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: Initiative

77 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mon, 2011-05-30 11:49
#1
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I really love the 3rd Printing/Errata 1.2.1. Loving blackjack tests. Very solid, smart changes, and a little thrill cuz I tell myself I contributed to two of the little tweaks (no one burst my bubble, okay?). Hehe. I do want to ask you guys how you're liking the 'cosmetic' initiative change. I think we've lost something, honestly. Mainly, there are no more criticals, and (while minor) there's less granularity in the possible scores—ties aren't very elegant. To me, these both add a little more depth and variability to things, and I never thought d100 was more complicated. I guess my issue is that the change *isn't* purely cosmetic.
Top
Mon, 2011-05-30 14:38
Hailspork Hailspork's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
It's definitely more than a cosmetic change, but I do see a few advantages. First off, before this change, there were three ways to roll dice: Skill/Stat checks (d100), weapon damage (Xd10+Y), and init (1d100+Y); each of which uses d10's differently. Now there are only 2, since weapon damage and init are now the same. There something about the extra consistency that I like. They could've gone the other way and made init into the order of who rolled highest and succeeded followed by everybody who failed, but that's probably just over-complicating things; particularly with inits > 100. Secondly, larger numbers are harder to keep track of. Lastly, I'm not sure that initiative crits are that important. With regular skills, more ranks in a skill means (approximately) proportionally more critical successes and less critical failures (inversely proportional). With initiative, there's a 10% crit chance all around. I suppose it could be handy when one side has an init 9 or 10 points higher (depending on how you handle ties) and there's no chance for the other person to win (without moxie), but should that a person with so much lower an init even have a 9% chance to win?
Top
Mon, 2011-05-30 14:59
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Yeah, I know we're talking about a pretty minor difference, and one that involves personal taste. Are larger numbers really harder to keep track of (an extra digit)? And is the change from 3 ways to 2 a big deal? (Maybe so.) Your point about criticals is great, and I agree… but I just like the sheer randomness thrown in. In combat, sometimes that person just *does* go first. I like extra luck in there. I definitely don't think they should have done anything else to Initiative (skill check, etc.). So, the old way has random criticals and almost no ties. The new way is slightly simpler, with more ties. Hmm.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-01 11:22
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
It's easier for me to track a 'third' type of die roll (1d100 + stat, how tough is that?) than figuring out 'simultaneous' actions with ties. Yeah, I prefer the old method.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-01 15:01
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
And if removing crits *is* the deciding factor, you can simply say that there are no crits on Initiative. Done.
Top
Tue, 2011-06-07 05:00
det det's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Not a big change after all IMHO. I do find it easier to quickly track the I now just because of the fewer digits. Concerning ties...always hated them, so I just don't use them (if there is a tie, whoever has the highest I base score goes first.) On criticals...still have to think about it. The rest of the changes are cool, nicely done!!
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 13:41
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
The initiative change is minor and it doesn't really excite me either way. The more I think about it however the more the Blackjack skill resolution annoys me. I'm starting to see all sorts of problems that it creates that didn't exist before. I'm sure I'm going to start boring people constantly advocating for a fixed Target Number system where you roll and add your skill but I just can't see the logic in making a big change and not going the whole hog and fixing the damn problem properly. The blackjack system introduces a whole nasty MoS lottery that, for me, breaks goodness knows how many subsystems in the game. The fact of the matter is that if you need an exceptional success to achieve your goal it does not matter how skilled you are you are going to fail 30% of the time. This leaves whole swathes of activity so swingy as to be not worth attempting. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely an empirical improvement over the old system in opposed tests but it introduces other squirrelly behaviour that almost completely neutralizes that gain. I've often been tempted to use EP as a basis for a CC open gaming system because I'm frankly fed up to the back teeth of paying the WOTC tax every few years for a new underlying structure I don't need. If I ever did start to produce a universal d100 rules system based on EP the very first thing I would change would be that you would roll d100+skill looking for a TN of 100.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 14:13
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
The blackjack system introduces a whole nasty MoS lottery that, for me, breaks goodness knows how many subsystems in the game. The fact of the matter is that if you need an exceptional success to achieve your goal it does not matter how skilled you are you are going to fail 30% of the time. This leaves whole swathes of activity so swingy as to be not worth attempting.
While I don't want to rain on your parade or detract from your point all that much, I feel it necessary to point out that this isn't really correct. As far as I can recall (and with a look through my rulebook to check) there are only two actions that outright fail without an excellent success, and those are Knockback/Knockdown and Upgrading (Hacker) Status. Everything else merely benefits from them. You could argue that Called Shots also require an excellent success, however I would say still getting a normal hit with a normal success makes that a moot point.
—
-
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 14:38
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I wasn't necessarily talking about actions that fail without an excellent success. I'm talking about when your goal is an excellent success. Generally you have such goals because a mere success has undesirable consequences. When mere talent, skill and advantageous circumstances cannot make such an outcome reliably attainable you approach a point where you are better off not attempting to achieve it. I'll have a quick scan through the rules to come up with some examples if you like but my point is that it is an inadequate simulation that could easily be replaced with a much more accurate one.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 14:48
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
I wasn't necessarily talking about actions that fail without an excellent success. I'm talking about when your goal is an excellent success. Generally you have such goals because a mere success has undesirable consequences. When mere talent, skill and advantageous circumstances cannot make such an outcome reliably attainable you approach a point where you are better off not attempting to achieve it. I'll have a quick scan through the rules to come up with some examples if you like but my point is that it is an inadequate simulation that could easily be replaced with a much more accurate one.
I would actually really like a specific example, if possible, because I struggle to think of an occasion where I am not happy with a normal success. Obviously I like getting excellent successes, but I do not think that having a 30% chance of not getting one at the top end of the skill range is a bug of the system. In fact I might consider it a feature. P.S, sorry for the threadjack Yera, this always seems to happen...
—
-
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 14:49
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
The fact of the matter is that if you need an exceptional success to achieve your goal it does not matter how skilled you are you are going to fail 30% of the time.
I have to admit, I do not feel uncomfortable leaving 'exceptional successes' such that they are never guaranteed. In fact, I would feel that a guaranteed success by definition makes it less than exceptional.
Quote:
If I ever did start to produce a universal d100 rules system based on EP the very first thing I would change would be that you would roll d100+skill looking for a TN of 100.
How is d100+skill vs. TN of 100 different from d100 vs. TN of skill? It's mathematically identical. d100 + skill vs. 100 -d100 -d100 skill vs. 100 - d100 100 - d100 is mathematically equivalent to d100 skill vs. d100 there's no difference in the probability line whatsoever.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 15:06
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Task actions are probably a better example. Given one hundred identical Ectos, the best Hacker in the Solar System, who has a modified skill check of 159, attempts to crack each in turn using both systems. Using the original system or my proposed one he succeeds 99% of the time and always acquires Hidden status. It takes him between 1 and 4 minutes to do so but he manages it in 1 about 70% of the time. The new system permits him to succeed the same percentage of the time but his results are now wildly swingy. He fails to achieve Hidden status 30% of the time and the time he takes to achieve this is now evenly distributed between one minute and ten. A TITAN with infinite skill would not be able to achieve better results. As to the advantage of the fixed TN system that was in relation to opposed tests. Which was the reason the Blackjack system was introduced in the first place. A higher roll is always better as both MoS and success in opposed tests are determined by how much your total exceeds 100. Simpler and more elegant.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 15:25
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
You see, I don't actually see that as a bug. From what I can see, your problem is that it adds additional variance at the higher end of skills. I actively [i]like[/i] that. The Eclipse Phase system is so gameable that you can almost always succeed at any task. I like that the change to the blackjack system made it so that I am now actually interested in what I roll, instead of just knowing that I am awesome and can do anything all the time. I hated that in the original system I could easily make a hacker at character creation who could almost literally not be stopped. It made mesh actions stupidly trivial. They still are fairly trivial, but less so. Bonus. I would also like to note that I really didn't like the change to the MoS mechanic that the blackjack system brought it when I first read it. Since playing with it, it has definitely grown on me.
—
-
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 15:35
The Demon Code The Demon Code's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
Task actions are probably a better example. Given one hundred identical Ectos, the best Hacker in the Solar System, who has a modified skill check of 159, attempts to crack each in turn using both systems. Using the original system or my proposed one he succeeds 99% of the time and always acquires Hidden status. It takes him between 1 and 4 minutes to do so but he manages it in 1 about 70% of the time.
Really? I always read the rules, specifically:
EP, page 115 wrote:
You make tests in Eclipse Phase by rolling d100 and comparing the result to a target number. The target number is typically determined by one of your character’s skills (discussed below) and ranges between 1 and 98. If you roll less than or equal to the target number, you succeed. If you roll higher than the target number, you fail.
as having the target number being capped at 98. Is this wrong? Also, I would like an example of the undesirable consequences on a mere melee success?
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 16:14
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
CodeBreaker wrote:
You see, I don't actually see that as a bug. From what I can see, your problem is that it adds additional variance at the higher end of skills. I actively [i]like[/i] that. The Eclipse Phase system is so gameable that you can almost always succeed at any task. I like that the change to the blackjack system made it so that I am now actually interested in what I roll, instead of just knowing that I am awesome and can do anything all the time. I hated that in the original system I could easily make a hacker at character creation who could almost literally not be stopped. It made mesh actions stupidly trivial. They still are fairly trivial, but less so. Bonus. I would also like to note that I really didn't like the change to the MoS mechanic that the blackjack system brought it when I first read it. Since playing with it, it has definitely grown on me.
As a matter of principle I violently disagree with everything you say there. As a matter of play style each to their own but to enshrine that sort of attitude in rules that purport to at heart be a simulation is unacceptable. For the degree of skill to have no impact whatsoever on the quality of success is so ludicrous in a simulation as to be laughable. Imagine a simulation of an archery contest using these rules. To hit the butt requires a success test, your MoS determines how close to the center ring you got, let's say we simply divide MoS by ten to give a score for each shot. So Robin Hood scores about 16 with each group and a TITAN with the ability to predict the motion of every atom within ten miles of it can't do any better. That's plainly rubbish. If you feel like everybody has slipped right off the end of the RNG then you need to shift them all back down a bit until it becomes relevant again.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 16:19
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
The Demon Code wrote:
crizh wrote:
Task actions are probably a better example. Given one hundred identical Ectos, the best Hacker in the Solar System, who has a modified skill check of 159, attempts to crack each in turn using both systems. Using the original system or my proposed one he succeeds 99% of the time and always acquires Hidden status. It takes him between 1 and 4 minutes to do so but he manages it in 1 about 70% of the time.
Really? I always read the rules, specifically:
EP, page 115 wrote:
You make tests in Eclipse Phase by rolling d100 and comparing the result to a target number. The target number is typically determined by one of your character’s skills (discussed below) and ranges between 1 and 98. If you roll less than or equal to the target number, you succeed. If you roll higher than the target number, you fail.
as having the target number being capped at 98. Is this wrong? Also, I would like an example of the undesirable consequences on a mere melee success?
That's certainly a bit ambiguous. The word 'typically' sticks out for me there. Further down the same page there is an enormous discussion about modifiers that is extremely careful to cap them at +/- 60 but makes no mention of a hard cap on the resultant Target Numbers. Compare this to the hard cap on Aptitudes which is repeated several times in extremely clear text. Thou shalt not have an Aptitude higher than 40, ever, period, for any reason.... Dunno how it might apply to melee, let me get back to you.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 16:26
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Except that the degree of skill already has a massive influence on the quality of success. It is in fact a limiting factor. A character with a skill of 99 is VASTLY more likely to succeed really well than a skill of 25. What we disagree on is not that skill should have an effect on MoS (Which it most definitely should), but that there should be a point where skill starts to matter less and less, and luck becomes ever more important. Even the most skilled people have the potential to fuck up massively, but they are skilled enough that they can recover from that and still succeed. Just not as well as they might otherwise be able to. The current system models that just fine. What the current system allows is for the extremely skilled individual to suffer higher and higher negative modifiers and still come out way ahead. So Robin Hood can score about 16 with every group in optimal conditions. The TITAN can score 16 in a hurricane, blindfolded, from the moon. I am perfectly OK with that.
—
-
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 17:41
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Yes, but in the real world average archers score 30 with monotonous regularity and rarely fail to beat 20. Look at sports like Olympic rifle shooting or formula 1 racing. At the higher reaches of skill you see ever increasing degrees of consistency and greater and greater degrees of success. Schumacher's lap times are as good as it is possible to be give or take a few percentage points over and over and over again. The best of the best are what they are because they perform at the limits of human ability consistently.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 22:04
The Demon Code The Demon Code's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
That's certainly a bit ambiguous. The word 'typically' sticks out for me there. Further down the same page there is an enormous discussion about modifiers that is extremely careful to cap them at +/- 60 but makes no mention of a hard cap on the resultant Target Numbers.
Ahh, I see you read it as "typically {determined by one of your character’s skills (discussed below) and ranges between 1 and 98}" while I read it as "typically {determined by one of your character’s skills (discussed below)} and ranges between 1 and 98". However, as the second interpretation gives the same probabilities for both the old and the new systems (for unopposed tests), I think my reading is correct. :)
crizh wrote:
Dunno how it might apply to melee, let me get back to you.
Never mind, I misread your earlier post as saying "melee" were you actually said "mere". My Bad.
Top
Wed, 2011-06-08 23:34
puke puke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Yeah, if you want higher skilled characters to be more consistant, I think you need to use a system with a bell curve. GUPRS and the DP9 "Shilouette" games (Heavy Gear, Tribe 8, etc.) are good for that. So is FATE to a degree, but thats more rules-light and it sounds like you're after crunch. Anyway, I think the flat odds of the D100 system are good enough if you want to keep your games fast paced. I'm over simulationist systems.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 00:13
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I too thought that you capped at 98, regardless. In which case, you 'fail' your Excellent success on rolls of, what, 68-97 in the old system, instead of 0-29 in the new system? Hardly seems different.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 10:50
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
puke wrote:
I'm over simulationist systems.
Good for you. I'm not. Given two options that are equally complex, within a reasonable margin of error, then I'll take the one that is a better simulation.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 10:54
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Yerameyahu wrote:
I too thought that you capped at 98, regardless. In which case, you 'fail' your Excellent success on rolls of, what, 68-97 in the old system, instead of 0-29 in the new system? Hardly seems different.
I'd say that while this is a reasonable interpretation of the text it creates exactly the same problem that I am complaining about in a different way and I would argue for it to be changed for exactly the same reasons.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 11:58
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I agree that this RPG system (like all other RPG systems) is much more random than real life. Real life is boringly consistent. Real life wouldn't even bother with dice; you'd just compare static values and say, 'oh, you win'. :) *shrug* The d100 system is indeed wonky. An expert can't succeed at any reasonable frequency without always seeking out positive modifiers to get himself up to the 90 range. But, as you say, this is a much larger problem than the nice, simple, and—incidentally—unrelated-to-Initiative blackjack MoS system. ;) I'd certainly enjoy a separate thread about the benefits and costs of the existing core mechanic, and possible alterations.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 13:19
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I would too. I find it odd that the initiative change is the only thing that has provoked any debate up until now.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 13:27
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Well, the other wasn't a change (as far as I understood the rules). There have indeed been threads about how it's too easy to get 160, or too hard to be expert, and so on. What really drove me nuts was being told to roll low sometimes, and high others.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 13:37
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Yerameyahu wrote:
What really drove me nuts was being told to roll low sometimes, and high others.
That is certainly what was making my eye twitch. Blackjack resolution fixed that very elegantly, I just don't like the consequential changes to the consistency of outcomes for highly skilled characters. As I've said before, fixed TN is no more complex or any less elegant and doesn't have either problem. Which is why I just cannot understand resistance to favouring it.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 16:33
LatwPIAT LatwPIAT's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
What are blackjack tests? I can't seem to figure out what you mean by it, or what implications it has on the old resolution system.
—
@-rep +2 C-rep +1
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 16:55
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Before the 3rd errata, you wanted to roll as low as possible to determine measure of success. So if you had an effective skill of 90, rolling 50 would mean you had a MoS of 40. The 3rd edition changed that so that your MoS is what you roll, so now you want to get as close to your skill as possible. Now you would have an MoS of 50 on that roll. This is important because, by some readings of the Core, you are able to get an effective skill higher than 99, which means if you had an effective skill of 130 you would always have an MoS of at least 30. With the new system, modifiers have no direct impact on your actual MoS after an effective skill of 99.
—
-
Top
Thu, 2011-06-09 16:52
Yerameyahu Yerameyahu's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
It used to be the MoS was [skill+mods]-[roll]. Now, it's [roll]. The blackjack element is that you're trying to roll as high as possible… without going over. It also means that opposed tests are won by whoever gets highest (my 19 beats your 16, in blackjack). Under the old system, your 16 would lose the opposed test, but the 16 would have been a better roll in a non-opposed test—bleh! Third *printing*, just to be accurate.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 05:56
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
The main benefit of the Blackjack style roll is that there's no maths - you roll, that's your MoS. Higher skilled characters *are* more likely to succeed more often (the very definition of consistency), and will on average do so with a higher MoS than low skilled characters. The probably source of the confusion here is that the sample size is very low - in a typical game session you might only make a dozen rolls against a skill, not the hundreds you'd need for the pattern to make itself apparent. I fail to see any problem with this system. The new system might have altered the outcome of high skilled characters compared to the old system - have you considered the possibility that the old system was just wonky ?
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 08:16
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Gee4orce wrote:
I fail to see any problem with this system.
Seriously? Jeeze, it's like I'm talking to myself. Do you see all that text I've posted in this thread? One guy with a skill of 99 is competing against a guy with a skill of 89. Let's say they are in a rifle target shooting competition. Both have +10 from equipment or whatever. The current system permits no differentiation between them. This is bollocks.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 09:34
The Demon Code The Demon Code's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
One guy with a skill of 99 is competing against a guy with a skill of 89. Let's say they are in a rifle target shooting competition. Both have +10 from equipment or whatever. The current system permits no differentiation between them.
Um... No. Competitor 1: Target Number = 99 (base) -30 (Long Range) -10 (Called Shot) -10 (Small Target) +30 (Complex Aim Action) = 79 Competitor 2: Target Number = 89 (base) -30 (Long Range) -10 (Called Shot) -10 (Small Target) +30 (Complex Aim Action) = 69 Competitor 1 has a 10% higher chance of succeeding. You can add more positive modifiers (such as complementary skill bonuses from profession: marksman competition) but what it comes down to is: on easy tests, there is no difference between people of high skill. Only when the tests are challenging does the skill difference matter. To me this seems realistic and thus I don't have a problem with the current skill system.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 14:25
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Way to not pay attention there. Shall I be more explicit? Both competitors have TOTAL modifiers that come to +10. Are you willing to admit that in that circumstance, under the current system, the winner is effectively determined by a coin toss? If not there is little point continuing this discussion.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 14:53
puke puke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Indeed, if any test is so easy that the least skilled contender still has a 99% chance of success, then the higher skilled contenders have no real way to distinguish themselves. Unless of course the higher skilled character voluntarily takes on additional penalties equal to [modified skill]-99. This would be the equivalent of putting on flourishes, or buying additional MoS. I think anyone should be able to do this any time for any test, but it is a no-brainer if your chance of success is already over 99. Basically stating "I will do it this much extra better, or fail outright." I guess that would probably be a houserule, but the system seems to support it and I think it's in the sprit of things. But seriously man, have a beer and relax a bit. I'm sure we can find a way to tweak the system so that it fits in with how you want it to work. It's open source, after all.
The Demon Code wrote:
on easy tests, there is no difference between people of high skill. Only when the tests are challenging does the skill difference matter. To me this seems realistic and thus I don't have a problem with the current skill system.
This is the meat of what DC was trying to say, I think everyone is in agreement on that basic point. The remaining discussion is about how to make otherwise easy tests more difficult.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 18:09
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I wouldn't have any problem with a system that allowed you to take voluntary penalties to guarantee a certain degree of success.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 18:37
puke puke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Then run it that way. EP is a little bit like the bastard love child of SR4 and BRP. SR4 has lots of rules to do very specific things in very specific ways, with all the good and bad that comes from that. BRP has very few rules and you basically have to make shit up as you go along. I'm a little fuzzy on why the BRP book is actually thicker than the CoC book, but I'll just chalk that off to non-euclidian geometry. I dont have anything much to base this on, but I imagine the developers had a thought process something akin to this: [i]So we want to make a horror game, and we all like Call of Chthulu and it is generally considered one of the better horror RPGs around. So we will try to be very Rules-Light like the CoC/BRP system is, and run on simple percentile rolls. But we also just got done writing the SR4 game system and there is lots of tricks in there specific to high-tech settings that it would be a shame to just throw away. Lets take the best ideas we put into SR4, translate it to percentile, and start cutting. Anything left out can be left to the GM's imagination and the play style of each group since we wont be able to please everyone all the time anyway.[/i] I'm pretty sure its intentional that the rules are a very basic framework that you can build on and extend as you see fit. Personally, my group takes the difference between MoS in opposed tests to better simulate that it is harder to succeed as well when someone is working against you. Also, this restores some of the pre-third-printing functionality that was lost when opposed tests wen to straight blackjack.
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 19:50
The Demon Code The Demon Code's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Puke said it better than I ever could but...
crizh wrote:
Both competitors have TOTAL modifiers that come to +10. Are you willing to admit that in that circumstance, under the current system, the winner is effectively determined by a coin toss?
Sure, I admit your competition (with the fixed +10 modifiers) comes down to pure chance. But this is not a flaw of the system, it is a flaw of the competition. A more challenging competition (such as I described) does produce a difference between highly skilled individuals. As further illustration, consider the following rifle competition: Competitors fire ten shots from rifles using a bench rest at a large silhouette target, 10 meters away. The winner is determined by whoever hits the target the most, with no regards to the location. This competition is completely inadequate to distinguish between Olympic level marksmen. When simulating it using a rules system, it is not a problem that the simulation cannot distinguish between Olympic level marksmen, it is a feature. :)
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 20:13
The Demon Code The Demon Code's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
I wouldn't have any problem with a system that allowed you to take voluntary penalties to guarantee a certain degree of success.
There is certainly precedent for this in the system, such as the called shot rule for attacks and the [i]rush the job[/i] rule (p. 120). You can also just show off: Fighting with your off hand because you're just that good: -20. Firing your rifle one handed: -20. Wearing a blindfold: -60 (ranged)/-30 (melee) Hitting three people with one blow: -60
Top
Fri, 2011-06-10 20:15
bblonski bblonski's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
If I understand correctly, the problem is on tasks where both characters have adjusted skill ratings over 100. You cannot differentiate ability because you can only roll 1-100 and MOS is equal to your roll, so the result will always be a coin toss. Before you could subtract from numbers above 100 to get MOS. I can see how this situation is now more difficult to handle and is a legitimate issue we need to look at. The shooting range is a poor example because if everyone hits the bullseye, you can't really determine who is better. There are some more open ended situations though that could pose problems. Lets see if we can elegantly handle these situations. First lets address opposed tests since I believe those are the most relevant. Lets take impersonation as an example. A character with 120 impersonation vs someone with 100 kinesics would effectively be a coin toss. The best solution for this I believe would be to follow the precedent set by "Keeping Quite" (EP pg. 288) and allow a character to take a variable penalty that is then applied to the opposing character. That way the character that can take the higher penalty and still succeed is more likely to do better. The impersonator could take a -20 penalty to try something risky that would be more convincing if it works. Since they're such a good impersonator, they still have 99% chance to succeed, but the opposed character now only has a 80% chance. For most task actions, "rushing the job" (EP pg. 120) should suffice. Characters with higher skills can rush the job and finish faster than the other character and are therefore better. For example, I don't really need to know how "well" I climb shear cliff face, just how fast. The only thing left I can think of is open-ended situations where faster does not mean better, such as who can throw a shot put the farthest or who can paint a better picture. It doesn't even really have to be something contested or something you can even fail at all, you simply want to quantify how well you did. I believe Shadowrun had an open ended test that handled this well, but Eclipse Phase does not seem to have an equivalent. However this is an easy house rule. Open Ended roll: For each 10 MOS the quality of the result increases by 1. A character may also increase the quality by 1 for every -10 penalty they take. For example, an painter with a skill of 120 (enhanced creativity psi or something) could take a -20 penalty and roll a 56. The result is 7 (5 for MOS + 2 for penalty). Someone with a skill of 100 would have to roll 80 or better to produce a higher quality result. You now have a concrete number to compare against others and you can benefit from a skill above 100. This is consistent with established EP rules (see the sprinting and jumping rules EP pg. 191). Edit: Damn you The Demon Code for beating me to the rushing a job rule.
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 00:54
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
But can you see why I would favour moving to fixed TN? While the proposed changes above do fix the issue they are neither simple nor elegant. Fixed TN is both. If the focus is on creating a rules-light system then surely that is the better choice?
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 01:43
puke puke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Dunno, have to think about it. Explain again what you gain with a fixed TN 100?
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 01:50
The Demon Code The Demon Code's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
But can you see why I would favour moving to fixed TN?
I think so. You want to reduce the skill/TN plateau built into the system so that people with high levels of skill will be better distinguished from each other.
crizh wrote:
While the proposed changes above do fix the issue they are neither simple nor elegant. Fixed TN is both. If the focus is on creating a rules-light system then surely that is the better choice?
Leaving the system as it is, is of course the best choice :). As for houserules, if you think that Fixed TN is better than adding negative modifiers for better success, go for it. I don't think anyone is arguing that Fixed TN is a bad system. It is just that Fixed TN is not a better system than the current system, so the current system shouldn't be changed.
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 02:27
bblonski bblonski's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
The nice thing about using skill rating as the TN is that everyone knows their own TN. You simply call for a perception check and everyone tells you if they pass or not. You don't have to come up with a TN on the spot. Not that it's that hard, but you have to state the TN for every roll and sometimes people don't hear the TN and you have to repeat yourself. I also like not having to add skill and roll together. In practice roll vs skill is a little faster and easier but skill + roll vs TN handles high levels of skill better.
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 07:07
nezumi.hebereke nezumi.hebereke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I totally don't get the advantage of the fixed TN system. Okay, let's fix the TN at 100 for every task. I have a skill of 90. Joe has a skill of 99. We both get a bonus to our skills of +10 for being real swell guys. Roll 1d100, add 110 or 119, and see if it's over 100. How is the problem solved?
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 16:26
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
nezumi.hebereke wrote:
I totally don't get the advantage of the fixed TN system. Okay, let's fix the TN at 100 for every task. I have a skill of 90. Joe has a skill of 99. We both get a bonus to our skills of +10 for being real swell guys. Roll 1d100, add 110 or 119, and see if it's over 100. How is the problem solved?
By using a system where the more skilled guy has a higher average MoS? Imagine the guy with 90 is Andy Murray and the 99 is Roger Federer. We simulate a Wimbledon final with an opposed test for each game. We total modifiers for superior equipment, stress, injury and/or distraction and each ends up with a +10. Over the fifty odd games in a Grand Slam final using my system Federer wins five or six more games than Murray and wins 99% of the matches. Using the current system Murray wins HALF the matches. Murray might be number 4 in the world but he is 2 or 3% behind the number 1 in terms of skill. He'll obliterate most opposition but until he improves that last little bit he will NEVER win a major tournament.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 17:32
puke puke's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
Oh. Couldnt you get the same thing by going back to the first/second-printing system? 99 would still be a failure, but you could count MoS from your total modified target number. Also, you could take the current system and add skill-level-greater-than-100 to your MoS. and that way you would not have to do the extra subtraction unless your skill was over 100. which should hopefully be pretty rare. its probalby six of one, half a dozzen of the other.
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 18:59
CodeBreaker CodeBreaker's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
You could go back to the 1st/2nd Errata way of doing things, but it was in itself flawed, just in a different way (The discrepancy between normal and opposed tests.) My suggestion would be the simple addition of a new rule; 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).
—
-
Top
Sat, 2011-06-11 18:54
crizh crizh's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
That would work very nicely. It feels like patching code you knew was broken when you pushed it out the door but that is mostly my OCD talking. Mostly.
—
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Top
Mon, 2011-06-13 06:38
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
I agree with Demon Code - if you have two people with very high skill you absolutely can't differentiate them by giving them easy tests. That's not a bug in the game logic, it's a feature. You sort out the men from the boys by putting them up against negative circumstances - sure you can hit that bullseye at 30 yards every time, but what about 100 yards ? In the dark ? When it's windy and raining ? And getting shot at ? That's when you tell the 'master' from the 'expert'. That's the whole *point* of high skill as far as I can see - beyond a certain point you can be confident of succeeding in normal circumstances. Any increase in skill beyond this point mitigates negative modifiers - or allows you to confidently attempt advanced moves (ie. by taking a voluntary penalty in exchange for improved effect if successful) - but it doesn't really effect easy or middling level tests because you can do those in your sleep anyway. In normal every day life, no there is no benefit from being Uber-skilled. That's precisely why most people don't bother to attain this level of skill - it's not really beneficial in every day life, and they are better off learning another skill instead.
Top
Mon, 2011-06-13 08:48
Gee4orce Gee4orce's picture
Re: Reactions to 3rd Printing: Initiative
crizh wrote:
Imagine the guy with 90 is Andy Murray and the 99 is Roger Federer. We simulate a Wimbledon final with an opposed test for each game. We total modifiers for superior equipment, stress, injury and/or distraction and each ends up with a +10. Over the fifty odd games in a Grand Slam final using my system Federer wins five or six more games than Murray and wins 99% of the matches. Using the current system Murray wins HALF the matches. Murray might be number 4 in the world but he is 2 or 3% behind the number 1 in terms of skill. He'll obliterate most opposition but until he improves that last little bit he will NEVER win a major tournament.
Interesting example. FWIW, the real world stats for the two players are the Murray has actually won 50.6% of the games, 50% of the sets, and 61% of the matches (tennis is a slightly odd example, as certain points and games are more strategically valuable than others, hence can swing the match). So I think that this is actually proving the counter-argument ! Players of this standard are so very hard to differentiate. So why can't Andy Murray win at Wimbledon ? Pressure. He walks out on centre court, and *boom* there's a -20 modifier for 'pressure of expectation' from the crowds who want to see a home victory. Maybe Roger Federer also has the same penalty, but for different reasons, but the thing his that his higher skill allows him to soak up that negative pressure better than Murray. Therefore he's more likely to win a grandslam final, even though Murray has the better record overall.
Top

Pages