Topic: Thursday's Topic.... How Critical are Critical Charts?

[Thom @ ICE]

Thanks for the feedback you are all providing on these "crazy ideas" of mine. 


The next question is whether or not damage and critical charts are critical to having fun with the game....
Turning through pages to find the right chart then looking up the final modified roll result (in the right armor column if playing RM), then perhaps consulting another table (after maybe another roll of the dice) before finally getting your result.   None of it's difficult to do, but it is complex, and definitely adds time to the process.


What if there was a set formula for damage/criticals?
The higher the final result (whether 1 roll or 2 opposing rolls) the more damage is caused.


Hit Damage
The hit damage could be something as simple as - Final Net Roll / Weapon's Damage Factor  (Round down)
Weapons that cause more hit damage have a lower Damage Factor.
Weapons that cause less hit damage have a higher Damage Factor.
Keep the Damage Factors to something simple.   1/5/10/20


Primary Critical Damage
Primary Critical Type (Bleeds, Stun, Injury) is set based upon the Weapon
Primary Critical results are the Final Net Roll / Primary Crit Factor
Again, keep it simple. Round Down.
Primary Crit Factors would be higher values than Damage Factors (except special cases)  10/20/50/100


Secondary Critical Damage - same concept as Primary Crit Factor, but values even higher - 50/100/200


Short Sword might have Dam 5 / Pri 20 / Sec 100
A net result of +47 = 9 hits, 2nd tier primary (-2 bleeds),  No secondary crit


Staff might have Dam 10 / Pri 50 / Sec 200
A net result of +47 = 4 hits, No Primary, No Secondary


Claymore might have Dam 1 / Pri 10 / Sec 100
A net result of +47 - 47 hits, 4th tier primary (-4 bleeds), No Secondary


Of course the values need to be fully tested and built for play balance as well as accuracy.
Armor   - wouldn't be left out, but could do one of three possible impacts:
* Reduce the net result straight out for everything the same before calculations
* Reduce the net result based upon primary critical damage type
* Reduce the net result based upon specific weapon (too complex for me)

[yammahoper]

I think you have it backwards.  The crit tables are fun and fine, the attack tables are to numerous and a bloody pain.

More crit tables, eliminate attack tables.  The math should be easier.

Of course, some poor slob still has to write crit tables.

[Thom @ ICE]

OK, but the catchiness of saying How Critical are Critical Charts was too good to pass up....
As for the real substance of your comments...
OK - so if I understand your comments correctly, if you replace the Attack Tables with a calculation model that delivers:
X hits of damage and B Crit - but then roll on the Critical Chart to determine the final extent of the B Crit, that would work for you?


Same model, just don't take it as far as I did - and keep the critical charts.
Just restating for clarity.  Thanks for the feedback.

[markc]

 I was just about to post that you want to talk to Yammahoper as he has talked about using formulas for weapon damage for some time now. But it seems he found your post.
MDC

[yammahoper]

OK, but the catchiness of saying How Critical are Critical Charts was too good to pass up....
As for the real substance of your comments...
OK - so if I understand your comments correctly, if you replace the Attack Tables with a calculation model that delivers:
X hits of damage and B Crit - but then roll on the Critical Chart to determine the final extent of the B Crit, that would work for you?


Same model, just don't take it as far as I did - and keep the critical charts.
Just restating for clarity.  Thanks for the feedback.

 

 

[Warl]

I think you know my position on this as you have basically stated an Idea I have posted before in the other thread, as well as have posted before on these forums in other discussion of the past.

The only difference I would make is that the Critical(s) should be based on hits delivered, rather than total roll, as Armour would effect what got through. Except in the case of stun, Less hit damage should equal less severe critical.
Stun being seperate because you can have armour that does reduce damage and critical pit potential, but doesn't reduce the "impact" (Knocking your breath out) as much, Such as Soft leather or Chainmail.

[Warl]

The charts can be a fun Read, but they can be Tedious as well, Especially as a Blocker to enter for the game, Many Gms won't try RM because of the "charts".

I don't use the term Complex, because  I don't see it as complex, once one understands them they are simple, But they are tedious to use, and the beginner GM, or less organized a GM is,  The more tedious and time consuming the use of the charts can be on a Game.

Where as a simple Formula, as presented, Requires no Look up at all, but a simple mental calculation, ( or calculator use for those less apt to do simple fractions in there head)

[jdale]

I am 100% with Yammahoper on this. Critical tables are dramatic and can be fun, and for most battles you are not using that many different ones. The weapon tables require constant flipping and searching, I would love to see them simplified, even made more consistent with other skill checks. On the other hand, any calculation needs to be quick, and you need a way to take into account both the weapon and the armor. Can your crit factors remain simple while taking those into account? Multiplication and especially division are slower than addition and subtraction.

[Thom @ ICE]

I definitely understand the concern about division.  That's why I stuck with 1/5/10/20/50/100.
I think most people can divide by those values simply.


Armor I see as being either:
* Reducing the final resulting damage based upon attack types (various armor types are better against different attacks)
* Reducing the net before the division (effectively part of the DB using either opposing or the current standard).


While I like the resistance model better conceptually, I think the results impact is easier to execute.
After you determine if the blow struck (Net Opposing result was positive) you then reduce the value by the Armor Value.  Now each armor type can have a standard defense bonus, but also special modifiers for attack type.


The final Net Result ends up being reduced, therefore the calculated hits and crits are potentially reduced based upon the Damage Factor.

[intothatdarkness]

Removing critical tables takes away one of the things that makes Rolemaster unique. They also have the ability to simplify what could be a very complex damage/penalty formula. As for attack tables, I've worked out caliber-based ones for firearms that reduce the majority of Arms Law:Firearms to four tables based on weapon class/type. A formula system for firearms would likely end up more complicated than tables, IMO.

In my experience with new players, they actually tend to figure out the tables pretty quickly. Formulas, especially ones that look complex or cumbersome, not so much.

[Thom @ ICE]

No one is talking about changing Rolemaster.
This is completely separate idea.

[intothatdarkness]

No one is talking about changing Rolemaster.
This is completely separate idea.

I see no reason to replace charts that work with formulas that may not or do not allow the level of granularity one gets with critical tables. The biggest change I've made to critical tables is to break them up by hit location, which is more of a factor in a good firearms combat system.

[Justin]

The weapon tables require constant flipping and searching,

Why are they not just photocopied and only have the relevant ones on hand?

I like the attack tables and crit tables exactly the way they are. Maybe, as was proposed in the other threads, making A's not lethal regardless of the roll.

[Thom @ ICE]

So it seems most of the commentary has been strongly for keeping the critical charts.
Attack charts are a mixed result.
Concern raised about formula solutions if calculations are in any way complex (very limited use of Division and Multiplication)

[jdale]

The weapon tables require constant flipping and searching,

Why are they not just photocopied and only have the relevant ones on hand?

I like the attack tables and crit tables exactly the way they are. Maybe, as was proposed in the other threads, making A's not lethal regardless of the roll.

We traditionally give the player a copy of the charts for their weapons, but the GM has every chart. I don't extend encounter planning down to making a special subset of tables. That's a lot of extra copying.

In practice I did not do chart lookups very long. It's just too slow. I'm using software now.

[markc]

 The problem I have with simple formulas is that they are generally linear in nature. For example I like how you at times have 4 A crits followed by 3 B crits followed by 5 C crits in some RM Weapon tables. in fact I would prefer to see a system or chart in which you could see a result such as 10A, 10B, 12 A, 12 C etc in which your crit was was less dependent on the amount of damage you did.
 The basic formula idea is also why I had a problem with some of the crit charts I had see lately, the descriptions are altered but the penalties use a simple step formula (in general the math looks linear in nature). For example description A gives penalties bleed -1, penalty -5; next crit result description B gives penalties bleed -2, penalty -10.
 
 For me the idea of a linear formula for weapon damage and crit result is not of interest.
MDC 

[rdanhenry]

Obviously, a great many people enjoy games without critical charts as complex as those of Rolemaster, or even without any critical hits at all. Most of the people on this forum, however, are going to be people who enjoy elaborate critical tables, because that is one of ICE's long-time big draws.

You've indicated this is not about Rolemaster, but people are naturally going to answer in a Rolemaster context because that's what most of us are here to discuss (and the others will tend to answer in a HARP context). Rules are not good or bad in isolation. You cannot rationally evaluate a rule outside the context of its system. Even something that appears obviously broken in isolation may make good sense given its treatment within a larger system or as a representation of a setting where the "brokenness" makes sense. If you ask rules questions in the absence of a system, anyone with any rules-sense is going to assume a system in answering, because otherwise the the question is unanswerable.

[Thom @ ICE]

Putting your answer in the context of HARP or RM is fine.... I just don't want anyone to think I plan on changing those systems.
For me, there are no systems that even come close to HARP and RM.  I personally don't need the detail that RM offers, and I much prefer the HARP Spell scaling over RM's spell treatment, but I prefer the concept of spell lists over HARP's spell circles.  I prefer HARP's single roll combat over RM's two roll resolution. The skills aspect of the systems are the biggest draw for me.  As far as a full system.... I'm pretty much there, but want to get some feedback on the concept differences.  I fully expect that if I were to put the full system out for this audience, you would all rip one piece or another.... because it won't be RM and won't be HARP.  I will be making adjustments based upon what I've been hearing from you all. 

[Cory Magel]

Without Critical Tables and Base Spell Lists I would never have picked up Rolemaster (or MERP which is where it started) and I would never pick up a version of RM that didn't have them.  It's one of the reasons I don't like HARP (no unique lists and I hate the damage cap).  I have every critical table I can find from all versions of RM in a binder and I convert spell lists and professions from other versions.

I would actually like to see a critical chart for each weapon.  So the Rapier would have it's own critical hit chart and so on.  That's rather extreme... but I think it could be done.  Writing that many Crit Tables would be a pain, but you could do a lot of crossover on the results between similar weapons (so you wouldn't have to do every result on every chart from scratch - you could have like 75% commonality and 25% tailored to the specific weapon for example).

Now, I would be ok with reducing attack tables down to 1H Edged rather than Broadsword, Scimitar, etc, etc.  You'd have....
1H-Edged, 1H-Pierce, 1H-Krush, 2H-Edged, 2H-Pierce, 2H-Krush and maybe a couple Missile Weapon tables... maybe Heavy Ranged (Longbow, Hvy Spear, Hvy X-Bow), Medium Ranged (Shortbow, Javalin, etc) and Light Ranged (Dagger, Dart, Throwing Star, Bola style weapons)? Then have a chart for each type.  So you'd have a 1H and a 2H Edged and so on.

I might even be ok with Critical and Attack Tables combined, but they would need to be much larger than they currently are - at least double.  You could or couldn't combine this idea with the above ones too.

My personal preference would be a have a 1H Edge and 2H Edged (and so on) style attack chart, with built in critical effects unique to that size and type (Edged, Pierce, Krush), that went to at least 300.  Having the attack table and critical charts separate does not bother me, but putting them together eliminates a roll in combat and also largely puts stop to the 1A result that ends up take someone out scenario.

1H-Edged to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
1H-Pierce to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
1H-Krush to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
2H-Edged to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
2H-Pierce to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
2H-Krush to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
Heavy Ranged to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
Medium Ranged to 300 with it's own Critical Table.
Light Ranged to 300 with it's own Critical Table.

[markc]

Cory,
If you do have have 10 million ways to die then that is what you are describing above.
MDC