krank wrote:

Not quite with you there, I'm afraid. Care to explain in a bit more detail?

As MoS is currently calculated, you subtract the rolled number from the target number. The result is anything from 0 (for rolling the exact number) to an MoS equal to the target number. Your current system, with 99s being an auto success, has an oddity in its math when dealing with 99. To get an equivalent value to the current system, 99 has to be substituted, either counting as an MoS of 0 (kinda taking all the potential out of it) or an MoS equal to the target number. If the latter, then all the other values have to be shifted down one to account for the new arithmetic for MoS. This is all assuming that you want to keep the same arithmetic, but work in the opposite direction with "higher is better".

krank wrote:

Why not just look at how much more than your target number you rolled? For instance: Target number is 20. I roll 32. MoF 12. Granted, it's subtraction, but MoF requires subtraction in the original system as well. (Also, I'm not really picky with exact probabilities - I'm used to scales of 1 to 10, so any smallish difference in probability is unlikely to disturb me)

You originally said that the higher failed rolls were better than lower failed rolls... to keep with your "higher is better motif". This switch simply returns to the classic means of calculating MoF.

krank wrote:

How often is MoF used? Really? (I can't seem to escape the feeling that the whole MoF/MoS thing is a bit redundant and obsolete - a bit like the BRP system's oppositional roll tables, or random encounter tables... And I'm not sure I even like the idea of "critical hits/misses"... but that's a discussion for another day)

MoF is generally used in every instance that MoS is used (except maybe bonus damage in combat). Really, if you find one negligible, then the other is probably equally negligible. Whether MoS/MoF is obsolete is somewhat debatable. Most systems nowadays use some form of "degrees of success", except perhaps the d20 system. Eclipse Phase is essentially a hybridization of that and dice pool games.

krank wrote:

Thing is, stuff takes time. Comparisons are the easiest and take the least amount of time. Then additions, then subtractions... etc. I tend to favour comparisons whenever I can, and subtraction is my Nemesis. I tend not to use systems dealing in subtraction very long. Not a math-brain, you see - subtraction just takes too much time and energy, especially in percentile scales.

I agree that comparisons are the easiest, but comparisons can largely be used in the current system. The only time that comparisons can't be used is when calculating MoS/MoF. Otherwise you can literally look and think "Did I roll higher than my opponent? How about lower than my target number? Did both dice roll the same number?" That's really all you need for the majority of the game's mechanics. Even when calculating MoS, the only real thing you usually have to check is whether you exceeded an MoS of 30 (excellent success). The rest is moot.

krank wrote:

Examples? As far as I can see, the numbers should remain more or less the same, give or take 1%.

I gave two major examples. Calculating MoS (having to substitute target number when a 99 is rolled) and calculating MoF (having to substitute your target number for 00 AND subtract from 99 to calculate). Considering that these were the primary factors which initiated your desire to create a new system, I thought it should be noted that the arithmetic still remains a skosh complex. Another major problem is in opposed tests... whereas before the quality of your opponent's roll determined your potential MoS (you had to roll higher, which reduces the maximum MoS you can achieve), now it's simply a matter of rolling the highest, with your opponent's roll having no real effect on your roll unless it is higher.

krank wrote:

"Beauty" to you, perhaps... To me, this part of the system seems archaic, and not really "finished". Too many exceptions. I'd prefer a system where there was just a Target Number, one or two dice, and the end number, telling you how much of a success or failure the roll was. Why all this shenanigans with critical hits etc? As it is, the system feels like an unfinished clone of Basic Roleplaying, with one leg still in the 1980's. I guess I'm just frustrated that systems are still designed this way...

What "too many exceptions"? There's a single exception, and it only comes up in opposed tests... the tests that involve multiple people rolling. That shouldn't be too hard to remember. What other exceptions exist? As for the comparison to BRP, I see a lot of similarities. That probably isn't a bad thing, considering that the BRP system is still in use today. It's simple, and its structure perfectly fits EP's skill system. It's very much akin to the d20 system (and only slightly more complex), which is essentially the de-facto standard for roleplaying today. As for critical hits... well... are there any games that don't have critical hits?

krank wrote:

OK. Well, like I said, I'm not too fond of the "critical hit" mechanic anyways, so I might just deal with this issue by removing the 00/99 special rolls... Or, you know, just ignoring that 1%.

That would largely fix the mathematics for it. Just treat 00 as 100, as most systems do, use your system with a straight MoS structure (more is better, but more is worse with failures) and the math actually becomes much easier.

krank wrote:

OK, so - no change to MoF, but an improvement on successful rolls? I can live with that. It's also possible I just don't quite understand the MoS/MoF mechaics yet.

Well, the successful rolls are improved in the context of non-opposed tests. The math is still a bit wonky on opposed tests. The current system allows MoS to be calculated the same way at all times. In order for an "upwards" system to get a similar mathematic structure with opposed tests, you'd have to do it the hard way; calculate MoS by subtracting the lesser roll from the greater. This is no more difficult than usual (just basic subtraction) unless you are using a task that involves your roll being opposed by multiple targets (area effects and certain sleights). In this case, you have to calculate a different MoS for every target, whereas the current system uses a fixed MoS based on your target number.

krank wrote:

Why yes; degrees of success is very useful. It's just that I'd rather use the rolled number straight than convert it to something else. If I roll 16 and succeed, then 16 is my degree of success. If I roll 70 and fail, then 70 is how bad I failed. You follow? Less math, less conversion.

Except if you go by a structure of MoS/MoF = roll, failures are far worse than successes. If you are literally calculating MoF simply by the roll itself (a failed roll of 70 is an MoF of 70), it makes all failures significantly worse than any success you can get (since the highest numbers are all failures). This also means that greater skill means no lesser failures, but greater failures remain (and skill does nothing to alleviate their gravity). If you are using the MoS calculation system that the game currently uses, then nothing changes and subtraction is still necessary. Once you get used to the idea that lower numbers are better things, the current system works in context. I might be fine with the current system because I used to play golf.

krank wrote:

Well, the thing about me is... Well, like I said, I'm really into simplistic systems. To you, that method might seem simple enough - to me, it's something that would take several seconds for each roll, and that is simply not acceptable to me. They're not helping me as a GM. Anyways, to sum up the problems with the Pendragon Hack: * MoF is still the same, and requires additional substitution. * MoS-values need to be modified (or a 1% difference needs to be overlooked) Is this correct? In order to get my thinking straight: MoS is how well you succeed, right? And higher is better? And it can be any number between 0 and your target number? MoS is how badly you screw up? Higher is worse? And it can be any number between your target number and 99? (I hope I don't seem too stubborn or stupid; this kind of tinkering is how I tend to learn how game systems work... And I'm very much open to the possibility that I'm completely wrong on all accounts)

For the most part yes. If you are completely willing to use this system as a "blackjack system", and are okay with the tinkering of stats, then it could work as follows: [list][*]00 is auto-success, but always counts as an MoS of 0. [*]For all other scores, MoS is your die roll, so long as you stay under the target number. [*]During opposed tests, MoS is equal to your die roll minus your opponent's/opponents' die roll. [*]MoF is equal to your die roll minus the target number. [*]99 is auto-failure, and always the worst kind.[/list] With this system, the math [i]mostly[/i] is maintained.

krank wrote:

But when calculating MoS, you still need to subtract 30 from your target number, right?

If you subtract 30 from your target number in the normal system, it tells you the number you have to roll under for an excellent success. In your system, every roll from 30 to your target number already is an excellent success.

krank wrote:

I'd argue that the MoF/MoS mechanic, in itself, is an exception - or at least a mechanic that is, in its current form - to me - redundant.

Not by much. You can theoretically calculate it with any test, but it is only valid if the GM feels it should be valid. The same is largely also true with criticals.

krank wrote:

Erh, yeah. people tend to like and use what they know. Not because of its actual qualities, but because it's familiar.

But also because it works. If BRP's system didn't work, it would have failed. Look at FATAL.

krank wrote:

Well, like I said - I'm into minimalism. BRP is very much a complex system, with many archaic and badly thought-out exceptions and tiny special rules and strange tables and stuff. Very badly designed. The core is kind of simple, but stuff like not making more damage with a better hit, Hit Points in general, the oppositional rolls table, and a myriad other strange things makes it a system I generally just use as a bad example. Not that people can't enjoy a game using BRP, but I think the same overall system goals can be achieved better, easier and with more realism.

EP's system is significantly easier. There are largely no tables tied to the test system (exception perhaps with reputation economy). For the most part simply rolling under and noting doubles suffices for the system. MoS can be taken into account, but is largely only valid in multiples of 10 (I've yet to see any roll where anything that wasn't a multiple of 10 did anything).

krank wrote:

Uh, yeah, And the d20 system is more bordgame-ish than I like in my systems. 4e, at least, embraces this - it's very well designed, suiting its design goals well. A well-designed system of rules, to my mind, is a system which perfectly and efficiently fits the design goals. I am uncertain as to the design goals of Eclipse Phase, so I can only say that I hope balance and simplicity weren't big parts of it. It's not more or less "realistic" than 99% of the systems out there (not saying much), but the same level of realism can be achieved with a less complex system and a greater amount of balance.

But I don't see your system being any less complex. Certain rolls are less so, others are more so. It's simply a trade-off. If you do less opposed tests, then your system is easier. Otherwise, it falls to different pit traps, not less.

krank wrote:

Unfortunately, not many. I just don't see the point of them, except they make the game slightly more "cinematic". And if that's the goal, then there are loads of more suitable game mechanics...

The primary function is to award luck, to basically grant some extra favor for rolling particularly good. If luck isn't a factor in your game (well, it's always a factor with dice; but I mean something you want portrayed as a factor in your setting), then they can largely be ignored.

krank wrote:

What I hope to achieve with this discussion is not to reach any form of consensus regarding the quality of the rules system. I just need to decide whether or not I can make the current system work they way I want it to, or if it's simpler to just convert some system I'm already familiar with and which works the way I want. Normally, I seldom use any part of the system an RPG ships with. The EP core seemed promising enough that I wanted to take a closer look at the possibility of using some modified form of it.

I figured as much; I'm not trying to convince you to stick with the current system like some fanatic. I'm just trying to give you an external critique and inform you of your system's flaws and strengths. The biggest advantage is that success tests are much more fluid. The biggest disadvantage is that opposed tests are not. If you do more of the former and less of the latter, you have a much better system than the standard. If you do less of the former and more of the latter, your system is weaker than the normal system. It's pretty much that simple.

krank wrote:

Hm; still a bit much for my tastes. It seems my "hack" needs to be larger than I initially thought... I think I need to dive into the rules again, to get a grip on how MoS/MoF are used. It's possible I won't feel that they add enough value and can be cut altogether... I'm very comfortable with "winging" some of the stuff they're used for, game mechanics are never the focus when I GM... Perhaps this'll mutate into some kind of "EP Lite" system... =)

Sounds like a good idea. The primary scenarios in which I've noticed that MoS/MoF are important are generally damage scenarios. Degrees of success often alter the outcome of any test in which the character risks physical or mental health. In most other cases, you may be able to ignore it altogether (and you also might be able to do so if you don't mind making your damage values a bit more static).

krank wrote:

Hm. Are there any important parts of, say, the combat system (which I admit I've not had the time to dive into yet) that absolutely need "excellent successes", or any other kind of MoS/MoF? Or are they simply used as "extra damage" and whatever?

Primarily in damage scenarios. Otherwise it is primarily used to simply tweak the effects (the best example is in extended tests, where a test is based on time dedicated to finish something; MoS determines how much faster you finish a project, in comparison to its standard interval.

krank wrote:

Yes, it "works". A rusty old car from may also *work*, in the purely mechanical standpoint. Doesn't mean it's a good car... There are... "Degrees of success" =)

Well, I've heard that more recent editions have gotten more fluid, but I can't speak with any experience on the subject. What I know about the system is fairly minimal.

krank wrote:

That's why the system is a work-in-progress while I figure out exactly how much I need to change EP's system for it to suit my tastes. Right now, for instance, I need to figure out if I think MoF/MoS are "worth it". Later, I might chuck the Moxie system out the window, depending on the amount of systems that break if I do so. Metasystems and metapoints are kind of anathema to the "immersionist" focus I usually prefer...

Moxie can largely go since you seem to prefer a game where luck has little to do with things. Moxie is essentially luck in stat form. Few scenarios outside of activating moxie use it; it is used when determining if you get infected with the exsurgent virus by brief exposure, and when being shot at with suppression fire from an automatic weapon. Find another stat to represent these scenarios, and moxie can be eliminated completely.

krank wrote:

Consider them ignored =) I've seen these kind of rules in a lot of systems, but I've as of yet not discovered a single way in which they actually makes the game more enjoyable. They add an extra layer of rules (in extreme cases - special "crit" or "fumble tables") while at the same time making "extreme" outcomes either too common or so uncommon they don't actually get used - and then they represent a lot of wasted headspace on my part. Problem is, some games make these systems hard to ignore; some effects etc are intimately tied to crits or fumbles.

Well, it depends on the playstyle of the players, or the style of game you want to run, in a lot of cases. I actually prefer to make characters who are "crazy lucky", and even created a Shadowrun character that I dubbed a "luck adept". He was essentially a hacker who contributed in combat (when forced to not be in the matrix) by relying on his incredible luck (read: maxed out Edge attribute) to pull off amazing stunts. If such concepts don't fit your game, then critical hits likely don't either. The only real aspect of the setting where criticals might actually be [b]vital[/b] is with psi-using characters. Critical failures are one of the core weaknesses they have. Hell, you might even want to wipe psi out of your campaign anyways (one of my campaigns has it retconned out because the players don't like the concept because it is "too supernatural").

krank wrote:

And for that I am very grateful. Like I said, I like tinkering with systems, and have created a few from scratch (nothing released in English yet, though) and I've found that having someone to discuss ideas with is invaluable in the creative process.

I agree, and I have done the same. Sometimes the best way to play a game you actually want to play yourself is to make it yourself. Sometimes a system simply doesn't agree with you (I myself hate the Storytelling system, even though most people claim that it's "Shadowrun with d10s"). I hope my critique has given you some insight on how your modified system should handle.