OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

[Tasha]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

So' date=' OCV + 3d6 - 10 = DCV hit? That's a pretty easy calculation to do in your head.[/quote']

 

Like I said above that for most people it is easy. There are others that don't find it so easy. BTW it's OCV + 3d6 -11 = DCV hit for the Standard roll low. Funny thing is how many people who DON'T find it easy.

[Tasha]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? When someone is at 1/2 DCV' date=' is it 1/2 of their DCV + 10? Or if they have a DCV+10 of 14 and they are at a -6 to their DCV, do they have a 10 or an 8?[/quote']

 

DCV + 10 = 14 would have neither of the values you gave. at 1/2 DCV it would have a target number of 12 or better. (ie ((4 /2)+10).

 

Most people CAN half numbers in their head, and then add that value to 10 to get the Target hit number.

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

I'm not saying it isn't easier for you. I'm just saying that just because it is easier for you doesn't mean that it is easier for everyone. I don't see anything about the way you prefer things that is objectively easier.

 

As to support for claims, that's easy. I can support that it isn't objectively easier by the simple fact that it isn't easier for me. If it was objectively easier, it would be easier for everyone. Just being easier for one group of people doesn't mean it is easier for everyone.

Huh. Yeah. And if I were color-blind all your supposed "colors" would have no objective truth, either. We do have to use some reasonableness when we talk about what is, "objectively easier." Because some babies don''t crawl before they walk, can we say that crawling is not objectively easier than walking? No! (Ask a roboticist whether he'd rather make a quadrupedal crawler or a bipedal walker.)

 

There actually are some pretty objective reasons why 3d6+OCV>=10+DCV is easier. Our brains do perform addition and comparison a lot more naturally than subtraction, and since most of us have used a base 10 number system exclusively since the day we started talking, adding 10 is one of the quickest and easiest computations we can do.

 

If somehow you've trained yourself to overcome such natural and ingrained inclinations, great, but if we're talking about humans in general, or gamers who haven't somehow burned 3d6<=11+DCV-DCV into their brains for decades, there is going to be a natural bias toward the sort of adding and comparing that 3d6+OCV>=10+DCV gives.

 

Honestly I think there are other reasons people get so defensive about this kind of thing. Standpoints like, "What's wrong with it? It's the way I've always done it," and, "We have to keep something so fundamental as the attack roll different from certain other monolithic game systems to make Hero stand out." I don't find either very convincing.

 

So yeah, I'd prefer to see the default method of making an attack roll change for the Hero System, and I think making the change really does aid in bringing newcomers on board with as little strain as possible (that's why I've changed they way I do it myself). However, I'm certainly not trying to tell YOU, or anyone else in particular, to change the way you do things individually. We should always continue to approach such things in an open-minded fashion, with options and suggestions rather than mandates.

[MorpheousXO]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

I just wanted to add that as long as the DCV+10 is between 10 and 19, halving DCV is a non issue since you effectively just ignore the first 1. At least that's how my brain has always worked it since the time of D&D. I don't actively THINK "my dcv is 6, cut in half is 3, plus 10 is 13", it's more like "my dcv total is 16, 6 in half is 3, so 13".

 

Currently I'm only running a 1 on 1 game with my wife, but I'm trying to do the roll low method. Sadly she's picked it up faster than I have. XD I've written the OCV on the sheets down as OCV+11, but i'm having trouble when we have to halve OCV, especially when there are other modifiers for martial maneuvers. This is because it's 11 and not 10, so it borks things up in my head for some reason. The reason I'm doing roll low instead of my preference for roll high is actually because I don't want to mess with the skill writeups that spit out of HERO Designer, and I don't want roll high for attacks and rolle low for skills. So roll low it is!

[Starcloud]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Like I said above that for most people it is easy. There are others that don't find it so easy. BTW it's OCV + 3d6 -11 = DCV hit for the Standard roll low. Funny thing is how many people who DON'T find it easy.

 

-11 isn't as easy as -10. It's an extra mental step.

 

-10 = "Subtract one from the tens place."

-11 = "Subtract one from the tens place and then subtract one from the ones place."

 

Makes my brain hurt just thinking about it. I'm glad there's a quick reference table.

[SteveZilla]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

I can personally attest to the ... difficulty in unlearning "High Good, Low Bad" that years of D&D, Monopoly, Risk, and many, many other games had ingrained in me. I am ashamed to admit that I have, on more than one occasion while still a bit new to the system, cheered when I rolled an 18 for to-hit. I found that having to do the OCV/11/roll/DCV math in my head, in the middle of combat, while carrying on conversations, was overtaxing me -- I had to resort to stopping everything else I was doing and focus on just the one thing (to-hit). Eventually, it got easier, even eventually easy, but it certainly didn't start out that way. And yet Math (Algebra, Geometry, and Trig) was my best subject in High School.

 

And I am of the opinion that, when stated in simple terms, a roll for something is inherently more 'understandable' when it is roll high. After all, more of something you want is better. And a roll to hit = I want to hit. "I want to hit" + "more is better" = a roll-high system being (imo) more intuitively understandable.

 

The way Hero Games' To-Hit rolls are currently, I would actually call it a To-Miss roll (imo a more... accurate name).

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? When someone is at 1/2 DCV' date=' is it 1/2 of their DCV + 10? Or if they have a DCV+10 of 14 and they are at a -6 to their DCV, do they have a 10 or an 8?[/quote']

 

The former.

 

cheers, Mark

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

DCV + 10 = 14 would have neither of the values you gave. at 1/2 DCV it would have a target number of 12 or better. (ie ((4 /2)+10).

 

Most people CAN half numbers in their head, and then add that value to 10 to get the Target hit number.

 

Actually if you are going for maximum simple, you don't have to. People are either at full DCV, half DCV or no DCV: giving them three numbers: active, reduced and no defence. Of those two, they generally only need to remember 2 - full DCV and half DCV. Both can be put on the sheet at chargen, and just updated as CV changes, like any other value.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

I can personally attest to the ... difficulty in unlearning "High Good' date=' Low Bad" that years of D&D, [b']Monopoly[/b], Risk, and many, many other games had ingrained in me.

 

If you are 12 spaces away from Boardwalk with a hotel on it, or 2 spaces away from Park Place when you already own Boardwalk, I suggest a high roll is not more desirable in Monopoly. In many dice games, the desired roll varies depending on the situation, so I don't see "high is better" being an ingrained thing. Some people do seem to find the concept that a lower roll is more successful to be unusual, but I don't see where that connection is made. I'd expect an avid golfer or a card player who plays a lot of Hearts to come with the ingrained view that lower is better, but I don't see that bias in practice.

 

Of course, if you've played a lot of games where "higher = more successful", then you'll have that bias, but many games do not incorporate that bias.

 

I like backgammon, so the possibility that different rolls are preferable at different times isn't that tough for me to grasp.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Actually if you are going for maximum simple' date=' you don't have to. People are either at full DCV, half DCV or no DCV: giving them three numbers: active, reduced and no defence. Of those two, they generally only need to remember 2 - full DCV and half DCV. Both can be put on the sheet at chargen, and just updated as CV changes, like any other value.[/quote']

 

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? Let's say I have a base DCV of 5, so my Active number is 15 or 13, correct?

 

I use a Defensive Strike, or apply three levels, or otherwise get a 3 point DCV modifier. Now my active number is 18 (3 better) and my passive number should be 14 (1 better) since my base DCV is 8.

 

But, if I spend some xp to buy a +1 DCV, so my active number is now 16 or 13, unmodified, and I add the same three levels, my active number becomes 19 (still 3 better) and my passive number becomes 15 (two better).

 

Since I will change maneuvers, and have other modifiers fluctuate in combat, the rounding changes as I go along. How do you deal with that using the "target number" approach? I suppose you could total up all your modifiers, and add only half to the passive number, but that would seem to favour an odd DCV, which always benefits from rounding. Now we get the anomaly that a natural 6 DCV results in a passive target of 13, but a 5 DCV + 1 level gives a passive number of 14.

 

I guess you could round modifiers down, but then a 6 DCV gets a passive target of 13, and so does a 6 DCV with a +1 modifier. We're no longer modifying in favour of the defender.

 

Any approach could work, given all we're doing is changing the rounding breakpoints, but with varying DCV's as combat progresses, this creates an added issue to be addressed.

 

At least 0 DCV always leaves a target number of 10, and area effect attacks always have a target number of 13.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Huh. Yeah. And if I were color-blind all your supposed "colors" would have no objective truth' date=' either. We [i']do[/i] have to use some reasonableness when we talk about what is, "objectively easier." Because some babies don''t crawl before they walk, can we say that crawling is not objectively easier than walking? No! (Ask a roboticist whether he'd rather make a quadrupedal crawler or a bipedal walker.)

 

There actually are some pretty objective reasons why 3d6+OCV>=10+DCV is easier. Our brains do perform addition and comparison a lot more naturally than subtraction, and since most of us have used a base 10 number system exclusively since the day we started talking, adding 10 is one of the quickest and easiest computations we can do.

 

If somehow you've trained yourself to overcome such natural and ingrained inclinations, great, but if we're talking about humans in general, or gamers who haven't somehow burned 3d6<=11+DCV-DCV into their brains for decades, there is going to be a natural bias toward the sort of adding and comparing that 3d6+OCV>=10+DCV gives.

 

Honestly I think there are other reasons people get so defensive about this kind of thing. Standpoints like, "What's wrong with it? It's the way I've always done it," and, "We have to keep something so fundamental as the attack roll different from certain other monolithic game systems to make Hero stand out." I don't find either very convincing.

 

So yeah, I'd prefer to see the default method of making an attack roll change for the Hero System, and I think making the change really does aid in bringing newcomers on board with as little strain as possible (that's why I've changed they way I do it myself). However, I'm certainly not trying to tell YOU, or anyone else in particular, to change the way you do things individually. We should always continue to approach such things in an open-minded fashion, with options and suggestions rather than mandates.

 

Simply stating "I'm right, and if you don't work that way you're weird" doesn't actually prove anything. The most "proof" I've ever seen for your POV is a few studies that show that people are marginally faster at adding than they are at subtracting. I don't find either that or the "Obviously it is easier for everyone since it is easier for me" to be very convincing.

 

I'm not quite sure why people get so defensive about the whole roll high thing. The fact that it works better for them doesn't seem to be enough, nor does just sharing it so that others that have the same issues that they do can try it as an alternative. If it stayed at that level I'd never comment on the topic. When people feel the need to go the extra step and decide that since they like roll high better it has to be objectively a better way to do things that I generally feel the need to comment.

 

The roll high vs roll low thing is one of those things that I've only ever seen even be any kind of an issue in the online community. I've never actually gamed with anyone who found rolling low to be a problem that needed "fixing". The first 20 years of my time playing Hero it never even occurred to me that there was the possibility of it being an issue. It never came up once, among the literally hundreds of people I taught or played Hero with during that time. I've also never actually gamed with anyone who had any problem with "roll low to determine success, roll high to determine effect". Or anyone who has been confused by the term "Stunned". Or any of a number of other supposed "weaknesses" of the Hero system that seem to be popular in online communities.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

DCV + 10 = 14 would have neither of the values you gave. at 1/2 DCV it would have a target number of 12 or better. (ie ((4 /2)+10).

 

Most people CAN half numbers in their head, and then add that value to 10 to get the Target hit number.

 

Cool, but I didn't ask about 1/2 DCV. I asked about a situation where the total DCV modifier was -6.

 

As to halving number in your head, if you're using a system where you think of your DCV as being the base DCV+10, then it is a matter of subtracting 10, halving the number, and then adding 10.

 

The former.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Which is what I assumed. It just seems like an extra complication that I don't really see as adding anything to the game. Obviously it works for others, and more power to 'em.

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Simply stating "I'm right, and if you don't work that way you're weird" doesn't actually prove anything. The most "proof" I've ever seen for your POV is a few studies that show that people are marginally faster at adding than they are at subtracting. I don't find either that or the "Obviously it is easier for everyone since it is easier for me" to be very convincing.

 

I'm not quite sure why people get so defensive about the whole roll high thing. The fact that it works better for them doesn't seem to be enough, nor does just sharing it so that others that have the same issues that they do can try it as an alternative. If it stayed at that level I'd never comment on the topic. When people feel the need to go the extra step and decide that since they like roll high better it has to be objectively a better way to do things that I generally feel the need to comment.

 

The roll high vs roll low thing is one of those things that I've only ever seen even be any kind of an issue in the online community. I've never actually gamed with anyone who found rolling low to be a problem that needed "fixing". The first 20 years of my time playing Hero it never even occurred to me that there was the possibility of it being an issue. It never came up once, among the literally hundreds of people I taught or played Hero with during that time. I've also never actually gamed with anyone who had any problem with "roll low to determine success, roll high to determine effect". Or anyone who has been confused by the term "Stunned". Or any of a number of other supposed "weaknesses" of the Hero system that seem to be popular in online communities.

Hardly defensive. We were sharing mutual excitement over a new way of doing things, that makes it easier for new players. Unfortunately that seems to make certain people defensive themselves. I'm not saying I think it is easier for people because I like it or it is easier for me personally. It's actually the opposite: the thing that appeals to me about it is that it is easier for new people, not that it is necessarily easier for me personally.

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? Let's say I have a base DCV of 5, so my Active number is 15 or 13, correct?

 

I use a Defensive Strike, or apply three levels, or otherwise get a 3 point DCV modifier. Now my active number is 18 (3 better) and my passive number should be 14 (1 better) since my base DCV is 8.

 

But, if I spend some xp to buy a +1 DCV, so my active number is now 16 or 13, unmodified, and I add the same three levels, my active number becomes 19 (still 3 better) and my passive number becomes 15 (two better).

 

Since I will change maneuvers, and have other modifiers fluctuate in combat, the rounding changes as I go along. How do you deal with that using the "target number" approach? I suppose you could total up all your modifiers, and add only half to the passive number, but that would seem to favour an odd DCV, which always benefits from rounding. Now we get the anomaly that a natural 6 DCV results in a passive target of 13, but a 5 DCV + 1 level gives a passive number of 14.

 

I guess you could round modifiers down, but then a 6 DCV gets a passive target of 13, and so does a 6 DCV with a +1 modifier. We're no longer modifying in favour of the defender.

 

Any approach could work, given all we're doing is changing the rounding breakpoints, but with varying DCV's as combat progresses, this creates an added issue to be addressed.

 

At least 0 DCV always leaves a target number of 10, and area effect attacks always have a target number of 13.

When attacking a player I just roll 3d6+OCV and then say, 'What's your current DCV?" or, "What's half your current DCV?" If they respond with 5, I know I hit if I reached a target number of 15 or higher. If a player is attacking I do the opposite: they roll their attack roll as 3d6 plus their current OCV (or half their current OCV). If they are trying to hit my NPC with DCV 7, they hit if they roll a 17 or better. I always have a target number in mind when skills are being rolled as well, with the default difficulty being 12.

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? Let's say I have a base DCV of 5, so my Active number is 15 or 13, correct?

 

I use a Defensive Strike, or apply three levels, or otherwise get a 3 point DCV modifier. Now my active number is 18 (3 better) and my passive number should be 14 (1 better) since my base DCV is 8.

 

But, if I spend some xp to buy a +1 DCV, so my active number is now 16 or 13, unmodified, and I add the same three levels, my active number becomes 19 (still 3 better) and my passive number becomes 15 (two better).

 

Since I will change maneuvers, and have other modifiers fluctuate in combat, the rounding changes as I go along. How do you deal with that using the "target number" approach? I suppose you could total up all your modifiers, and add only half to the passive number, but that would seem to favour an odd DCV, which always benefits from rounding. Now we get the anomaly that a natural 6 DCV results in a passive target of 13, but a 5 DCV + 1 level gives a passive number of 14.

 

I guess you could round modifiers down, but then a 6 DCV gets a passive target of 13, and so does a 6 DCV with a +1 modifier. We're no longer modifying in favour of the defender.

 

Any approach could work, given all we're doing is changing the rounding breakpoints, but with varying DCV's as combat progresses, this creates an added issue to be addressed.

 

At least 0 DCV always leaves a target number of 10, and area effect attacks always have a target number of 13.

 

Actually, the rounding issue is exactly the same whether you roll high or roll low ... so I am not sure exactly what the point of this is.

 

cheers, Mark

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Hardly defensive. We were sharing mutual excitement over a new way of doing things' date=' that makes it easier for new players. Unfortunately that seems to make certain people defensive themselves. I'm not saying I think it is easier for people because I like it or it is easier for me personally. It's actually the opposite: the thing that [i']appeals[/i] to me about it is that it is easier for new people, not that it is necessarily easier for me personally.

 

And again, if some of the people you're introducing to the game find it easier, cool. I just don't see any reason to extrapolate from that that it is objectively an easier way of doing things. To me it seems like a needless complication of something that already works great.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Actually, the rounding issue is exactly the same whether you roll high or roll low ... so I am not sure exactly what the point of this is.

 

cheers, Mark

 

Unless I'm mistaken Hugh isn't addressing it from a roll high vs roll low perspective. He is addressing it from the pre add the normal target number or not perspective.

 

You mentioned that the number you write down on your character sheets for "DCV" is the "normal" DCV for the system plus 10. Since 1/2 DCV now isn't figured the same as it is under the normal rules, you pre-figure that one as well. The problem there is that it makes figuring out what the 1/2 DCV value is even more difficult if you have things modifying DCV on the fly.

 

Granted the problems aren't insurmountable, but it is just another way that it seems to make things more complicated rather than less.

[prestidigitator]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

To me it seems like a needless complication of something that already works great.

It's things like that kind of use of the word "complication" that are grating on me, and sound pretty darn defensive. It's not a complication at all. It's a different way of making the roll. There's certainly nothing more complex about it than the current default. I've never said the current way of doing it doesn't work well; just that this might work slightly better, particularly for new players.

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Unless I'm mistaken Hugh isn't addressing it from a roll high vs roll low perspective. He is addressing it from the pre add the normal target number or not perspective.

 

You mentioned that the number you write down on your character sheets for "DCV" is the "normal" DCV for the system plus 10. Since 1/2 DCV now isn't figured the same as it is under the normal rules, you pre-figure that one as well. The problem there is that it makes figuring out what the 1/2 DCV value is even more difficult if you have things modifying DCV on the fly.

 

Granted the problems aren't insurmountable, but it is just another way that it seems to make things more complicated rather than less.

 

Ummm .... no. That wasn't what I was suggesting at all, nor is it how we play. I guess I should have spelled it out down to the last point, but it seemed so obvious to me, that I didn't realise I needed to: what I described is only applicable if the character doesn't have maneuvers or CSLs - in other words, the very simplest way of presenting the numbers to a new player. I guess this makes obvious what we have been discussing: what might seem obvious to one person isn't necessarily so to another! I should have realized, in hindsight, the way I wrote it could easily be misinterpreted.

 

cheers, Mark

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

Ummm .... no. That wasn't what I was suggesting at all' date=' nor is it how we play. I guess I should have spelled it out down to the last point, but it seemed so obvious to me, that I didn't realise I needed to: what I described is only applicable if the character doesn't have maneuvers or CSLs - in other words, the very simplest way of presenting the numbers to a new player. I guess this makes obvious what we have been discussing: what might seem obvious to one person isn't necessarily so to another! I should have realized, in hindsight, the way I wrote it could easily be misinterpreted.[/quote']

 

It does rather sum up the whole discussion, doesn't it? I suppose for a character with no levels, we could at least set out the resulting target number for each maneuver - I often like to have my character's commonly used maneuvers statted out with base OCV and DCV on the character sheet (especially martial maneuvers that were purchased, since they have to be reflected on the character sheet in some fashion anyway).

 

I'd rep that, but apparently I have rep'd you too recently.

[Markdoc]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

It does rather sum up the whole discussion, doesn't it? I suppose for a character with no levels, we could at least set out the resulting target number for each maneuver - I often like to have my character's commonly used maneuvers statted out with base OCV and DCV on the character sheet (especially martial maneuvers that were purchased, since they have to be reflected on the character sheet in some fashion anyway).

 

I'd rep that, but apparently I have rep'd you too recently.

 

When I am starting someone completely new to the system, I often stat out the sheet very simply - so they get a regular DCV and a "flatfooted" (ie: half) DCV listed. If they have martial maneuvers, they get a fixed OCV/DCV value listed alongside each manuever and if they have levels I just assign them in a chunk, listed as "all out offence" and "all out defence" on the sheet, meaning they have at most 2 numbers to track in combat. It does mean that I need to do more math in my head to deal with half DCV, etc, but I can do that almost without effort.

 

I think one of the keys to this discussion is that I have almost always had to start up Hero groups from scratch, each time I move. If I get players with roleplaying experience, it is almost always from D&D, so I use D&D terminology to explain - in that context OCV = BAB + dice roll to hit, is a no-brainer. Often though, I think as gamers we underestimate how hard these concepts are to grasp for non-gamers, who literally have to have the concept "roleplaying game" explained. "Teaching Hero to someone you meet at a con" is not at all analogous to "Teaching Hero to someone who has never even thought about roleplaying" because the con attendees already have internalised many of the basic concepts.

 

Here's an example from last week end. We played Arkham Horror - a board game. It uses a simple dice pool mechanism. A standard success is a 5 or a 6 and you need a certain number of successes to succeed at a task. For me it's a no-brainer that to have an even chance at any task , you need 3x as many dice in your pool as you need successes. Yet for my non-gaming friends, that basic concept took literally hours to start to emerge, even though I explained it under way - twice. It's not that the math is hard (3x the number of blood drops on the card, duh!) but the concept of dice pools and numbers of successes was alien to them - and alien concepts are hard to retain.

 

cheers, Mark

[SteveZilla]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

If you are 12 spaces away from Boardwalk with a hotel on it, or 2 spaces away from Park Place when you already own Boardwalk, I suggest a high roll is not more desirable in Monopoly. In many dice games, the desired roll varies depending on the situation, so I don't see "high is better" being an ingrained thing. Some people do seem to find the concept that a lower roll is more successful to be unusual, but I don't see where that connection is made. I'd expect an avid golfer or a card player who plays a lot of Hearts to come with the ingrained view that lower is better, but I don't see that bias in practice.

 

Of course, if you've played a lot of games where "higher = more successful", then you'll have that bias, but many games do not incorporate that bias.

 

I like backgammon, so the possibility that different rolls are preferable at different times isn't that tough for me to grasp.

 

That is generally true of Monopoly, and a host of other games where you might want to go a specific, short distance instead of as much as possible. But then it could be said that any roll over *or* under that value would be viewed as "bad", with a slight bias favoring rolling lower, as that you retain the possibility of still reaching your desired spot on the next roll. I can count the number of times I've actually played Monopoly on one hand, and have never won, so I was equating Higher=Better in the sense that the higher each roll is, the faster you get back to GO... and your $200.

 

I have played BattleTech a whole lot, and iirc, the following rolls are always Higher = Better:

 

1. To Hit.

2. Determining number of missiles from a missile pack that did actually hit.

3. Avoiding Thermal Shutdown.

4. Avoiding Heat-Caused Ammo Explosion.

5. Avoiding a lockup from using Myomer Accelerating Signal Circuitry (MASC).

6. Avoiding a weapon jam when firing Rotary Autocannons for successive turns.

7. All Piloting Checks (avoiding falling when entering difficult terrain, standing back up, and avoiding damage to the pilot when falling).

8. Pilot Consciousness checks.

 

 

The ones that are not absolutely Higher = Better:

1. Hit location (though a 12 is very good because it is a head shot. In counterpoint, a 2 gives you a Roll for Critical Hits).

2. Determining the number of Critical Hits (The rare self-inflicted internal damage is the only reason this isn't in the first category).

 

So I 'learned' from D&D (where to hit, damage, and Saving Throws [old-school]), and BattleTech (above), that Higher = Better for the vast majority of cases. Not to mention my experiences with TORG, Gamma World, and iirc, V&V, Marvel Superheroes, and DC Superheroes.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

It's things like that kind of use of the word "complication" that are grating on me' date=' and sound pretty darn defensive. It's not a complication at all. It's a [i']different[/i] way of making the roll. There's certainly nothing more complex about it than the current default. I've never said the current way of doing it doesn't work well; just that this might work slightly better, particularly for new players.

 

Sorry, it seems that of the several concepts floating around there is beginning to be overlap. On the roll high vs roll low I'll agree that rolling high isn't more difficult, though I don't agree that it is by nature any easier. It might be slightly easier for some people, it might be slightly more difficult for others. At which point to me it seems like a change just to make a change.

 

What seems more complicated to me without really making things any easier is presenting DCV+10 as DCV. It has the benefit of simplifying what is already the simplest case, but it makes more complicated cases even more complex. With Markdoc's clarification of what he does I can see it being of limited use, but it seems like a lot of extra work to set up.

 

And of note, what grates on me and seems a bit defensive on the flip side is the use of terms like "better" to describe what is just a different way of doing things.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

When I am starting someone completely new to the system, I often stat out the sheet very simply - so they get a regular DCV and a "flatfooted" (ie: half) DCV listed. If they have martial maneuvers, they get a fixed OCV/DCV value listed alongside each manuever and if they have levels I just assign them in a chunk, listed as "all out offence" and "all out defence" on the sheet, meaning they have at most 2 numbers to track in combat. It does mean that I need to do more math in my head to deal with half DCV, etc, but I can do that almost without effort.

 

I think one of the keys to this discussion is that I have almost always had to start up Hero groups from scratch, each time I move. If I get players with roleplaying experience, it is almost always from D&D, so I use D&D terminology to explain - in that context OCV = BAB + dice roll to hit, is a no-brainer. Often though, I think as gamers we underestimate how hard these concepts are to grasp for non-gamers, who literally have to have the concept "roleplaying game" explained. "Teaching Hero to someone you meet at a con" is not at all analogous to "Teaching Hero to someone who has never even thought about roleplaying" because the con attendees already have internalised many of the basic concepts.

 

Here's an example from last week end. We played Arkham Horror - a board game. It uses a simple dice pool mechanism. A standard success is a 5 or a 6 and you need a certain number of successes to succeed at a task. For me it's a no-brainer that to have an even chance at any task , you need 3x as many dice in your pool as you need successes. Yet for my non-gaming friends, that basic concept took literally hours to start to emerge, even though I explained it under way - twice. It's not that the math is hard (3x the number of blood drops on the card, duh!) but the concept of dice pools and numbers of successes was alien to them - and alien concepts are hard to retain.

 

cheers, Mark

 

I actually have done very little gaming at cons in my life. I've taught Hero to experienced gamers that have just never played Hero before. I've taught Hero to avid wargamers who were interested in picking up RPGs. I've taught Hero to D&D gamers that wanted something "more" out of a system. And I've taught Hero to people whose idea of gaming is playing Pictionary but were interested in finding out what this Role Playing stuff was all about. 99% of the difficulty with all of the above groups has centered around chargen. After explaining the basics of how combat works to them to start with I'll generally run the numbers myself during combat, while showing them my work so to speak. Almost all of them have picked it up pretty quickly, and generally by the end of the first combat they're counting Body and Stun and telling me what DCV their attack hits just fine. Maybe not as fast as someone with a bit more experience, but they generally manage it.

 

I guess it is just a different way of teaching things. When I'm looking at teaching something I'm not generally looking at how I can change the subject matter to make it easier to learn. I look at the subject matter and the person in I'm trying to teach and figure out how to best present the subject matter so that they understand it. It probably also helps that I've only rarely been in the position of teaching Hero to someone who wasn't already a friend, or at least a friendly acquaintance.

 

Though I'll admit the hardest to teach have been the people who would rather have been playing a different system, but were playing Hero because they'd rather play in a game that I'm running in a system that isn't their first choice than run a game in their favorite system.

[archermoo]

Re: OCV/DCV Am I doing the math right?

 

That is generally true of Monopoly, and a host of other games where you might want to go a specific, short distance instead of as much as possible. But then it could be said that any roll over *or* under that value would be viewed as "bad", with a slight bias favoring rolling lower, as that you retain the possibility of still reaching your desired spot on the next roll. I can count the number of times I've actually played Monopoly on one hand, and have never won, so I was equating Higher=Better in the sense that the higher each roll is, the faster you get back to GO... and your $200.

 

I have played BattleTech a whole lot, and iirc, the following rolls are always Higher = Better:

 

1. To Hit.

2. Determining number of missiles from a missile pack that did actually hit.

3. Avoiding Thermal Shutdown.

4. Avoiding Heat-Caused Ammo Explosion.

5. Avoiding a lockup from using Myomer Accelerating Signal Circuitry (MASC).

6. Avoiding a weapon jam when firing Rotary Autocannons for successive turns.

7. All Piloting Checks (avoiding falling when entering difficult terrain, standing back up, and avoiding damage to the pilot when falling).

8. Pilot Consciousness checks.

 

 

The ones that are not absolutely Higher = Better:

1. Hit location (though a 12 is very good because it is a head shot. In counterpoint, a 2 gives you a Roll for Critical Hits).

2. Determining the number of Critical Hits (The rare self-inflicted internal damage is the only reason this isn't in the first category).

 

So I 'learned' from D&D (where to hit, damage, and Saving Throws [old-school]), and BattleTech (above), that Higher = Better for the vast majority of cases. Not to mention my experiences with TORG, Gamma World, and iirc, V&V, Marvel Superheroes, and DC Superheroes.

 

Whereas I've never really looked at die rolling like that. For me what result I'm looking for has always been situational. It has always been "okay, in this system, for this kind of roll, what am I trying to do?". Maybe I'm just weird. Wouldn't be the first time...