAD.. Also leaping goes up linearly, but you actually need more than a linear progression in the force you use to get you further.

 

I try not to worry too much about if +5=x2, but it is something that I often use in other areas of Hero and is a handy rule of thumb.

 

Including the target in the "calculation" to determine the amount of power in an attack is not warranted, and muddies the water. 8 sticks of TNT have the same power whether they're used on dirt, on concrete, on water, or on steel.

 

Thus you either have to eliminate the target entirely, or presume it's either 0 DEF or infinite DEF (effectively removing it), or arbitrarily pick some target in between those two values (which skews the results around a breakpoint).

 

IMO the only way to codify such a random value as the damage from #d6 is to look at only the average damage roll for that # of d6. And adding each d6 adds a linear 3.5 STUN and 1 BODY to the result.

 

On the Leaping distance: If I exert twice the F on the same M, do I not achieve twice the A (A=F/M)? Twice the A would translate (in simple terms) to twice the distance since it achieves twice the velocity.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

AFAIK' date=' the only numbers that support this is the lifting capacity. But on the other side, damage potential (i.e., dice of damage) and leaping distance both increase linearly for some reason.[/quote']Essentially, it works on damage too. Each +5 STR gives +1d6 damage, which equates to 1 more BODY rolled (on average). At the same time, +5 points of Growth gives you +1 BODY and 2x Mass. And on 5ER page 447, it notes that each doubling of mass is +1 BODY when determining the BODY of an inanimate object. So each +1d6 of damage does double how much mass it overcomes, because the BODY of the damage increases at the same rate as the BODY due to mass doublings.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

But by that measure' date=' 20 INT (200 IQ) is only as "smart" as 10 INT (100 IQ). Which IMO is even further off -- but again, that's my opinion that 20 INT is *more* than 4 times as smart as a 10 INT (judging by those I would prescribe these values to).[/quote']IQ increase is geometric, not linear. Someone with a 200 IQ is orders of magnitude smarter than someone with a 100 IQ... not just twice as smart.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Ability Check Variant: Count the Body

 

Unfortunately it also covers things like knowledge skills' date=' so it seems to me it has a significant memory component. We really ought to think about seperating INT and PER.[/quote']

 

Actually, all skills can be assumed to succeed at routine tasks given sufficient time or if they aren't dramatically important to the story. The primary purpose of having high KS's is to access knowledge in combat time / under heightened circumstances / when success is uncertain. Also, KS's can be GENERAL or INT based. Making them INT based is an upgrade, and is useful for characters that _also_ have a high INT in _addition_ to having a KS.