Vagaries of the rule of X

[WhiteShark]

@Duke BushidoYou raise an interesting point, but I wonder if your version of the Rule of X wasn't quite a bit more restrictive than the version upon which we are working. This isn't hard limits or traditional campaign maxima and should be able to turn out characters that deviate quite a bit from the baseline, provided they pay price elsewhere. I'm also surprised to hear that combat became as predictable as you describe. The outcomes of 3d6 obviously tend toward the middle but not radically so. Is it damage rolls you found too normalized? Even supposing that damage rolls were completely average and predictable, tactics can determine who gets to attack and under what circumstances, which can make or break a tough fight.

[sentry0]

3 hours ago, WhiteShark said:

This isn't hard limits or traditional campaign maxima and should be able to turn out characters that deviate quite a bit from the baseline, provided they pay price elsewhere.

Yes, this is a very important thing to keep in mind... it's an attempt to enable character build diversity but within 'reasonable' limits.  Looking at the chart, it's relatively safe to assume some things...

• Players will probably naturally float higher than the 0.0 mark
  • How much higher is the question... I think 10% makes sense looking at the admittedly limited sample size
• Players will want to maximize their builds to whatever you set your limit too
• 'John Everyplayer' (JE) is like a scaffold for your players to build on top of
  • It's expected that players will not look like JE 
  • There's no problem going over the suggested or even under (Does a Brick 'need' an 8 DCV?  Who ever has those points for MDCV and EGO?)

It's been an interesting experiment, one I will keep maintaining if there's any interest (editors welcome). The usual disclaimers apply, which is to say, use at your own risk.  The numbers try to factor out many things, like player tactics, element of surprise, etc... These things are obviously super important in any combat scenario.  With the recent addition of the 'Time to Unconscious' (TTU) and 'Time to Kill' (TTK) I think it's become even more obvious that it's kind of a silly concept of two characters standing toe-to-toe horsetrading attacks.  It's not how things go down in games at all. 

 

 

[sentry0]

I just updated the original Rule of X file... 

 

[unclevlad]

You're using the wrong DEF in computing the STUN probability.  You're using rDEF.  That's why most of em are WAY too high.  For some of these characters, the entire defense is "don't ever get hit"...which I've seen but is, IMO, idiotic.  But Sapphire still has a 20% chance of being stunned, using DEF instead of rDEF.  That's at least twice as high as I'd tolerate, but I build to real, dangerous fights.

[sentry0]

56 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

You're using the wrong DEF in computing the STUN probability.  You're using rDEF.  That's why most of em are WAY too high.  For some of these characters, the entire defense is "don't ever get hit"...which I've seen but is, IMO, idiotic.  But Sapphire still has a 20% chance of being stunned, using DEF instead of rDEF.  That's at least twice as high as I'd tolerate, but I build to real, dangerous fights.

Ah, that makes much more sense... I will readjust the live sheet.

[Duke Bushido]

On 8/16/2023 at 2:31 PM, WhiteShark said:

@Duke BushidoYou raise an interesting point, but I wonder if your version of the Rule of X wasn't quite a bit more restrictive than the version upon which we are working. 

 

 

This is a fair question; I will do my best to give it a fair answer.  Do not percieve any brevity or ommision as any sort of disregard, though.  Instead, forgive it as a sign that I am working from a phone, with just my thumbs, and am a bit "done" with typing this way, having just carried on an extensive but important conversation on a separate matter.   Apologies in advance.

 

The best summation I can offer is to refer back to an earlier point in this thread where- I believe it was our friend Doc Democracy- pointed out that one can roughly tailor things to produce the kinds of combats one desires, from six-turn slugfests to three-punch drops.

 

And he is right.  And it works.  And once you do it, players very quickly adapt to their new constraints- that is, players optimize their builds for the arena in which they play.  Your recourse is to either forbid this (which I have get to see go well in any game under any circumstances), or do the same in order to offer any actual challenge.

 

Take into consideration the bell curve of the attack roll.  Players will optimize their characters here, too, be it additional skill levels, tactical maneuvers, etc.

 

But the best routine adjustment players can hope for is +3 or +4.  More extremes are possible through cunning planning and careful teamwork, setting, bracing, adding skill levels and environmental bonuses, etc, but during a typical combat using loose campaign limits, the best typical adjustment is an additional three or four points on his CV.

 

Your villain likely will have a few of his own tricks, and can likely get two or three points of adjustment of his own; more if you make,it point to not dumb your villains down now and again, and maneuvers and environment, etc are available for your villain as well.

 

With everyone optimized- even just a little-  for their table rules, in my own experience, it is really unusual to get a running (ie, non-surprise) combat where the antagonists have more than four points of CV different, with two or three being the most typical.

 

Looking at the bell curve and the shifts for CV differences, the odds of scoring a hit are quite predictable, and upsets like wild dice rolls- as we know- are less common the more dice you roll.  Our attack roll uses three dice, so upsets are more _possible_, but still not terribly likely.  You can get a pretty solid feel for who gets in the first hit, and who gets in the most hits.  

 

A damage dice pool of what-  twelve to twenty dice?  Is even more consistent than the attack roll.  And of course, you have a very good idea of how many blows it takes to drop each character _because you designed specifically for that_.

 

In absolutes?  No; it is not one hundred percent predictable.  In practical terms, the nature of the bell curve for 3d6 and for pools of large numbers of dice make both "who hits who the most" consistently- not perfectly, but consistently- predictable, and the results of a typical damage pool are easily compared to the targets available.

 

When things like campaign limits or recommendations come into play, players _will_ optimize for them; GMs optimize for them,  and the end result is that, from the meta, it actually becomes _easier_ to predict, but the limits, ultimately, reduce the variables in play.

 

 

When you design those guidelines toward the idea of "drop in X hits," it all becomes that much more consistently predictable.  Again: not perfectly, but more consistently.  In a way it is a help:  I know just what villains to send against them to give them a challenge!" Or "to take the wind out of their sails" or "to give them a quick victory," but again, that is possible because the guidelines have made the outcomes more consistently predictable.

 

Is this always the case?  No; of course it isn't.  In fact, I expec2r several post demonstrating how wild rolls are still possible and how a scenario once went totally opposite the plan because of three or four of them.   I have a handful of these stories myself.   However, they are called wild rolls for a reason, and when I compare my own handful of them against all the time I played under rule-of-X style limits, it just reinforces the increased predictability such guidelines bring. 

 

Even with an unusual amount of wild rolls in a session or two, the longer a given campaign goes on, the more dice get thrown, the more the resolutions averages out to the initial prediction.

 

Is it bad?

 

Inherently?  No; not in any absolute way.  The points made in this thread, such as "design your villain to drop in three hits" and such demonstrate that for the majority of users, it might even be _desirable_.

 

For me--

 

Let me stress:

 

_For me_, I found it _intolerable_.  Because I like wild crazy things to happen?

Well, _yes_, but in fairness, as a general rule, I bristle equally hard at conversations of predestination, so there is a thing you know about me now.  ;).

 

But _for me_, it was a big stab against what I thought Champions with it's unique build and combat and damge resolution systems were providing us.  I felt like I had been somehow cheated (no; of course I hadn2t been cheated, but emotions and logic have different names for a reason.  ).  I had just assumed that campaign regulations were helping, when in fact they were providing me the opposite of what I wanted: a high degree of unpredictability.  Truly crazy stories to tell,   I saw two options:

 

Institute the hit location rules (which I did not want to do) to provide radical damage swings and spice things up, or go play something else.

 

So I did that.

 

I missed HERO, and almost ten years later, I came back, but I havent used limits, caps, regulations, or rule of X -type things since then.  For what it is worth, I have been much happier.  Maybe it _is_ harder, and I don't think most people happy with what they have would want to even consider it, but it works for me and mine, and I am quite tickled to play again.

 

Before anyone thinks I hate on guidelines or limits: I do not.  They have their value.  It is merely that _for me_, they restricted one of the more enjoyable elements of the game.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Duke Bushido
Because I am Typoman, Writer of Wrongs!

[Cloppy Clip]

Coming in a bit late, but I've been reading through this thread and finding my mind changing as I've done so. More than a few times, too, which might be a sign I'm too easily-led!

 

I'm coming around to the idea of, instead of a formal Rule of X, having a baseline character in mind and then assigning specific characters advantages and disadvantages compared to that baseline to come up with a rough narrative balance. So, if we take 12 DC attacks as a Champions baseline and I want a character with a 16 DC attack who I don't think of as being overall stronger than the baseline, then I might give them abyssmal EGO so that, even if they'll demolish most characters in a straight-up fistfight, there's some weakness for players to exploit. They get an advantage, and a disadvantage to balance it out roughly; that sort of thing.

 

Now, if you don't mind a bit of topic drift, that 12 DC baseline is one I've seen quite a lot for Champions. It makes a bit of sense, since 12 DCs of STR lets you lift 100 tons, which was a good benchmark back in the old Marvel Handbook days IIRC. But, if I was playing another genre like Fantasy Hero or Star Hero, are there any "accepted" baselines for those like 12 DC seems to have become for Champions? Obviously any table can make up what they like, but I'm curious if there are any common answers to be found here.

[unclevlad]

That approach only works if the GM throws lots of ego attacks.  Plus, the typical egoist will crush the average build in any case.  What's a common MDCV, in the 3-5 range?  Egoist has, what, MOCV of 8?  So still hits the high end 90% of the time.  Similarly, how many non-egoists buy Mental Def?  I'll concede, that's trickier to estimate, but many builds will have minimal amounts.

 

OTOH, that 16 DC attack is gonna get 14 more STUN through, on average, on every successful strike.  The first 6-8 or so DCs are just getting through the defenses.  Necessary to have, but not impactful.  It's the later ones that stun and/or KO.

 

Now, OK, for an opponent, 16 DC attacks *can* be reasonable.  If the PCs know it?  They have to consider attacking tactically...more holding action, more cooperation.  It's also the action economy...the BBEG typically has very few actions compared to the party.  This is huge.  It's something that took a long time to recognize in D&D;  the really powerful villains with few attacks fell to nominally MUCH lower level parties.  Those with more attacks...THEY were the big problem.  What you don't want is a very powerful BBEG who's also got competent henchmen with him...or obviously worse, a group of villains more powerful than the PCs.  Because now the action economy shifts.  The PCs will have to spend some of their actions dealing with the grunts, or spread them among the villains, giving the bigger attacks more opportunities to do Bad Things.

 

I'm not sure how the 12 DC standard was developed.  It might be, as you say, because that's a 60 STR, but 100 tons is HIGH!!! level for Marvel.  The ones that can break this tend to be the MAJOR tanks like Thing...and I don't think a reasonable build of most of em would be anything close to 350 or 400 points.  I also think "average" is too campaign-dependent.  How tight/loose are you gonna be with limitations?  Even OIAID, on a lot of points, is a substantial discount.  What is the combat style...comic book where losing phases may be acceptable, at least occasionally...or more in line with urban fantasy/superhero literature, where getting stunned is the prelude to getting SMASHED?  Durability is much more important than in comic style...and that's more expensive to build.  What about non-combat skills or powers?  I love Create Object, whether it'll do anything combat-related or not.  Or masquerade-level shape shift...basically, cosmetic only.  Are you building for a game environment...or do you want playable but interesting characters you'd like to *be*, someone who might have a life other than the costume?  I'm not saying you SHOULD build one over the other, I'm just saying they're quite different targets.

 

Another issue...as we've discussed, what's your baseline for grunts, for normal attacks?  If norms mostly have 2 SPD, then a 4 SPD is pretty darn good.  If their CV is 4 or 5, then an 8 is plenty...almost overkill.  If THEIR defenses are low, then a 10d6 might be plenty.  Similarly, do you want your supers to smash through steel with one punch...or have to work on it?  

[Cloppy Clip]

Oh, that example wasn't the most thought-out one. I just wanted to illustrate the concept of "this character is good at X, but I don't see them as being stronger than average overall so I'll make them bad at Y". You could have someone with high CV and SPD but paper-thin defence, or a Brick who can destroy anyone in hand-to-hand range but who has pathetic mobility options. Or, of course, if you're going for a Dr Destroyer type master villain, you could just make them better than averge at everything. But the idea was you'd use the baseline to quickly judge where any given character lay with respect to the universe.

 

The point about baselines for grunts is an important one to consider. If every minion is running around with Laser Auto Rifles that do 3d6 AP, and you want your baseline super to be able to shrug off an average roll then we're looking at about 20 rDef. Which means that if you want Swordsman, with the power of a really big sword, to be able to do much then he might want a total HKA of 8d6 or so, which comes out to a 24 DC attack. So, by giving high level weaponry out to our grunts, we've ended up with quite a powerful setting. And there's nothing wrong with a powerful baseline, but I think it's useful to decide on that at the start of a campaign rather than introduce these super-mooks partway through one and tear your hair out trying to balance things in the middle of it.

[unclevlad]

High attack, low defense is called a glass cannon.  One hit, dropped!  But how often can/should the GM target him to be dropped?  Actually, quite a bit!  If he's much more effective, then NOT targeting him is stupid.  

 

Auto rifles doing AP killing?  Recognize these are murderous.  Nothing less.  Unless you're talking SERIOUSLY high powered.  If I have to worry about it?  It'll sharply re-shape my defenses.  3d6 killing?  I'd better have 11-12 resistant, if I don't wanna get TOO mauled.  AP?  I'd better have MOST of that *hardened*.  Make it autofire, and ok, 2 hits might not be too likely...but it'll happen often enough.  Now I gotta face a bad damage roll *twice*.

 

Killing attacks are a classic example why your concept breaks down.  Killing attacks are MASSIVELY variable.  Sure, much of the time...they're useless.  They do nothing, assuming appropriate rDEF.  But that's not the risk, from the PCs' perspective.  They have to be concerned with the HIGH damage rolls.  8d6 K isn't a 24 DC attack, from a risk mitigation perspective.  Ask yourself, what would you rather face?
 

--8d6 killing in 5E (with the ugly d6-1 stun mult)

--24d6 normal

--30d6 normal

 

It's LESS bad in 6E.  The stun mult *had* to be reduced, IMO.  But still...8d6 killing requires at least mid-20s rDEF;  you need 28 to bounce the average BODY.  34+ will happen about 13%.

 

But there's also a recognition...even in VERY HIGH powered supers, 24 DC attacks are huge.  24 DCs is 120 active...if it's full END, more if it's got Reduced END...which is the upper limit for Very High Powered supers (6E1 35).  24 DCs normal does 84 STUN...so what kinda defenses are needed?

 

  

 

[Hugh Neilson]

The higher the defense to DC ratio, the better the KA performs at getting STUN through, as compared to a normal attack.  Consider a 12 DC game with 35 average defenses.  The Normal attack will average 42 STUN, 7 past defenses.  It will get some higher and some lower rolls, but it's not going to vary wildly.  A 4d6 KA will average 14 BOD.  Ignoring variation on the BOD roll, it will inflict STUN past defenses of 0, 0, 0, 7, 21 or 35, or an average of 10.5 - 50% more.  And it will STUN most targets one time in 6.

 

6e made a KA in Supers a niche power, not an effective choice for KOing an opponent.

[unclevlad]

And when the BODY roll is even 16-18, which is 25% of the time, a 5 stun die is dropping 29, 33, or 37 STUN.  And consider when you get a 6.  45, 50, or 55 STUN gets through.  Now we're talking stunned AND KO'd...even potentially with just 1 strike.  Take a bit of STUN here and there, THEN get hit?  Yeah, it's lights out.  

 

6E realized the stun multiplier was very badly broken.  Because it's also more of a risk of doing BODY.  Against 4d6 killing, minimum rDEF is 12, I'd say;  you're still taking BODY on average.  That's bad;  the system doesn't want to be lethal.  

 

3rd Ed D&D really started to recognize the problem.  Single rolls gave TOO MUCH variation.  Save or die, or the equivalent.  Yeah, it went back earlier, with stuff like poison, but it became glaring in 3E.  Pretty heavily discussed on the boards.  Critical hits could also have the issue.  With 5E killing attacks, mostly, it's the stun mult.  5 or 6 did too much, too often;  1 or 2 meant no STUN got through, regardless.