Official ICE Forums
Gamer's Corner => General Discussion => Topic started by: Thom @ ICE on February 26, 2015, 06:36:19 AM
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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. ;D
MDC
-
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.
;)
:-X
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
No one is talking about changing Rolemaster.
This is completely separate idea.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Cory,
If you do have have 10 million ways to die then that is what you are describing above.
MDC
-
If you do have have 10 million ways to die then that is what you are describing above.
MDC
Really? That's funny, I just picked up that book in a store a few months back and haven't opened it yet.
(It was selling for crazy prices online, but I found a hobby store about 40 miles away that had it at cover price).
I took a quick look, it's actually right next to my desk. It still needs differing critical charts for the 1H and 2H versions of weapons. :)
-
Yes the crit charts are the same, but it does not fit my game style but Yammahopper loves it.
MDC
-
My view on critical tables is that they are fun to read, but do we REALLY need quite so many?
There has been many discussions on subjects such as hit location and ambush and such like...
My view has always been that the description given in a critical table is there simply as fluff (i.e. making it fun to read)...but is subject to adaptation to fit the situation. It is the magnitude of the details, the type of injury sustained additional hits caused, stun... and all that are the bits we actually need and to a degree even these should be subject to modification based on intent and situation. The basic rule should be the higher the result the more effective the critical.
Basically, the description element of a critical should really come from a descriptive elements introduced to suit the situation by the GM or an intended result specified by the Player. The magnitude of the result is based on the roll.
What this means is that there could be a considerable "trimming" of the number of critical charts... by simply stating the certain rules elements of a critical result are predetermined based on the weapon type.. lets say Stun results (for blunt) vs Hit's/rnd (for Blades). Intent, might alter these results, determined by the application of certain skills and/or modifiers or specified locations.
-
Personally I very much like critical tables. And I also think that for many people it is easier and faster to look up a result on a table than to run some calculations to generate the result. What I also don't like about the calculation approach is that there is less variation to the results, since the damage simply rises in a linear way the higher the result is. With the existing RM tables some of the criticals deal out more stuns but little penalty to actions, others deal out a lot of bleeding etc. For me the approach with the existing RM tables just offers more thrill when it comes to criticals. Admittedly newer ICE critical tables, like in HARP's Hack & Slash or RMU Arms Law are just as boring, since they seem to be based upon such a formula.
-
The nice thing about an equation or threat ranges is the information can easily be recorded on the character sheet, thus the player and GM readily have access to the data. So the tables have to be deconstructed with a simpler mechanic to express the data.
For critical ranges, this isn't difficult. My experience is devising hits delivered mechanic is problematic. Fortunately, what seems problematic to me may well seem easy to another. I'm sure there is a viable mechanic (besides the easy answer of move ALL damage to the critical tables). I also think the hits delivered deconstructed rule should be tied to St mod. A fey may inflict a serious wound with minimum concussion damage while a Giant pummels his foe even with minor critical damage.
-
I find it interesting that people are indicating that the data in the table is boring when it shows a continuous progression as results increase.
Isn't that the desired result? You roll better, you do more damage. Maybe I'm not understanding the concern.
If I were creating critical charts from scratch (so no need to worry about complexity), I would use a mechanic similar to the following:
Each weapon has a % factor for Hits, 3 critical types equating to bleeds, stuns, injuries, and Special.
Hits = H% Bleeds = B% Stuns = S% Injuries = I% Special = X%
Result Roll = R
Final Impact (everything rounds down) = H%*R, B%*R, S%*R, I%*R, X%*R
H is the easiest one. It results in a #.
B gives a # of bleeds per round, severed limbs, damaged organs, etc.
S gives stuns, knockdowns, broken bones, damaged organs, etc.
I gives maneuver penalties, damaged equipment, broken bones, etc.
X gives special impact such as entanglement or disarming, etc.
There would be only one critical chart for each type of critical.
A mace might have a rating of - H35% / B10%/ S30%/ I20%/ X5%
The end result = 60
Hits = 21
Bleeds Critical = 6
Stun Critical = 18
Injury Critical = 12
Special Critical = 3
For Bleeds a 6 may indicate minor cuts and -1 hit
For Stun an18 may indicate stun 1 round and -4 hits
For Injury a 12 may indicate bruising, -5 on next action
For Special a 3 may indicate no significant impact
Impact = 26 hits, stun 1 round, -5 on next action
The longbow ratings might be H25% / B35% / S10% / I25% / X5%
The same end result = 60
Hits = 15
Bleeds Critical = 21
Stun Critical = 6
Injury Critical = 15
Special Critical = 3
For Bleeds a 21 may indicate deep wound yielding 2 bleeds, and -5 hits
For Stun a 6 may indicate minor disruption to movement, -1 hit
For Injury a 15 may indicate muscle injury, -10 until healed
For Special a 3 may indicate no significant impact
Impact = 21 hits, bleed 2/round, -10 until healed
The issue with this is that even if the factors are generally easy values to work with, you still have a relatively complex resolution (5 multiplications) which would mean either a pregenerated chart, or a calculator tool.
If you are going to use charts or tools, then why not have the various armor types provide bonus protection depending upon damage type – some reduce stuns, others reduce bleeds, or injuries, or everything. This then leads to RM type critical charts, but it connects the Result to the Impact and gives a wide variety of results rather easily.
-
The nice thing about an equation or threat ranges is the information can easily be recorded on the character sheet, thus the player and GM readily have access to the data. So the tables have to be deconstructed with a simpler mechanic to express the data.
For critical ranges, this isn't difficult. My experience is devising hits delivered mechanic is problematic. Fortunately, what seems problematic to me may well seem easy to another. I'm sure there is a viable mechanic (besides the easy answer of move ALL damage to the critical tables). I also think the hits delivered deconstructed rule should be tied to St mod. A fey may inflict a serious wound with minimum concussion damage while a Giant pummels his foe even with minor critical damage.
Hits delivered for firearms is pretty easy to calculate, actually, but in a sense it does tie to St (muzzle energy). I always allowed a St bonus to concussion damage in my RM games (we used the d20 stat bonus to reflect that...so the giant did do massive concussion damage even with no crit).
-
When creating a crit chart I assign a point value to each effect and increase the overall point value of the critical as they move up the chart.
It's been a while, so I no longer have the values I used, but to give an example (and these numbers are very vague guesses)...
1 Hit = 1 Point
1 Bleed/Burn = 3 Points.
1 Stun = 2 Points
1 Stun No Parry = 3 Points
-10 Penalty = 3 points
...and so on.
Then I just look at the nature of the type of attack assumed (Slash, Pierce, Krush, Fire, whatever) and favor the chart slightly more heavily to those effects (and sometimes it will be more than one). So, Slashing will have more Bleeding, Pierce might have a little more internal damage, Crush will cause more penalties, burning will obviously cause more burning, and so on.
Having a base formula to work from is definitely needed, but you also need to just 'eyeball' them so they don't become too predicable/mechanical (RMU's first go at Crit Tables was awful - aside from any balance concerns they were far too predictable for my taste).
-
But here's the question on predictability....
Since the dice rolls are random, and the results should be different each attack, does it really matter if you can predict the outcome of an 86 based upon the result you had from the 84?
Actually, if you use a formula it is almost always more likely to have predictable results (that's what the formula does), but it also gives you the ability to populate separate charts for every weapon and every individual roll if you want.
Note: This assumes that you are not playing HARP with Damage Cap where everything progresses until you start getting the damage cap result every time you roll the dice.
The part you don't get in the case of using the formula is the description, but even that should be able to be coded into a formula.
You <attack style> your <weapon> and catch your foe in the <body part>. The <weapon> <attack style2> the foe's <body part> for <descriptor> damage.
Attack Style = swing, chop, stab, smash
Weapon = sword, axe, spear, club
body part = head, hand, stomach, groin, chest, neck
attack style2 = slices, dices, smashes, cleaves, cuts, pulverizes
descriptor = almost none, only a little, some pretty good, nasty, major, awesome, critical, death-dealing.
With the correct assignments between result and body part, descriptor and attack style2, combined with proper selection of weapon, which defines attack style and attack style2 - it becomes an auto-generating description.
Assume it was a high roll with an axe.
You chop your axe and catch your foe in the neck. The axe cleaves the foe's neck for death-dealing damage.
Or a club on a low roll
You swing your club and catch your foe in the funny bone. The club barely hits the foe's funny bone for almost no real damage.
-
I am with Cory that I prefer an over all formula that increases the defining formula for the crit in question.
As a side note I would like to see a way to have an increased vale for hits but a decrease vale for the crit value. For example 10 A, 11 A, 12 B, 15 A, etc. But as I have been fiddling with this while solving computer problems it can expand the chart a bit.
MDC
-
About HARP type combat or strait formula based combat:
What the groups I played HARP with found was that the strait formula based ideas was not to out liking as it seemed lacking in some way. BTW one group had extensive experience in RM(RM2/SS/FRP) and the other none. Both decided the liked Arms Law based systems a lot better and one group stayed with HARP and the other went back to RMSS.
Note on Strait Formula based Crit values:
For myself just having a strait formula the kicks out an ever increasing number of hits and other crit specific values took away some of the RM magic. It made combat ho-hum and increased the perceived math intensive nature of RM combat. would this be true even in a computer based app, IMHO yes it would unless you did not publish a PnP version of the rules.
MDC
-
I personally think there should be 1 attack chart that basically allots X Hits/increment of 5 then 3 then 2 over the base TN of 50 + DB. Then you add weapon and subtract Armor. Basically, what I think the formula for HARP was intended to be.
Critical Charts I'm a complete radical on- I think they should be based on your target. Give monsters "classes" and let your players have loads of fun cutting a swath through hordes of Vermin and Minions and then run in to a Monster and have their pride re-adjusted.
-
How about...each weapon is rated for first hit number and first crit number. So a mace could be 70/92. Armor then provides the spread for critical types (S/P/K). So AT 18 could be +22/+15/+25
An attack of 70 or higher hits for just hits. 92 or higher crits and lands hits. mace would increase its crit damage for every 25 over 92.
Using the current critical tables resolves the same. A new damage system could indicate an additional type of wound per 25 point step over 92. Bone, bleed, stun, organ, nerve, etc.
-
I like the cut of your jib Yamma ;) LOL- have a great weekend!
-
I find it interesting that people are indicating that the data in the table is boring when it shows a continuous progression as results increase.
Isn't that the desired result? You roll better, you do more damage. Maybe I'm not understanding the concern.
Yes, it is overall the desired result, at least for me. But that does not mean that hits, stuns etc. delivered have to be linear throughout the table. The existing RM Arms Law tables do deliver better results for better rolls overall (no need to argue over individual entries), but the results are not that easily predictable, so that rolling a critical always involves some thrill, like "will I deal a stun to the orc, so that he can't strike back or only some bleeding".
-
I like the cut of your jib Yamma ;) LOL- have a great weekend!
Thank you. I get to start a new campaign this Saturday with some old characters so I should indeed have very great weekend.
;D
-
Each weapon has a % factor for Hits, 3 critical types equating to bleeds, stuns, injuries, and Special.
Hits = H% Bleeds = B% Stuns = S% Injuries = I% Special = X%
Result Roll = R
I don't think the problem here is predictability so much as uniformity. Above a certain threshold, every result has hits AND bleeding AND stun AND injury penalties. The existing charts (which were created more along the lines that Corey mentioned) vary this, so one result might only give bleeding and the next only stun. Not only does that create more variability, it's also less work for the GM to have fewer types of damage per result. Bleeding has to be tracked, injury penalties have to be tracked, stun has to be tracked.
Now using a formula for the attack table rather than the crit table, there are only two things to track (hits and crit severity) so it's fine to use a simple progression like that.
-
Thanks..... got it
Basic progression on attack
Mixed progression with alternating rates similar to a good ole game of buzz buzz
-
jdale has it right. I want critical charts that mix up the effects (as in RMFRP and before), not just increase the same effects as you move up the chart (as in RMU).
-
Variable effects with a progressive damage system...so, what if the higher attack results indicate more damage but the type of damage is determined randomly?
An elegant mechanic for this... ???
-
Makes me think of critical dice... one side is bleeding, one side is hits, one side is stun, etc... number of dice rolled depends on how good the hit was. Custom d6 is not too pricey, could just use the familiar symbols from the crit charts....
-
If each step of success over initial number needed to indicate a crit results in increased wounding rather than increased critical severity (A-E), my mace would crit on a 92, then cause additional wound at 112, then additional wound at 132, etc. An attack of 140 would mean three wound options rather than a C crit, and we don't want the damage to automatically be a progression of the same (first you cause bleeding, then bone break, etc). So, our new critical tables for s/p/k could be six columns: Bleeding/Stun/Bone-tendon/Organ/Muscle/Special. Each column has 19 results. We know the wound will roll on three columns, the question is how to determine which column.
Thinking caps on. :o
-
I like the dice idea... but it being Rolemaster d10's please ;)
Have a pack with multiples of 10 dice of the same colour... each colour represents a type of critical... slash, blunt, piercing or elemental... etc
(Though in theory if you don't use the symbols and use a chart like I use in the example, any 1d10 will do. ;) )
Then when you get a "a" you roll two dice, "b" four... "c" six... "d" eight.. "e" ten....
The results on the dice favour certain critical results dependant on the weapon type.
e.g. Lets say Blunt/Crush
1= +0 for the 1st result, +5 hits for each result thereafter
2= +10 hits
3-4= 2 round Stun
5 = 1 round Stun (No parry)
6-7 = Temp Penalty (-10 for 1 round) (two results would be -20 for 2 rounds...etc)
8-9 Injury Penalty (-10 per result 1-2 results =Minor, 3-4 Medium, 5+ Serious
10 =Special Penalty/Effect dice*
* Reroll this dice and then add an additional dice result of another weapon type.
Example: getting a "b" critical the player rolls four d10, getting results of 1,2,3,4: This results in +10 damage and 4 rounds of Stun.
The "10" result is a way to get the really bad critical results.
-
Current crit tables have 19 results and 2d10 generates 19 results (no 1's).
Definitely d10 or d100.
An * could be placed on most results 8 or higher. Three * indicates a crippling injury, four a severed limb, five instant death, or some such combination.
I would like to keep the number of die rolled to five maximum, or it gets cumbersome imo. Of course, if one d10 determines column/injury type while the other severity, I could indeed see 10 dice used.
-
Variable effects with a progressive damage system...so, what if the higher attack results indicate more damage but the type of damage is determined randomly?
An elegant mechanic for this... ???
The existing RM2 through RMFRP crit tables. ;D
Makes me think of critical dice... one side is bleeding, one side is hits, one side is stun, etc... number of dice rolled depends on how good the hit was. Custom d6 is not too pricey, could just use the familiar symbols from the crit charts....
Nooo! Please, for the love of all that is holy, no more rolls... ;)
-
I have been brooding on making attacks directly on the critical table. I also want to make it an electronic random affair, so an attack would consist of a resulting roll with characteristics of the weapon (percentage of Slash Krush, Puncture, effectiveness against AT, location) generating a random critical on the spot. Attack types, damage descriptions and the attack roll are classified to prevent maces from generating a slash description and low rolls not cutting off heads, etc.
Since it is all electronic, it can be integrated in the various software programs or in a stand alone app or program to speed the game along and increase enjoyment.
I intend to make the descriptions and specific damage realistic but also as varied and random as I can make them without losing consistency.
-
I would like to keep the number of die rolled to five maximum, or it gets cumbersome imo. Of course, if one d10 determines column/injury type while the other severity, I could indeed see 10 dice used.
For a easily remembered system I agree 1-5 dice (representing A-E respectively) would be easier.. I had initially thought that.. not sure why I changed it. Perhaps I was trying to replicate the lethality of the current "E" critical (roughly 15%) ... but thinking upon it, using 1-5 dice and having the "10" result explode (i.e. reroll and add another dice) means the chance of rolling multiple "10s" increases massively with the greater number of dice.
I wasn't too bothered about the exact descriptive effects of the result at the time I wrote the example... I'd suggest that if you get more than 5 results the same that should generally constitute a "instant kill/decapitation/K.O" result.
-
I have been brooding on making attacks directly on the critical table.
I really think that RM could VERY easily combine the attack and critical and most people wouldn't even know it had been done if someone was just reading off the result to them (without them seeing the table). The only issue I see is, if in print, you'd need at least two page tables (maybe more). For an electronic method? I think it would work absolutely perfectly.
-
For me, the attractiveness of a random wound matrix is it could break the static nature of the current critical tables. I do not mind the loss of color descriptions as I provide my own (though in the rules describing such a matrix function colorful descriptions by the GM should be stressed).
A single wound that results in bleedcould be rolled on the bleed column at -4 with 2d10 or -20 with d100. two wound results that both end on the bleed column could be rolled t -2/-10, 3 results at +/- 0, etc, similar to MERP. The penalties could be significantly larger if we have only one bleed column, but if we generate a table for bleed/stun/bone/organ/muscle for one wound result (an A crit) and another for two, then three, etc, no mods are needed. How many tables do we want?
Again, the primary advantage of such a change is increased varability while maintaining the integrity of a critical system. Since RMU is not going to innovate a new set of mechanics, I want to for myself and my game. As I pointed out before, many brains are better than mine alone.
-
I'm good with critical charts having set effects, but ones that vary (like all the pre-RMU ones) rather than just ramp up (like the RMU ones). Our group has been playing RM for 25+ years and we've never had an issue with them. It does help if you do what you do though yammahoper, that is, just use the effects and provide your own description that follows the spirit of the critical.
-
One thing that is stirring around in my mind. Eliminate Armor rules as we know them and have them modify critical damage instead. I mean modify specific types of critical damage by modifying damage rolls on the critical tables/Matrix.
This simplifies armor a bit. Each AT would have a +/- rating versus each damage type applied against the actual critical rolls. No Armor may be a default 20 or 25 for s/p/k. Being critted with no armor on hurts.
Of course, with all the new possible rules and mods from weapons and spells, I sense an arms race may develop. With elemental crits, the list of mods for each AT keeps getting longer (s/p/k/strikes/sweeps-grapple/electric/heat/cold/impact/unbalance/brawling...jimminey cricket).
-
Again... people are peeking at my notes.
-
I don't see where it matters whether the order of crits is linear or random.. effectively each result should have the same 5 chance of attaining it regardless of where it is on the chart, and a Progressive crit chart is easier to design than a random one.
-
...and have them modify critical damage instead. I mean modify specific types of critical damage by modifying damage rolls on the critical tables/Matrix.
This is somewhat how MERP handled it.
I don't see where it matters whether the order of crits is linear or random.. effectively each result should have the same 5 chance of attaining it regardless of where it is on the chart, and a Progressive crit chart is easier to design than a random one.
For me it matters a lot. I don't want...
+1 Hit
+1 Hit and 1 Bleed
+1 Hit, 1 Bleed, and 1 Stun
+2 Hits, 1 Bleed, and 1 Stun
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, and 1 Stun
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, and 2 Stun
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, 2 Stun, and -10
+2 Hits, 2 Bleed, 2 Stun, and -20
...and so on.
What I want is...
+1 Hit
+ 2 Hits
1 Bleed
+1 Hit and 1 Bleed
1 Stun
+3 Hits and 1 Stun
+5 Hits and 2 Bleed
1 Stun and 1 Bleed
... and so on.
I don't want an obvious and 100% predicable progression, but I do want a progression of seriousness that varies in it's exact nature. A predictable progression is not more difficult than a varied progression so long as you have predefined values for the various effects. What's hard is creating the color text and unless you want REALLY freaking boring color text it's still going to be just as hard to make the charts. For someone who makes up their own descriptions the predicable progression works only slightly better imo... because you're still describing a predicable mechanical effect even if you change up the 'why'.
I don't remember the exact numbers, but my values when writing the critical tables was something like this...
1 Hit = 1 Point
1 Stun = 2 Points
1 Stun must Parry = 3 Points
1 Bleed = 3 Points
-5 penalty = 4 Points
1 Stun no Parry = 5 Points
There's other stuff, like disarming a weapon, breaking a shield, taking out a limb, death in x rounds to instant death, etc. But you get the idea. You assign a point value to each effect and then each critical has a point value as you move up the chart. It makes the mechanics of it very simple... it's the color text that bogs you down.
-
I have always thought Armor should be applied after the hit. In one of my previous posts on this thread (I think) I stated that I liked how the mechanic for HARP was used - but the Armor was lumped into DB instead of being a separate modifier. It just makes so much sense for it to be applied after the hit. You should always get your Armor "bonus" even when surprised or downed etc. I realize that the attack table take this into consideration- but, if the idea is to reduce the number of attack table or at least reduce them then removing ATs is the simplest way to go.
-
I have always thought Armor should be applied after the hit. In one of my previous posts on this thread (I think) I stated that I liked how the mechanic for HARP was used - but the Armor was lumped into DB instead of being a separate modifier. It just makes so much sense for it to be applied after the hit. You should always get your Armor "bonus" even when surprised or downed etc. I realize that the attack table take this into consideration- but, if the idea is to reduce the number of attack table or at least reduce them then removing ATs is the simplest way to go.
Agreed, which is what my personal system is trying to emulate.