Topic: Reducing the lethality and bringing Skill into the effect of crits.

[Warl]

two part discussion.

Has anyone every thought to make the crit charts more like the Large and super Large crit tables, where in order to get the really lethal results, one pretty much has to opened on the crit roll?

I am thinking about doing this... but haven't settled on it completely yet.
I have seen it noted by some even in this forum, let alone face to face gaming, that RM can be More Randomly Lethal than reality.

Spinning off this same idea.
I was thinking of Allowing the attacker to adjust crit rolls, up or down, by 1 or 2 points per rank in the skill.
Yes combat can be random, but the more skilled a Fighter is, I believe the more they are able to reduce that randomness.

What are others thoughts on these ideas?

[Peter R]

One of the things I never liked was when you did a massive open ended attack roll ending up in the 300s and then roll a critical of 02 and get +3 hits. My solution was that for every 10 points over 150 you get up to +/-1 on the critical roll but the player can choose. If the intention was not to kill then they can adjust away from a lethal crit or if they rolled close to 66 then thye could adjust just to that number and stop there. That removes some of the randomness in that respect.

If the combatants are using some of their OB to defend then the higher criticals are less common and the lethal criticals are even less common.

[Warl]

let me clarify clarify that the increase or decrease is to Crits that they deliver deliver not to one's they recieve

[jdale]

Personally, I would rather reduce the instantly-lethal crits so attrition is more important in battles. It's important to have that risk, but at the same time if it happens too often it can easily ruin a climactic scene by making the epic battle end too soon and too easily. So, things that increase lethality, like bonuses on crit rolls, are counterproductive in my opinion. On the other hand, I'd like to see less lethality on the A and maybe B crits. One way to do that would be to have one giant crit chart, rolled open-ended, where you add say +30 per level of crit severity. Depending on how the table was laid out, that would keep the risk for all the crits but reduce the lethality for the low ones -- it could also increase the lethality on the E crits. It would also handle F, G, H, etc criticals quite simply.

[Cory Magel]

My ideal critical hit chart would be one column that goes to at least 250, ideally 300, with a roll modified by the critical severity.  For more advanced options I'd likely work in weapon expertise somehow, but only slightly.  Then, there'd be one of those for each weapon size/type variation (i.e. 1-H Slashing, 2-H Slashing, 1H Krushing, 2H Krushing, Piercing, Pole Weapon (Quarterstaff, Three Section Staff, Nunchaku, etc), and so on.  I'd like to see one for each individual weapon, but having written critical charts I know that would be an insane undertaking unless you had a small army of very like minded writers to do the color text.

And I'm right there with Peter about the randomness of rolling a 200+ attack and a 01 critical.  In a way it kinda breaks ones suspension of disbelief.

[Warl]

I totally agree with you both, Cory and Jdale, and I sincerely wish/hope we can get them to go that way with RMU.

But right now this is what I have to work with.

[Peter R]

Isn't that where we started back in the 80s? Crit tables used to go from 1 to 120. you had -20 for an A, -10 for a B, +10 for D and +20 for an E.

[Warl]

Isn't that where we started back in the 80s? Crit tables used to go from 1 to 120. you had -20 for an A, -10 for a B, +10 for D and +20 for an E.

not sure, that was before my Time and I never got a hold on any of the earlier editions from RM2

[Cory Magel]

Isn't that where we started back in the 80s? Crit tables used to go from 1 to 120. you had -20 for an A, -10 for a B, +10 for D and +20 for an E.

MERP was like that.

[markc]

  I can say that I like the idea that you can roll a 200+ and then roll a 01 on a crit as it means that you found a hole in the defense/armor but did not hit anything that important or it means that you just "smacked them up side the head" (I think this is a technical term for SCA'ers and others in the combat arts  ) or hit them really hard.


MDC

[Peter R]

  I can say that I like the idea that you can roll a 200+ and then roll a 01 on a crit as it means that you found a hole in the defense/armor but did not hit anything that important or it means that you just "smacked them up side the head" (I think this is a technical term for SCA'ers and others in the combat arts  ) or hit them really hard.


MDC

I always found it kind of a let down or a disappointment. Mind you I don't give extra hits or additional crits for breaking 150 so what the GM giveth the GM can taketh away.

[Ecthelion]

Has anyone every thought to make the crit charts more like the Large and super Large crit tables, where in order to get the really lethal results, one pretty much has to opened on the crit roll?

From a mathematical POV this makes little sense to me, unless you want equal or less than 5% of the criticals to be lethal. Or it might perhaps make sense in combination with an idea like you mentioned with skill affecting the critical results. But by itself I saw no use in such a change. Therefore I have never spent much thought about this.

I have seen it noted by some even in this forum, let alone face to face gaming, that RM can be More Randomly Lethal than reality.

The question is whether this is good or bad. I don't want my FRP game system to precisely model reality. Instead my focus is fun while gaming. Only when lack of realism kills the fun would I opt for rules more true to reality. And the randomness in lethal criticals is IMO quite helpful for the PCs to survive.

I was thinking of Allowing the attacker to adjust crit rolls, up or down, by 1 or 2 points per rank in the skill.
Yes combat can be random, but the more skilled a Fighter is, I believe the more they are able to reduce that randomness.

In reality this might be correct. But I think that - in contrast to the thread's title - that such a change would in fact rather increase the lethality of the game than decrease it, at least for higher-level characters, which should also encounter more skilled opponents. But of course this depends on the setup of the critical tables, which you might also adapt.

But if you indeed want skill to more directly affect the critical, then you could also have a look at HARP's Hack & Slash, where the attack tables are set up in a way that an attack result has a direct link to a critical and very high attack results result in lethal criticals. This system perhaps already implements what you like to see, so no need to reinvent the wheel.

Just my 2 cents

[intothatdarkness]

I don't have an issue with expanding the crit charts, but I don't think skill should impact crit results at all. The crit still represents the random element in combat...those little things that can go wrong as well as go right.

[markc]

Maybe skill should adjust the location but not the lethality of the crit?
MDC

[jdale]

Maybe skill should adjust the location but not the lethality of the crit?

RMU handles that as a penalty if you want to target a certain area. You trade off skill in order to choose the location. The difficulty is in how you determine the crit for the new area. If you are reading down the table for the next crit in the correct area, choosing the location will tend to make the crit less severe, not more severe. It only works for RMU if you are targeting an unarmored location, providing a corresponding advantage. If there's no advantage AND the crit is less severe, there's no point.

[Warl]

My ideal critical hit chart would be one column that goes to at least 250, ideally 300, with a roll modified by the critical severity.

On the other hand, I'd like to see less lethality on the A and maybe B crits. One way to do that would be to have one giant crit chart, rolled open-ended, where you add say +30 per level of crit severity. Depending on how the table was laid out, that would keep the risk for all the crits but reduce the lethality for the low ones -- it could also increase the lethality on the E crits. It would also handle F, G, H, etc criticals quite simply.

I really Like these Ideas, and if RMU were to go that Direction, it could easily reduce the Table bloat.
After all in RM2 Large and Super large both goto 251+ in 1 column.

[Thom @ ICE]

I don't have an issue with expanding the crit charts, but I don't think skill should impact crit results at all. The crit still represents the random element in combat...those little things that can go wrong as well as go right.

Don't mean to derail - but just a quick question....
What if there were randomness assigned for both the attack and the defense?
Yes, one roll can represent that general randomness, but then the likelihood of any individual value between 1 and 100 on that roll (not counting the OE aspect) is equal throughout, but if offense and defense both had randomness associated, then the net impact is a range from -99 to 99 (not including OE) with a higher likelihood of randomness of having no impact (therefore more emphasis on skill), but due to OE, there is always the chance of incredible results (either offensively or defensively).

[Warl]

I play/GM another Game system that uses opposed Attack and Defense rolls.

If I were to do this in RoleMaster:

I would have the attack charts All start with damage at 1+ points exceeding the Defenders Roll.
Unless the Attacker Fumbles, if he beats the Defense roll (that is including all Ob and DB modifications) then he hit. How Well he hit depends on how much he exceeded the Defenders roll+ modifiers by.

This way would save some room on the charts, or allow the Charts More room for actual results rather than net 0 results. 
IF the attacker exceeded a defenders roll by 10 points, if the defender was wearing no armor, he might take a 15A crit.... but if he was wearing Plate, he might on suffer 1-2 hits of damage.

I very much would Like to be able to use this type of system in my game.
My players Like be "active" in their defense... plus it adds that additional Suspense to combat... because even a Low Roll might defend if the attack rolls low and vice versa, a low roll on the attack Might still hit if the Defender rolls poorly.

[Thom @ ICE]

This would be a major departure for Rolemaster, so I am not proposing that. Just curious about the concept and how it fits into this discussion.

[Warl]

true it would, But I would Like it lol, Even as an optional rule.

THough it would fit even better as part of the discussion I have about shield blocking.