Topic: Changing Arms Law & % Dice?

[Mourglin]

I've been wanting to run RM again, its been a few years since my last campaign.  Some of the complaints I had from players was the 'open-endedness' of the system and the wide variety of results a D100 offers.  I don't have a beef with open ending, but I don't like results that can vary by 91% each time a D100 is rolled and added to a skill.  (I'm excluding the 0-4 & 96-100).

Would it be possible to close off the system to a 1-100 and not break it?  For example, if I renumbered the charts to top out at 100 instead of 150, and removed open ending, having players roll under their skill instead of adding a d100 to it, would something like that be workable.  Any of you have any suggestions to this end?

Mour

[markc]

 That sounds like RuneQuest to me with the addition of Arms Law incorporated somehow.


 I do not have any ideas at the moment on how to do it or if it would be possible at all, but I will think on it.
MDC

[Marc R]

Closing off the open ends would still work, you'd just shut the door on "What are the odds?" when the 10 OB attacks the 120 DB parry. . . .without the open end, you need to hope the parry defender fumbles to chop themselves in the head as you're not going to touch them.

It's a valid choice, and fall less extreme than most house rules, but I've seen it before, and with experienced players they try to figure out what the incoming OB is, set their parry to make a hit impossible and attack with the rest of their OB.

For RRs it creates a situation where you can ignore or never resist certain effects, but the target vs attack have to be dramatically different to get there, so it creates less of an issue.

Hope that helps.

[Mourglin]

Marc,
  I was thinking more along the lines that a very talented/trained skill (sword) would have somewhere in the 90's, and the inept/untrained maybe 5-10.  No skill would rise above a 100 and it would be extreme to see anyone in the 90's.
  I don't really know how I could work this even if I renumbered the arms law tables from like ~30 - 150, to 1-100.  You really need to be at the top 1/3 to do some damage whether the chart is unmodified or re-scaled to 1-100.  I don't know how a 90 skill could easily hit a person with a 10 with a rework of the chart to 1-100.  For every percent they rolled under their skill that would start a climb up the chart (from the bottom, e.g, 1), but I don't think it would ever get high enough.  Perhaps the chart needs to start up somewhere in the 20's?  Perhaps the dice convention I have in my mind needs to change.
  The goal of this was to reduce the 1-100 randomness from one dice throw to the other, making variance dependent on skill level.  A person with 10% in a skill can improve by 10 fold if they rolled well, which is something I don't think is possible or plausible.  Consistency is what I'm aiming for while keeping in the system, which I have played for many many years.

Mour

[Marc R]

One of the defining characteristics of RM, to me, is that you can't feel 100% safe being a bully. . .that 1st level street urchin swings on your 20th level fighter with a stick. . . .

What are the odds?

I admit it seems to put a lot of random on the table, but the OB/DB splits tend to control a lot of it, since the results start around 75, you need to net around +25 OB over DB to get a 50/50 shot of hitting. . . .if you have 150 OB you tend to face foes with 150 OB, so when you both go 100/50 the net OB is +50 and you need a 25 to hit. . .in reverse the net OB is -50 and you need a 125 to hit. . . .so really the players, in choosing their splits, are almost completely in control of the results. . .it's like stratego or blind betting vs a dealer in a way. . .try to get the most OB vs DB out, but don't overbet as it raises the odds of being hit. . .but the die roll gets less and less important, and betting right more and more important, the higher the skill levels go. If you have 200 OB to start from, the die has become almost irrelevant. . .except for the murphy.

The open ended just tosses some murphy in the mix, so that you can't create a sure thing and go pick on someone way weaker and pound on them. . .even the 20th level fighter needs to worry the 1st level urchin with the 10 OB will roll triple open ended and spill the fighter's brain out into the dust of the street.

Cutting the random range of the die in half, then cutting OBs in half, will have the same probabilities of result, it'll just make the numbers smaller.

Going to a d20 +/- the usual factors will make the OB/DB parry split declaration "betting" king, and make randomness far less of a factor. . .I'd just use the exact same charts and depending on how far you want to push the nasty vs safe level, add 30-50 to the result and use the current tables.

Combatants will have a LOT more control over results, they may not be happy with the results, but betting right or wrong will give you the win or get you killed far more often than the dice do. . .it'll sort of like playing the odds like 20th level characters from 1st level. . .once you reach 20th the results will be almost completely about bluff and bet logic and almost no randomness.

If you want to retain the murphy, make the 1 and 20 open ended. (It will be a pale, sallow reflection of the 1d100 OE Murphy, but still put a little more uncertainty into play).

[markc]

 The other thing you could do is limit the high open end and low open end by the amount of skill a person has.
 For example if you have no ranks, you would have LOE of 1-5 but no HOE. For every 20 points of skill you would increase the HOE by 1 and reduce the LOE by 1. So if you have a 40 your LOE would be 1-3 and your HOE would be 99-00.


MDC

[Mourglin]

Those are definitely good ideas.  I'll consider them and perhaps a few more posts will hit this thread. I quit D&D back in like 86, I can't stomach the idea of rolling a D20 again.  Its % dice for me or nothing.   

I also like the Murphy factor... it actually happened in my last campaign. 

<caveat here>
I was running Middle Earth/RM.  Party was mid range levels 4-7th I think.  They were at the Animist tower deep in central Mirkwood and the Animist (Lhachglin) came out to great his visitors from the top of his tower.  The one magic using player (Mentalist) cast Shock A off of the Mind attack list.  He rolled a UM 96 I think.  I started shaking my head at this point, the Animist had blinded one of the players in the opening round but was about 90' up behind cover and about 26th level I think so I wasn't worried so much.  I think I had to roll a 34 or better to resist... which of course I rolled like a 18 or something.  Still I thought it would turn ugly for the players.  The Mentalist tossed his A crit.... 00.  Everyone erupted at the table...  and the Animist of 1000 years took a:

Head strike: Foe's brain falls victim to massive shock and surface burns.  Foe drops into unconsciousness, and dies in 6 rounds +20 hits. 

For good measure I rolled a random 50/50 to see if he would have fallen over the edge, which of course he did and he took another +90 fall crush and he splattered onto the cobblestones at the base of his tower.  This is when the campaign took a twist I never imagined....

  

[pastaav]

I very much agree with Marc R's comments. Without open ended rolls then significant OB advantage translate into sure death for the weaker fighter.

If the players complain about the different effects of attacks I think fate points might be a better way to handle it. Optionally you could allow the players to spend fate points to increase the power of their attacks also...

[Marc R]

I'm not really sure how you aim to shrink the OBs (Half size ranks?)

What you're almost seeming to call for is just to cut the 01-50 off the chart, use the rest as 01-100, then keep using the % dice for 1-100 results.

This is akin to handing out a +50 OB bonus to everyone. . .I'd make sure to use a lot more parry in play.

Would cut most of the dead rows out of the bottom of the table.