archermoo

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

As an aside, I've never had a disconnect between roll high on damage and roll on everything else.

 

The way I explain it to players who might find it inconsistent is... simplistic, but hopefully memorable for it.

 

The numbers equal badness. The higher you roll, the more badness there is. When trying to succeed in executing a task, you want less badness. You want to succeed. When determining damage, you want to roll high because damage is pure unadulterated badness and that's just what you want to inflict on your opponent.

 

It sounds silly, I know.

Presenting it as "Roll low to determine if you succeed, roll high to determine how successful you are" has pretty much always worked for me.

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

Actually' date=' I take the "[i']Never met anyone for whom it was a problem[/i]" statements with a grain of salt. In our last discussion of this, on the 6E threads, we had a GM confidently state he'd never met anyone to whom it had been a problem - only to have one of his players chime in, that well, it had always been a problem for him. I think they mean that it hasn't been a big enough problem that it's become noticeably game-disrupting. And to be fair, that's been my experience too. I've played with many, many people who can use the standard method OK. Some of them have literally years of Hero experience. If you weren't actively looking for a problem, you might not notice that they actually use some time to work through the numbers (and often make small mistakes). And I have had the opportunity to observe that they become faster and more accurate, if shifted to "roll high", which tells me they had a maths problem - even if it wasn't preventing them from playing.

 

cheers, Mark

To expand on my statement, I will certainly say that using the straight formula out of the original book has certainly caused a lot of problems, which is why I don't use it as written. But the problems weren't of the "rolling low vs rolling high" sort. They were a matter of the formula not being a very good representation of what you need to actually do in combat. Reorganizing it to OCV + (11-roll) = DCV has cleared it up for everyone I've ever taught the system to. Specifically I give them the verbal description of: "Roll the 3d6. If it is above 11 subtract how far above it is from 11 from your OCV. If it is below 11, add how far below it is from 11 to your OCV. The result is the DCV that you hit." Which looks more complicated written than it sounds spoken. Even the math-phobes that I've taught haven't had a problem with it.

Re: The move to FTP

I thought you could just download the client already or is there free trial' date=' buy a key, then no month to month?[/quote']

 

Once they go live with the free to play model you will be able to play without having to buy anything. Not even a key.

 

I'm already a lifetime subscriber, so it doesn't really impact me much...

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...

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.

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.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

After we got engaged on Sep 30' date=' which was the one year anniversary of our first date, getting married on Sep 30 just seemed natural. Married on a Saturday though I had to look that up.[/quote']

 

Cool.

 

I proposed to Keri 8 weeks after our first date. We got married 2 weeks before the first anniversary of our first date.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

I don't really know the story of my folks' wedding. Ours' date=' though, was Sept 5, the Saturday of Labor Day weekend; we got a venue on campus for cheap ($400) because my department chair was willing to sign off for it (including the alcohol permit).[/quote']

 

Very cool!

 

Picking the specific day for us was pretty pedestrian. When we first started looking we determined that going with a Sunday would be much cheaper. For the venue, catering, etc. The availability of various desired attendees mandated a certain set of weekends, and then the availability of the venue we ended up choosing determined the specific date. Which as I recall was the earliest date they had available in the time frame we were looking at. That it is the day after my niece's birthday, or 1 week after Keri's brother's birthday, was noticed in retrospect.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

My folks' anniversary was the 11th. It was a Friday that year.

We got married on a Sunday. One of the more major reasons was that venues were about 2/3 to 1/2 price on a Sunday as opposed to a Friday or Saturday. Another being that it made it easier for some of the out of town people to make it to the rehearsal.

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.

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.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

Aha. It's what we call a klämdag -- a "squeezed day"' date=' an ordinary day between two holidays, or a holiday and a weekend. Time off is tended to be taken.[/quote']

 

I'd have taken the 12th off (particularly since it is my 4th wedding anniversary), but I need all the time off I can scrape for next years visit to Ireland and the UK.

 

So Keri and I will be celebrating our anniversary on the 11th this year instead.

Re: Longest Running Thread EVER

... And I thought my half-friday was a big deal.

In the US this Thursday is Veterans Day. So I (and at least some others here) have it off. Unfortunately I have to be back at work the next day.

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.

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.

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

You're not alone. I've taught Hero to a lot of noobies and my experience is that about a quarter to a third of people have the same problem. The objectively easiest system is simply to add (as part of chargen) 10 to the base DCV. Then you are left with the very simple calculation OCV+3d6 = DCV hit.

 

It's so simple and straightforward that it's now the standard for all the games I run. It's very minor change and retains the exact same probabilities, so there's no mechanical reason not to.

 

cheers, Mark

So how do you deal with DCV modifiers? When someone is at 1/2 DCV, 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?

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

Yeah' date=' we do it basically the same way. It's just dealing with negative numbers tends to freeze my brain solid esp when I am tired, stressed or people are waiting for me to produce the answer. So I do it the way I do so I don't have to deal with -2 being added to my OCV.[/quote']

 

I understand, though of note adding a negative 2 to a number and subtracting 2 from a number are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

 

Gaming isn't just about me. It's about the other 4-6 people I play with too. They are pretty comfortable with the system as is. Honestly I am a bit too lazy to suggest the change. Though I am not above suggesting it here and seeing what everyone says about it.

 

I find that the less math that people have to do the better things go as a whole. My Partner can do all kinds of freaky math in her head. Shes' a freaking living calculator (yeah she bought Lightning Calculator on her RL character sheet). Me on the other hand struggle with a mild form of dyslexia when dealing with numbers, so simple is easier. The other people at the table's mathmatical prowess tends to be between my partner's and my extremes.

 

The beauty of the roll high system and dealing with target numbers (like DCV) is that all but the roll's math is done before combat. Then you just need to add the roll to their OCV and compare it to their oppositions DCV +10. The math is still easy if the defender is dealing with combat effects 1/2 DCV +10 is still easy math. I guess it offloads some of the math to the defender and leaves the GM freer to deal with keeping the combat interesting.

 

And you can set up roll low such that the only math that needs to be done during combat is for the roll as well. I know a number of people, particularly for Con games and teaching games, write people's OCV on their character sheet as their "normal" OCV + 11. In combat they just subtract a 3d6 roll from that to determine what DCV they hit. Though neither way of doing things is without difficulties. Regardless of how many minuses to OCV or DCV, the "prefigured" one should never drop below the number that was added to it, and it makes things like 1/2 DCV and 1/2 OCV more difficult. I.e. if you are using the prefigured DCV + 10 for a roll high, regardless of the minuses that number should never be below 10. And if you are at 1/2 DCV the number should really be 1/2 of the base DCV + 10. Same for using 11+OCV.

 

Personally I've never had any issues teaching it to people as the way both you and I actually do it. Take the difference between 11 and what you roll, and then add or subtract that from your OCV depending on whether you roll above or below 11. I've taught Hero to a LOT of people over the years, including some severe mathphobes, and none of them has ever had a problem with it. And it has the advantage of not having the problems I mention above.

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

That seems like a pretty subjective (or at least unsupported) claim of what is or isn't objective....

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.

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

Though I do often wonder if We should transition to an easier system and roll high.

ie OCV + 3d6 vs DCV +10 Rolling the DCV or better would be a hit. I'll tell you the math would be FAR easier.

If it would be easier for you, and you find the math easier, no reason why you shouldn't. Objectively it isn't any easier, but if it increases your enjoyment no reason you shouldn't do it in games that you run.

And your way of doing it is what I was talking about with my "the way I actually do it" formula. OCV + (11-3d6) = DCV hit. For your first example, 11-8 is 3, added to 9 gives you 12. For the second 11-13 is -2, added to 9 gives you 7.

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

There is no "One Right Way"' date=' or even "One Easiest Way", because everybody learns and processes information differently. What is easiest for one is not easiest for all.[/quote']

 

Which was the point I was trying to make.

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

Really? You might want to revisit how easy that is.

 

I like the roll high. If I roll an 8 and have OCV 6, it's just 8+6=14, so I hit DCV 4.

Whereas I like the roll low. If I roll an 8 with an OCV of 6 it is just (6+11)-8=9, so I hit a DCV of 9. As opposed to your 8+6=14 and 14-10=4. Both have an addition and a subtraction. Though the way I actually do it in my head when I'm gaming is ocv + (11-roll) = dcv. But that's just how my brain works...

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

Are you talking about 6e? I'm using 5e (unrevised). There's a table giving 1/2 DCV for "attacked from behind in combat' date='" and I can't find further explanation or qualification of that. There are also the general penalties for not perceiving an attacker with a targeting sense.[/quote']

 

In 5e the "attacked from behind in combat" modifier is part of the Surprised modifier and the further explanation/qualification is there. The 6e version isn't so much a change as just a matter of being re-written for clarity. The 5e version also includes text noting that the Surprised modifier only applies if the person being attacked isn't expecting to be attacked.

Re: The cranky thread

I had discussions like that before I got married too. She's altering the deal. I pray she doesn't alter it any further.

Ick. You have my sympathy. Not entirely sure what I'd do in that situation. Fortunately Keri hasn't shown any signs of doing anything like that...

Re: The cranky thread

All the trains were late today because of the parade. SFO has every right to celebrate the Giants' victory' date=' but those of us who work for a living have a schedule to keep. You'd think everything would be back to normal in the evening, but the commute was just as bad.[/quote']

 

Yeah, my train home was stuffed to the gills with orange and black. Not really any more full than I get sometimes anyway, but a train full of commuters has a different feel than a train full of a mix of commuters and non-commuters. Those of us just trying to get home after a long day, mixed in with people who just want to keep partying.

Re: DCV vs. beneficial "attack"

The 1/2 (as opposed to none' date=' or total) loss of DCV from facing and similar seems to fit that.[/quote']

 

To just address this, there are no DCV modifiers due to facing in Hero. There is a note that one of the most common ways for someone to qualify for the Surprised modifier (1/2 DCV) is to be attacked from behind, but it also notes that just being behind someone doesn't automatically grant that.