So, the thread about the new 'cosmetic' Initiative change somehow spawned a lot of discussion about the core test mechanic and the new blackjack change. Let's take a moment to regroup and discuss that here. :)
2nd Printing:
• MoS on regular tests is how much you roll *under* the modified target (skill+/-mods); roll lower.
• MoS on opposed tests is how much you roll under the modified target, except you also must roll higher than the opponent; roll higher, but also lower.
• Modified target is capped at 99, regardless of skill and mods. (There's some debate about this, I guess? This was my understanding, but I could easily be wrong. :) )
3rd Printing:
• MoS on any test is the dice result, successes are still *under* the modified target; roll high without going over (blackjack).
• Modified target is still capped at 99, but it doesn't matter because you're rolling a d100 anyway (so the best roll is 98, even if your target were 159).
There is also the argument that the core test mechanic is fundamentally flawed (because of capping, but exacerbated by the blackjack change), so that highly skill people have unrealistic inconsistency. (crizh can probably explain it better, I won't replicate the other thread myself: http://www.eclipsephase.com/reactions-3rd-printing-initiative).
Topics:
• Do you like the 3rd printing blackjack change, and why? (I do, the schizophrenia of 2nd was killing me, and the MoS=dice is simple.)
• Do you have conceptual complaints about the core mechanic in general?
• Do you have alternative core mechanic suggestions?
Welcome! These forums will be deactivated by the end of this year. The conversation continues in a new morph over on Discord! Please join us there for a more active conversation and the occasional opportunity to ask developers questions directly! Go to the PS+ Discord Server.
Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Tue, 2011-06-14 09:51
#1
Yerameyahu
Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Tue, 2011-06-14 10:02
#2
CodeBreaker
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
• Do you like the 3rd printing blackjack change, and why? (I do, the schizophrenia of 2nd was killing me, and the MoS=dice is simple.)
Yes I do. Unifying the normal/simple/opposed test mechanics has made play much more intuitive. It has also changed it so I now want to roll high. Rolling high is good. Rolling low is bad. Little numbers bad! CodeBreaker smash little numbers!
• Do you have conceptual complaints about the core mechanic in general?
Even when I first saw the mechanic change during proofreading, I saw that the change to MoS would lead to potential problems. While I do not have as much of a problem as Crizh has vocalized, I did not like that having an extremely high essential skill value is no longer [I]as[/i] valuable. If you have a skill of 99, any positive effective modifier no longer has any effect on MoS.
• Do you have alternative core mechanic suggestions?
My only problem is easily fixed by the addition of optional negative modifiers that can itself modify MoS. I detailed an example of such a rule in that other thread, detailed in a little collapse tag below.
[collapse] Aim High (Action Modifier)
Sometimes success if just not enough, you need to accomplish something with flair. By introducing extra negative modifiers to your action you are able to guarantee a minimum level of success. For every -10 modifier you apply to your test, on a success, your MoS is increased by 10. However, due to the increased risk introduced by doing this, on a failure your MoF is also increased by an equal amount. Note that the maximum -60 modifier on actions still applies.
Aiming High may not be combined with the Taking Extra Time effect, however it may be combined with Rushing the Job.
Example: James has a Beam Weapons skill of 60, with an applied modifier of +40. He is determined to show off to some friends, and so when taking a shot against a target he applies an Aim High modifier of -30 to his attack. He now has a Target Number of 70 (60+10). He rolls a 60, which would normally result in an MoS of 60, however because he Aimed High his MoS is modified up to 90 (60+30). An excellent success.
Had James failed his attack with a roll of 90, which would normally result in an MoF of 20, he would instead suffer from an MoF of 50 (20+30).
[/collapse]
—
-
Tue, 2011-06-14 10:11
#3
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I really like the Aim High concept. It seems the same as going for Admin access, or a Called Shot. I could see allowing it with Taking Time, personally. Either way, I appreciate that it modifies the existing system according to a familiar paradigm, and is acceptably simple.
I know that crizh's suggestion was something along the lines of d20-style: roll d100+skill+/mods, compare those numbers against each other (opposed), or against the TN=100 (simple tests). To me, that seems inelegent somehow, but I can see how it addresses his issues.
Tue, 2011-06-14 10:53
#4
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Cross-posting to avoid confusion.
You're either not paying careful attention, stupid or deliberately attempting to reframe the debate in such a way as to draw attention away from my actual point.
I won't engage with you in that manner so you can stop trying. I won't sugar coat any replies to that sort of rhetoric.
Discuss the issue at hand or shut up.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 10:51
#5
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I also like Aim High as a patch.
Conversely I feel that Aim High lacks elegance and I favour going with a fixed Target Number of 100 for all tests because it intrinsically fixes the problem without having to insert vast screeds of text.
To insert the Aim High mechanic would probably increase the rulebook's word count by several hundred. Fixed Target Number would probably decrease word count.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 11:31
#6
The Demon Code
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Except this is totally the issue at hand:
You are arguing that when two highly skilled individuals compete with positive modifiers, the skill system is broken. You think that this is unrealistic (instead of say, arguing from a game play perspective that the higher amount of CP/Rez spent to obtain high level skills should have more of an effect). This seem to be your entire problem with the system and to illustrate it you give several examples: notably a shooting competition and a Wimbledon.
You then proceed to bork your argument by using such large positive modifiers that your illustrated examples have no relationship to reality. To phrase it slightly differently, you are saying that the system fails to accurately simulate a real world event when the event is so modified that it has no longer has any relationship to reality.
Now as I have said in the previous post (albeit somewhat flippantly), you obviously are just using the eyeball method to assign a positive modifier of +10. And there is nothing wrong with using the eyeball method (it even says so in the core book). It is just that Wimbledon and a shooting competition that can distinguish between high level pros are not going to be Easy (+10 modifier, check out page 115).
So I submit to you, that the TN resolution system isn't what is broken, it is the way that you are eyeballing the modifiers. Instead of Easy (+10) both of the competitions should be difficult (-10) or worse.
Without addressing the flaw with your examples caused by assigning a large positive modifier (which you refuse to do), your arguments will always be unpersuasive (at least to me :) ) and I will continue to argue that the current system is not broken (at least in this respect).
Tue, 2011-06-14 13:07
#7
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
So your entire argument is that positive modifiers rarely bring modified skill totals over 100 in real life so it's a non-issue?
This is just so ludicrous as to be laughable.
Who the hell do you think has +30 gear? World class athletes at the peak of their careers?
Who has specializations on skills that are nearly max'ed out? The best of the best looking to get an edge over their competition?
I'm not eyeballing anything. I'm defining a perfectly reasonable subset of circumstances that are extremely likely to be present in high end competition. How those circumstances are arrived at IS WHOLLY IRRELEVANT TO THE ARGUMENT.
Such circumstances are likely to arise, in my experience quite regularly, in play and the current resolution method is unsatisfactory from both a mechanical and purely aesthetic point of view.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 13:18
#8
bblonski
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
So how does it work in play? Is the extra complexity of the skill + roll vs TN worth it?
Personally, I find EPs core mechanic more elegant than a fixed TN system. I wouldn't want to throw that away to handle a situation that so far for me has never come up in play even once. I actually like the idea of capping all skills at 98, including modifiers. It helps prevent min/maxing and enforces the idea of diminishing returns. I think this results in more well rounded characters and a different focus on how you play.
This is actually one of the reasons I prefer this system over the d20 system. In d20, there is no diminishing returns so everyone focuses on just a few skills and maxes them out. You have TN inflation as you play to keep the players challenged, and the TNs were never really meaningful. I find the 1-100 TNs more intuitive. 70 means you have a 70% chance at succeeding for example as opposed to a TN of 24 with a skill of 10. One is a lot harder to eyeball how likely you are to succeed.
If you do go with a fixed TN system. I recommend dividing all numbers by 5 and using a d20. Smaller numbers makes the math easier.
Tue, 2011-06-14 14:43
#9
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I can't say for certain but I don't think that a fixed TN system would be in any way more complex. Perhaps one more addition or subtraction compared to about ten.
The most complex part of either system is calculating modifiers and the number of variables there easily swamps a single calculation increase in complexity.
I usually find I spend a lot of time calculating modifiers. In the pbp game I'm in it usually takes me a good ten minutes to pore through all the relevant tables to ensure I haven't missed anything. Obviously this would go faster in a normal game where you refer to the tables more than once a week/month but the amount of work doesn't decrease.
I wouldn't recommend going to d20 either. Six and two threes obviously but I prefer the extra resolution of d100. You're far less likely to end up with a tie.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 15:37
#10
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I don't think you could change to a d100+X system without also altering the modifiers. As EP stands, players are obligated to 'hunt down' all relevant modifiers so that they can reliably succeed at their 'professional' grade skills of 60-70, but bad luck still exists.
If you uncap the top end, you get people 'taking 10' (D&D 3.5e mastery-monkeys), with no chance of failure. I find it boring, and I think the ability of superlative skills in EP to compensate for negative modifiers to be an acceptable reward. They're both valid mechanic philosophies, yes. I'm only saying I *prefer* the one where expertise doesn't scale infinitely. For something like 'Aim High', the GM would always be able to control the situation; with d100+130, the GM has to start inventing reasons for that -60 modifier.
Tue, 2011-06-14 16:03
#11
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Nope, you've lost me there.
Roll and add with a fixed TN of 100 is, statistically, exactly the same system we are currently using. It's just been turned upside down.
Why would you need to alter the modifiers? If you can guarantee success under fixed TN you can already do it now.
You would probably reverse 00 and 99 result effects to ensure luck always played a small part regardless of how good or bad you are.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 16:08
#12
The Demon Code
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Close. Limit that to opposed tests that aren't task actions or otherwise timed and serve to reliably distinguish between opponents of high skill usually won't have net positive modifiers and therefore it is a non-issue and that would be my argument.
Glad I made you laugh :D.
People who won't get banned for using corked bats or otherwise cheating :). Seriously, professional athletes are a bad example since most competitions explicitly regulate the equipment used (and thus the positive modifier). Those that don't tend to either be more challenging to compensate or more about the gear than the skill of the person involved. I am thinking Unlimited Class Rail Guns and the like here.
That being said: Suppose Person A is an average Joe with an relevant aptitude of 10 (he is a flat obviously :) ) and no relevant skills. Now suppose Person A buy a really nice set of running equipment (the kind Olympic sprinters use). Now can Person A, with no practice but really good equipment, compete on even terms with a college track team who happen to be equipped with standard running shoes? (My answer is no :) , though I am open to counter-examples).
Exactly, because in those competitions, they are attempting to over come a net negative modifier (otherwise why would they bother? It's not like anyone ever becomes an Olympic class top Tee-Ball athlete).
I think you are confused about what we are arguing about (probably because of my poor English skills :( ). We disagree that the a reasonable set of circumstances for a non-time scored opposed test between people of high skill that is capable of reliably distinguishing between them will have a positive modifier.
Because this is what we disagree about, just waving your hands and saying that a professional tennis player has a constant net +10 modifier (which looks exactly like eyeballing it) when playing in the Wimbledon or a marksman has a constant +10 net bonus is not convincing (which is why I am not convinced). You should explain why they have a net +10 modifier (the competition is easy) and not a net -10 modifier (the competition is hard), or -60, or +40 or any other modifier for that matter.
A good example/reasoned argument would change my mind. However, without one I know of no reason to change the core rules of the current system and will continue to argue that you shouldn't fix what isn't broken.
If something is ruining the game for you, but not anyone else, you should probably house rule it. But there is little reason to make significant changes to the core rules. Speaking of house rules:
I wouldn't recommend this on the grounds that you would have to modify the moxie system and criticals and probably a lot of other things to compensate and it is probably more trouble than it is worth.
Tue, 2011-06-14 16:38
#13
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I guess I was unclear. I wasn't saying that people can't achieve 98 on the existing system. I was saying that there's not the same incentive to do so as in your uncapped system. People won't bother with 159 when they know that 98 is enough. This is a 'philosophical' difference on which tastes can vary.
I do know that EP tends toward capping, and *not* rewarding excessive perfection. A morph with +10 REF does nothing for you if your natural REF is already 40, and having +30 quality gear doesn't (often) help the character with skill 90+spec. That's just the game philosophy.
Tue, 2011-06-14 16:56
#14
nezumi.hebereke
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
• Do you like the 3rd printing blackjack change, and why?
Yes and no. It's simpler to remember, but it means that determining the modifiers is more important, since it marks the difference between Awesome success and failure (rather than alright success and failure). If I'm moving fast, that means I'll spend more time on that calculation.
• Do you have conceptual complaints about the core mechanic in general?
I wish it was more complex :) I'd love to see something like Shadowrun (1/2/3). I like bell curves. I like diminishing returns. EP's flat probability curve bothers me. However, it bothers me less than it would with D&D since tests seem to be more frequently in the 'you're almost certainly going to fail/succeed' camp rather than in the middle of the hump. Plus, the whole system necessarily is mechanics light (due to the complexities of the system).
Now that I understand crizh was referring to something like the D&D system, I have a better appreciation for what he's saying. Still though, I disagree. If you have equal skill to the other guy due to modifiers (or whatever) then you either trust luck, or throw more modifiers into the mix. The effective cap thing is odd because it makes sense in some skills, but not in others. Some skills that tiny difference between first and second best is significant, but sometimes it's completely washed out by other factors.
Regardless, I wouldn't go to the D&D system. It adds complexity for no real advantage.
Tue, 2011-06-14 17:10
#15
Killebrew
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
So I'll open up this comment by saying that I have still not yet played the game, so perhaps everyone who has could tell me if this is a bad way of doing it or not.
I don't quite understand why it was changed so that the MoS is equal to the dice roll as opposed to the [skill]-[d100], particularly in regards to opposed tests. I would have thought a simpler, and in my opinion more elegant, change would be to instead have it so that whomever has the higher MoS wins in an opposed test. E.g person A has a skill of 25 and person B has a skill of 45, A gets a roll of 01 for an MoS of 24, and B gets a roll of 25 for an MoS of 20, leaving person A as the winner of this particular opposed test.
This obviously leaves person B as having an advantage since they can achieve a higher MoS than person A and it still keeps the systems pretty much the same as previous where lower is better instead of wanting to roll as high as possible below your skill level.
Just my two cents.
—
---
Tue, 2011-06-14 17:16
#16
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
MoS comparison was discussed prior to this change, but ultimately I think most people discarded it for being too complex. It requires you to compute both MoS, then compare them. All of these options are basically the same numerically, but the blackjack one requires no computation. Honestly, you can use any of them you prefer. :)
I agree, nezumi: I like bell curves and diminishing returns as well. Hmm.
Tue, 2011-06-14 18:49
#17
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I surely don't have a problem with diminishing returns, just returns that completely stop.
As to the comparing MoS suggestion I suspect that was my original position but that I was persuaded elsewhere that the fixed TN solution was more elegant.
It was pointed out in that discussion that comparing MoS wasn't any more complex because you calculate MoS for every roll anyway as a matter of course.
I said before that I don't think the rules explicitly cap modified skill values and that I believe that they should not do so for exactly the same reasons I am arguing for an alteration to the blackjack system.
With modifiers capped at +60 I don't think you suffer the sort of nonsense you saw in DnD 3.5 with bonuses completely overwhelming the RNG to the point that it was impossible to compete with anyone that was a specialist in a particular area.
The biggest delta it is possible to have in skill is 98 and any bonus one guy can get the other can also acquire so you always stand a chance of victory. It is just very unlikely.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 18:56
#18
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Just a small comment on this.
My point is that if you have more skill than the other guy and have equal modifiers then statistically you should always win eventually.
As it stands at the very high end this simply ceases to be the case and you end up flipping a coin.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Tue, 2011-06-14 23:23
#19
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
On the subject of capping, crizh, I still think there's (was?) precedent in the system for capping as the default; see my example of Apts, as well as the simple fact that skills cap at 90. That is, I think it's part of the game philosophy that crutches stop helping you at some point, and you can only get so good. This obviously isn't the only valid philosophy. :)
I don't know if I've seen you respond to the the repeated response to your core issue ('higher skill and equal mods doesn't favor higher skill at the high end'), which again is that 'equal modifiers' isn't an important case to compare. Instead, you should compare unequal modifiers. Even without 'Aim High', there are various ways that having a higher skill lets you excel—this of course includes 'not needing those bonuses'.
So, I think we can sum up a little bit. The system proposed by crizh (d100+skill+/-mods, or 'uncapped') allows the full range of dice outcomes to always matter. This matters (I think?) in two ways: for opposed tests between max-skill chars, and for giving high-skill chars reliably high MoS (and, if it matters, beyond 100 MoS).
The 3rd Printing system (capped, or 'blackjack') has the effect of making high MoS unpredictable (and capped at 98, or is it 97?), as well as making opposed tests between chars with modified skill+/-mods > 98 a pure toss-up. Whether this is a feature or a bug is a matter of perspective, I guess. Arguably, the blackjack system is simpler or faster, though perhaps not in cases where a patch like 'Aim High' is used. :)
If these are accurate summaries, then it comes down to a personal preference between the more absolute 'uncapped' comparison of skills, or the more luck-driven (unpredictable) blackjack system. Yes?
--
On a side note, one issue was certain categories of success that require certain MoS (Excellent/30), e.g. Hidden Mode during mesh intrusion. In such a case, I see two possibilities. One, Hidden Mode is a kind of bonus critical that shouldn't be something you rely on getting. Conversely, two: Hidden Mode is an intentional target just like Admin Access, so it should be a -30 modifier (like Admin Access). Either of these addresses the issue, depending on your point of view. Are there other such examples? In most cases, Excellent Successes are mere improved effects, but in some cases they're a whole separate thing.
Glancing back at the rules, I guess Called Shots actually require Excellent Success, instead of imposing a -30; I was thinking Shadowrun, whoops. The tradeoff is that if you miss a Called Shot, you still can get an ordinary hit. This is basically the tradeoff with Hidden Mode and the following examples as well, though not always. Conversion to a straight -30 would remove that 'fall-back' effect.
Knockdown requires Excellent, but 'failure' to achieve that still gets your knockback.
The new Subdual rules require an MoS of (enemy DUR), so that's relevant.
Besides Hidden Mode, Upgrading Status also requires Excellent to do anything. :( This one in particular seems like a good candidate for conversion to a -30.
Wed, 2011-06-15 03:13
#20
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
First, skills cap at 99, yesno?
I thought I'd dealt with 'crutches stop helping you at some point'?
The ease with which crutches bring even the moderately skilled up to the cap doesn't tally with the consistency with which a highly skilled individual still trounces such an opponent.
Yes there are some binary outcome circumstances where there is no 'degree of success' to compare but these are more the exception than the rule.
Higher skill equal mods was more of an edge case responding to that one post.
I think my argument boils down to.
- Higher modified skill should always be victorious eventually.
- A cap on modified skill allows moderately skilled individuals to reliably defeat higher skilled individuals in an unrealistic manner.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 03:52
#21
CodeBreaker
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I think this is the primary issue. Like it or not, Eclipse Phase is an [i]extremely[/i] gameable system. It is not difficult to have an effective modifier of +40-60, even after applying negatives from things like blind fighting/cover/smoke. People who are saying otherwise need to have a good look through the book and pick out all the modifiers that can be applied to tests such as infosec actions or during a gunfight.
Because of this, anyone with any preparation time at all can max out their skill consistently. I agree with Crizh that this is a problem. It wasn't a problem in the old method because the people with high skill could still get a higher TN, and thus a higher degree of success to set themselves aside from the masses.
For some reason I am instinctively against a TN=100, skill+d100 method. Not sure why. I think it is because it involves adding big numbers, and I play with one or two people who already struggle adding their skill of 56 and a +30 modifier. So for now, I think I will be applying my Aim High rule and seeing how it actually plays.
This discussion has actually been quite helpful for me. Has helped me rationalize and fix some of my misgivings about the blackjack system.
(Edit; Just realised that I have been arguing rules systems with crizh across the years, or atleast I think I have! :D Started on dumpshock, involving the Agent Smith problem, and now here. That must of been like, 2 years ago... I feel old D:)
—
-
Wed, 2011-06-15 04:23
#22
bblonski
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Interesting. Have you tried rolling before you calculated modifiers? Seriously. If you roll a 12 and you have a skill of 60, you don't even need to consider modifiers (unless there are massive penalties). It's probably different in a pbp game, but around the table, I often don't even have to count modifiers. This is why I think the mechanic as it stands is more elegant for 90% of the time. Just roll. If it's questionable, then look up all the modifiers. If not, the number of additions and subtractions you had to do just dropped to zero.
Wed, 2011-06-15 04:40
#23
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I didn't like it when I first saw it either. Not least because it was something Frank Trollman suggested in a fairly scathing review of EP. Frank is famously lacking in tact and rubs everyone he disagrees with the wrong way and I sure didn't agree with his opinions about the setting.
However, the more I thought about it, the more I realized that my objection to such a change wasn't based on it's merit but on my own natural mental inertia. I was used to the system as it was and it just felt like such a sweeping change that it would stop being EP for me.
Thing is though, I felt exactly the same way when Shadowrun transitioned to 2nd edition, D&D to 3rd and to 3.5. Turns out that most of that was my natural, knee-jerk dislike of change. Sometimes when you look at things dispassionately it turns out that you are in fact wrong and change was needed and this is a better way.
I don't go to DS much any more. Catalyst treated AH and Jen so badly and almost every left there is such a brown nosing toady that I can't bear to read it any more.
Silver lining, AH has started posting some extremely fine (IMNSHO) short stories and CoC stuff which would probably never have seen the light of day otherwise.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 04:44
#24
Gee4orce
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I think the Blackjack rule is an improvement (of course I do, I suggested it ! - Adam said it was something they'd already considered though).
I don't see a problem with MoS - my take on it is if your skill is so high that it's >100 then you're only ever going to distinguish yourself in difficult circumstances. When doing relatively easy tasks you're no better off than someone with more modest skill. I happen to think this is perfectly realistic.
That's for static tests though - testing your skill against a fixed number. When you're in an opposed test then I can see how it might feel wrong that the super-skilled character doesn't have a better chance of success than the merely great skilled character. There's a simple fix though:
Rolled skill is capped at 98 (rolling 99 is always a failure). However, any effective skill > 100 is added to your MoS if you succeed.
So if I have a modified skill rating of 138 (say) I roll d100 : 99 is a failure, but any other value will be a success. My MoS = 138 - 100 = 38 + rolled number. So if I rolled 27 my MoS is 65 !
This is a simple enough fix, and gives value to having very high skill. It does introduce some additional maths - but in practice you only really need to add the additional MoS if you're close enough to the target number to need to consider it. For instance, if your roll easily beats your target then no need to worry about doing the maths (unless the exact MoS is needed). You can generally 'eyeball' if your additional MoS might swing things before doing the actual addition.
So, I'm happy with the new mechanics. I do think that, in a setting where shifting your physical body is *encouraged*, the skills and stats system could be better engineered to make this painless and fun. But that's a separate issue.
Wed, 2011-06-15 04:46
#25
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
That doesn't feel like role-playing to me.
I need to be making informed choices. Is a particular shot a sure thing or a hail Mary? I might still take the hail Mary but I prefer to do so because that's what it is and it is in character to do so.
I'm rarely as skilled in any area as the characters I'm playing so I try to avoid flailing around like a noob when performing the role of a trained, world class professional.
Every play style is, of course, valid but I would prefer a system that supported all of them as well as possible for a given degree of complexity.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 04:54
#26
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I agree this also fixes the problem and I seem to recall it being proposed previously in the errata thread.
My position remains that it just isn't as elegant or simple as the fixed TN system. I've yet to see any convincing fault found in it and I'm certain the resistance to it's implementation is purely down to reflexive dislike of major change. People are much happier with incremental change, boiling frogs to death etc, and I've seen several adequate, incremental solutions to the problem.
I had just hoped that when a major change was being made folks might be willing to bite the bullet and have the courage to go for a proper fix instead of papering over the cracks.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 09:42
#27
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Right, 99. Typo. :( My point was that there'd be no skill cap if they wanted you to go above that; EP is a system that caps things.
It sounds like I summarized accurately, crizh: you think it's important for higher skill to win at the top end, and others don't. The proposed patches are to satisfy your view, but I don't think they're evidence of the inherent rightness of your perspective. :) This stuff about inertia and courage isn't argument, it's browbeating.
Personally, I like dice pools. ;) I hate the way people with respectable skills (60) have to go hunting for modifiers to *not* fail.
Wed, 2011-06-15 09:55
#28
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I haven't seen any evidence of the inherent wrongness of my perspective.
Surely if those that don't think it is important also don't think that it is undesirable then a system where both perspectives can co-exist is ideal.
If there is nothing wrong with the fixed TN system and it fixes a flaw that some percentage of the user base perceive to be a problem (me) then why the resistance to it's implementation?
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:13
#29
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
It's not a change in isolation, and it doesn't just optionally fix that one issue. As I think has been made clear, it's a trade. Some people (I'm in a rush, so I can't go look) expressed the opinion that high-skill characters *shouldn't* be differentiated in non-adverse situations. (Aside: I apologize that I can't engage this whole argument with the same passion as you, because I don't really care as much, but I do find the discussion interesting. I'm not trying to 'spoil' your victory, hehe.)
On a related note, I guess you should also remove the 99 skill cap and the 40 aptitude cap, right?
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:11
#30
nezumi.hebereke
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I'm also a little surprised that you have difficulties. I have issues when I'm doing something special, like burst fire vs. autofire. But if my guy is just running around with a handgun and things hit the fan, I don't stress too much about looking up the modifiers first. I note the range of my weapon and figure if the other guy's range is higher or lower than mine. I use cover and movement. I shoot if I have LOS or just to serve as a distraction. Then I roll. Only if my roll is close to my skill level do I bother to actually tally all the modifiers. There's no combat pool to mess with, and moxie comes up so rarely. Both sides have a flat probability curve so I don't worry too much about whether I or the other guy is more likely to hit unless the modifiers are really stacked up one way (and in that case, it should be immediately obvious without reviewing any tables).
In general, the system definitely seems like it was made to be simple and fast, and permit a lot of superhuman stuff. I fully expect that, if I give my PCs time to approach a challenge, they can bump it up to a TN of 70 or 90 without much trouble. As a GM, I have to engineer problems so that the dice roll just isn't available until the time is right (or keep things moving too fast for them to focus their attention). I suspect that was one of EP's goals, so the current system may be more appropriate then other systems. It feels like 'mechanics get out of the way, I have a story to tell'.
I really have never seen the situation of Guy A with skill of 99 and Guy B with skill of 90, both with +10 modifiers are stuck with a series of repeating tests. It seems like a fringe case. If it did come up, I'd figure out some more negative modifiers to put on, or just engineer the challenge so the dice are less important than something else.
BTW, I wouldn't write off DSF too much. Still a lot of us oldies on, talking about oldie stuff, with most of the other conversations being questions new players have on how to run SR4. Not as much corporate shilling as there was a year ago.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:24
#31
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
No no, I think for the most part they are fine. I'm a little iffy about the aptitude cap, particularly SOM but it doesn't seem to be a big problem.
Caps in general are a problem I feel. Mostly when they aren't caps. Look at skills in SR4. Humans are capped at 10 and only in very limited circumstances. You can't have a Sorcery of 9 for example.
Spirits and Dragons crap all over this system because they are given a free pass on these limitations.
I'm not a big fan of overcomplicating the system to fix minor problems. If a minor problem can be fixed with a nice streamlined, simple, elegant change I don't see the point in not opting for the better approach but cluttering the system with cruft to deal with stuff that doesn't matter is not something I'm a fan of.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:25
#32
Gee4orce
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Maybe not - but it's sub-optimal for most people, most of the time.
Lets say you are right in the middle of an exciting climax to your game session and your character wants to pull off some crazy-ass move that's going to save the day. Say the relevant skill + modifiers comes to 65, and I need a margin of success of 30+. I roll d100 and get a 43.
Honestly, which of these two methods resolve the action quickest:
1) add 43 to 65 and it it's more than 100, do I have a MoS of 30. Hmm. 43+65 is one hundred, and, erm eight. That's a MoS of 8, so no, I fail.
2) 43 is less than 65. MoS is 43. Succeed.
There's no comparison.
I think it's clear that most people are happy with the Rules As Written, perhaps with a little house rule here or there to enhance the edge cases. You're not happy, that's clear - I see the reason, but for me the trade off in terms of play speed is more than enough to overlook any other problems.
I can't believe we're wasting this much effort discussing this. Can we not all just put our efforts into creating something *new* and fun ? I have my hit location & partial armour rules to finish…
Wed, 2011-06-15 10:34
#33
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
No one wants hit location rules, ever. ;)
The discussion is the point here (for me). These forums tend toward 'tomb quiet', and I like to get a full and clear understand of what other people think.
I certainly understand the appeal of no-cap systems, especially when not everyone is the same thing (humans vs. dragons). I'm not sure I like linear no-cap systems, though; possibly I mean 'control die' instead of 'linear'.
Wed, 2011-06-15 12:43
#34
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Hahahahahaha!
Seriously? You're going to compare two systems going in opposite directions with the same die roll?
Say the relevant skill + modifiers comes to 65, and I need a margin of success of 30+.
In the current system I know that I need to roll between 30 and 65. In my proposed system I know that I need roll at least 65. (I mean really, how hard is it to work out that your skill is 65 and you need a total of at least 130 so you need 65 on the dice.)
I roll d100 and get a 73.
Current system fails by 8, proposed system succeeds by 8. That's a MoF of 8 and a MoS of 38. Not exactly challenging maths and easy to eyeball in both instances.
Yes my system had more steps before the roll. One more step before the roll. Likelihood is you had to do between five and ten steps to arrive at modified skill total anyway.
That one was a success and one a fail means nothing because they use wildly disparate systems for calculating MoS that cannot be directly compared on the same die roll. We all know they had the same probabilities to start with.
Frankly if you can't manage one more arithmetical step out of ten you probably never made it through char-gen in EP.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Wed, 2011-06-15 12:52
#35
CodeBreaker
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
What? Really?... aww man. *puts away his hit location rules*.
—
-
Wed, 2011-06-15 13:27
#36
The Demon Code
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
• Do you like the 3rd printing blackjack change, and why?
At first I didn't just because it was different, but the increased playability really grew on me after I used it a bit. Note that I was using the interpretation that the old system capped the target numbers at 98.
• Do you have conceptual complaints about the core mechanic in general?
Not at all. I like how the core mechanic and the system work together in order to encourage diversified characters rather than hyper-specialized ones. Overall, I think that the core mechanic does a good job balancing between playability and reality (noting that my previous experience was mostly with 3.5 D&D) and really that is what I want most out of an RPG system.
• Do you have alternative core mechanic suggestions?
No, I like how the game plays as is :).
Fri, 2011-06-17 06:31
#37
Gee4orce
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
My point was not that one roll succeeds and one fails - that's almost inevitable using any particular rolled number - but that the resolution of fixed TN requires more working out that the resolution of the blackjack system.
Yes, it may only be one more thing to add - but you're not adding neat 5 or 10 interval numbers like you do with skill and bonuses. The dice can come up with awkward numbers to sum. You or I may not struggle adding 63 + 73 (although, doing that dozens of times in an evening isn't exactly my idea of a fun night out), but many people will struggle or at least be slow to do that maths. Just looking at the rolled number is easy because *there is no maths*
If I were programming software to run EP then I might opt for your system, as calculation speed isn't an issue. But as I'm looking for a fun, workable rule that people can work out quickly in their heads without doing arbitrary math when the'd rather be having fun, I prefer the rules as written.
For skill > 100 there is a simple solution of just adding the skill in excess of 100 directly to the roll as MoS.
Fri, 2011-06-17 10:02
#38
nezumi.hebereke
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I'm not following why that's a problem. Does the d100 roll different with one system compared to another? He's just inserting a random number between 0 and 99. But moving on ...
However, I still don't think you've defined what you mean by your ... flat TN system I think you called it? except that if person A and person B are in a contest, they're rolling with no TN and whoever gets the higher number wins. So I'm going to try to understand what you're saying here (and probably fail).
Here's where I'm confused, especially since later your roll of 73 is a MoS of 38.
73 - 65 is 8, so is your necessary 'MoS' wrapped into your 'modifiers' there? Is the equation Skill (35) + modifiers (necessary MoS of 30) = 65? I'm really confused here.
So your system is:
Take skill
Add modifiers
Roll 1d100. If roll is ABOVE Skill + Modifiers, that's a success?
Does that mean when I get better at skills, my skill level goes down?
I'm still baffled.
Fri, 2011-06-17 10:24
#39
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
My understanding was d100+skill+/-mods, then -100? I dunno.
On the subject of capping, I'm at least partially in favor of it. I like the peace of mind of knowing where the end is, and not having to keep chasing modifiers when I know I'm already there (like, 'how much Teamwork can I convince the GM to allow this time?'). I do understand the drawbacks (from some perspectives) but they do push you away from the charop and back into the game, and they do encourage diversification. …And leave room for TITANs/fractals to be better, if they're uncapped.
Fri, 2011-06-17 12:02
#40
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Maybe I'm just more used to doing basic arithmetic in my head than most folks these days but none of these calculations seem complex enough to justify being a point against such a system.
Like I already said, if think that if you've made it through char-gen then you've demonstrated sufficient arithmetical skill to cope with such a change without really noticing the difference.
---
Fixed TN:
All skill checks are made against a target number of 100. Roll and add skill plus relevant modifiers.
MoS is the amount that you exceed this number.
Opposed checks...
You know what, as I type this I find myself deciding that the system needs a much more major overhaul than this.
There are too many circumstances where the mere fact that a test is opposed changes the dynamic wildly and unrealistically. Psychosurgery and Hacking are two examples that spring straight to mind.
The whole success/fail/exceptional success/critical success thing creates a muddy confusion of results. I would prefer a system where MoS is calculated from how well you defeat your opponent and your degree of success is calculated directly from MoS.
Hidden Status for example is currently dependent on something that the Hacker has no control over no matter how skilled or well equipped he/she/it is. It's pretty easy to secure any system by just having a large enough group of shmucks peering at it which seems a bit unfair.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Fri, 2011-06-17 14:12
#41
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Indeed, crizh. If you're familiar with Alternity, it had an automatic success grading from the dice/skill interaction: you got a Good, or Amazing success, depending if your roll was (between half and equal to skill), (between quarter and half), or (less than quarter). For 'no-fail' tests, there's also Marginal (anything else).
This is similar to the Excellent success setup, except it's more granular, and (IIRC) there were no 'categorical' effects of higher grades (Hidden Mode). Would it fix things to remove special categorical effects of Excellent success (of which there are several in the book), replacing it with at least 2-3 tiers (I'm happy with Ordinary/Good/Amazing)? And would this be feasible (simple, fast, etc.)?
Fri, 2011-06-17 20:59
#42
bblonski
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Adding skill > 100 to your roll is pretty basic arithmetic too, but you count that as a point against the current system (granted it's a patch and not in the official rules). The problem is no that the math is trivial, but precisely because the math is trivial. Most of my players barely made it through chargen because it was so damn boring. It's not hard, but filling out spreadsheets is not what most would consider fun. My players appreciate any effort to reduce the number of trivial math calculations so that they can focus on the events of the game itself.
If you have a math heavy group (engineers maybe?), then they might even enjoy all the math calculations, but some groups prefer the numbers to get out of the way. Neither is correct, but MY opinion is that EP has more in common with a rules light storytelling system like Fate or Savage Worlds than a tactical rules heavy system like D&D or BattleTech. I'd say it falls somewhere in the middle really, but I feel fixed TN pushes it just a little more towards the rules heavy system and puts a little more focus on the numbers and takes away focus from the storytelling.
I don't think the changes are that dramatic. In fact, they are both essentially 2 different success tests. In hacking for example, the intruder rolls a success test to break into the system. After than, the sysadmin rolls a success test to detect intruders. Both succeeding is a perfectly legit outcome. You could break down down every opposed roll into two success checks and it would barely change the system.
If you like the fixed TN system, by all means go with it. I'm actually curious how much it changes the gameplay. My group rejected the idea flat out, so I won't be able to test it out. Maybe someone can test this out next session and report their player's opinions?
Sat, 2011-06-18 02:55
#43
crizh
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I'd be tempted to have two types of opposed tests. Tug of war and best performance.
Certain opposed tests, like an archery competition are won by the best performer but that performance is independent of the performance of the opposition.
Others, like combat or tennis, the winners performance is directly altered by the performance of their adversary.
One would have MoS equal to Check-100 and the other based on Check(winning)-Check(losing).
If your interested in a 'vigorous' debate regarding the merits of 'roll under', 'black jack' and 'roll over' as mechanical concepts you might have a look here.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Sat, 2011-06-18 08:31
#44
Yerameyahu
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
It is true that Opposed test MoS are, in that sense, unrelated to each other. An excellent-but-insufficient dodge roll doesn't cause a grazing wound, after all. This is once again in the feature-not-a-bug category, I guess. :)
Ugh, I can't read that thread; whatever value is there, it's polluted with random and irrational vitriol from Frank Trollman.
Mon, 2011-06-20 11:21
#45
Skimble
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Let's look at the probabilities.
MoS is usually only relevant when you're checking to see if you got a +30 or a +60 MoS because those are the thresholds used by the rules to determine if something special happened. In both the old and new system the higher your skill the greater your chance of obtaining a +30 or +60 MoS.
If we take someone with a skill of 110 and look at the two systems and where he'd get a +60 MoS:
In the old system he'd get a +60 MoS on a roll of 00 to 50.
In the new system he'd get a +60 MoS on a roll of 60 to 98.
And someone with a skill of 90 (A bit more realistic for everyday purposes):
In the old system he'd get a +60 MoS on a roll of 00 to 30.
In the new system he'd get a +60 MoS on a roll of 60 to 90.
That's interesting. At numbers under 100 it seems the odds are the same both ways round? Let's check that:
Results giving MoS of 60+ Results giving MoS of 30+
Skill Old System New System Old System New System
50 - 00 - 20 30 - 50
60 00 60 00 - 30 30 - 60
70 00 - 10 60 - 70 00 - 40 30 - 70
80 00 - 20 60 - 80 00 - 50 30 - 80
90 00 - 30 60 - 90 00 - 60 30 - 90
98 00 - 38 60 - 98 00 - 68 30 - 98
110 00 - 50 60 - 98 00 - 80 30 - 98
120 00 - 60 60 - 98 00 - 90 30 - 98
130 00 - 70 60 - 98 00 - 98 30 - 98
140 00 - 80 60 - 98 Ditto Ditto
150 00 - 90 60 - 98 Ditto Ditto
160 00 - 98 60 - 98 Ditto Ditto
Erk, sorry, not sure how to pretty that table up. =/
Okay, so the odds are definitely the same for numbers of up to 98 and start diverging after that, with the range of +60 MoS results widening by 10 for each 10-point increase of skill under the old system where it remains fixed at 60 - 90 in the new system.
What's the easiest fix to this? *I* don't think one is necessary. It's already impossible for actual skills to exceed 99. This, logically, is the absolute maximum of transhuman ability. Gaining additional bonuses to your skill after 98 is entirely pointless with regard to your MoS unless you have penalties to deal with. Is there something wrong with this simple, effective solution?
Is it a problem for there to be a cap on the maximum available skill level? Surely any scale comparing like against like must have a peak position against which everything else is compared and after which it is meaningless to apply bonuses? The best is the best. Someone with a lower skill needs a smartlink to bring himself up to the standards of the best but the best can't be made any better by the use of an advantage like that (though it is useful for offsetting penalties).
Having said that I do like the idea of Aiming High and in fact I believe I will introduce it to my game. It allows for a better degree of control over the vagaries of luck than Moxie alone.
Tue, 2011-06-21 09:17
#46
Masa
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
I like the new system, is more streamlined. In my games I will susbtract the success grades in oposed rolls. If we have basic, 30+, 60+ and 90+, and I punch a guy and get a 60+ success and he dodges for a basic success, he reduces my attack to a 30+ (ie. +5 damage). Fast and fair.
Tue, 2011-06-21 09:38
#47
nezumi.hebereke
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Blackjack and Core Test Mechanic
Indeed, crizh's system is mathematically equivalent to the current system for TN+Skill of 99 or below.
Crizh's system does require one additional calculation (an addition, specifically).
Since I have as of yet to see any situation as crizh describes, following his system would result in a net loss for no gain. Therefore, it's not a system I have any interest in using.
I consider myself an 'average' player/GM, so I assume that would apply for most people.
Should a player find himself regularly hitting these 99+ skill rolls, and feeling his fun diminished because of it, crizh's system may be superior (it's difficult to say for certain, since you'd have to quantify 'fun' and the percentage of rolls which have this issue. If say 2% of rolls, one out of fifty, have this problem, and you're seriously bothered, I guess it would make sense. If you have less than one out of fifty, it's not worth the additional calculation for all 50 of those rolls.)
I would agree with this. If two guys are fencing, and one guy gets a 65 (success) and the other gets a 64 (success), while the win would go to the 65, it should be an 'excellent offense but 64's defenses narrowly deflected, resulting in only a grazing wound', not just an 'excellent success'. The current system reduces the number of hits a fencer gets against a better opponent, but statistically those hits that get through are usually quantitatively better.
However, in view of expedience and simplicity, I'm not especially bothered by it. And again, most opposed tests are to achieve different goals; you're trying to break in, he's trying to detect you.
Well ... yes. That's how real life works. The more eyes you have, the better you are. Granted, that section should go into detail on what are appropriate 'tools' for detecting a hacker, but that whole section is pretty scarce. But ultimately, if you're cracking into a place with five or six active security hackers defending it, reviewing IDS alerts, audit log files and so on, you WILL get caught. That's not an abstraction. Don't use those sorts of methods against those systems.
(I would, however, argue that if they are all watching the same feeds, that they don't get to make separate rolls. Instead, they get to make one roll with teamwork bonuses. So having eight guys watching is no better than having four guys.)