Topic: One Roll Attack & Critical for RM

[Marc R]

OK, the "use the same roll for attack and crit" causes a situation where you often miss or high crit. . if you need to roll a 90+ to hit, every time you hit you get a 90+ crit. .

How about:

Vroom, this conversation knocked loose some dust in my brain. . .there was a one roll RM method I'd tried in the past that worked fairly well. . .inverted die. . .so a 31 attack roll is a 13 crit. . .a 79 is a 97 crit, etc etc. . .avoids the "miss or kill" issue of using only one roll. (That would put RM on a complexity par with Martial Law, assuming the crit tables are in a spread across from the attack table).

can anyone find a way using the roll for the attack, and the inverted roll for the crit would break the odds or logic?

[vroomfogle]

This method doesn't fix the original problem that was mentioned, which is high roll followed by a poor crit roll, in fact the odds would be roughly the same I think. In fact if you ignore the one's die statistically, then you can treat it as two different die rolls.    If you need an 80+ to hit and an 80+ to kill on the crit that's a 4% chance of a kill using two separate die rolls OR one that is inverted.

But it does alleviate the need for a second roll.  I'm not sure how much that really gains though.

[Marc R]

I dunno, some folks seem to be hatin' on the 2nd die roll. (or the 1st, mostly, the fact you need to make two)

I like the logic of a high hits, high crits ding. . .as long as I don't roll it when going full OB vs an Ordainer.

Every now and then (more common in fiction) someone takes a full out shot to the center chest. . . and it bounces off the religious medallion/flask/watch and leaves a nasty bruise. . .

Sometimes you do indeed get a perfect, sweet shot, and something in murphy's bag of tricks makes that 45E result at 150 with a 01 roll on the crit for +5 hits. . . .super duper mega ding. . .but just a ding. . .

Then again, 50 hits would be enough to make most people notice, if they're not knocked unconscious. . . .an E crit is heavily biased toward killing you compared to an A, but you could still ding. . .then again 30-50 hits of damage is nothing to scoff at.

[vroomfogle]

I agree. I personally am fine with whiffing a crit after getting a high roll.   What I didn't like was if someone rolled OE a couple times and got something in the 200-300 range and then whiffed....giving the +1/10 over 150 fixed that though.

[Marc R]

We wrap the table, so the 300 would be two Es, and 60-100 hits even if you somehow rolled two 01's would be enough to kick your arse.

[Cory Magel]

You know, if I came up with weapon specific hit/crit charts that kept the existing armor types and extended the possibilities over two pages so that you go up to 200 or 300 I think you could solve most the problems.  No automatic high crit on hard to hit foes, one roll and likely no 'wrapping' needed anymore.

[Cory Magel]

You know, if I came up with weapon specific hit/crit charts that kept the existing armor types and extended the possibilities over two pages so that you go up to 200 or 300 I think you could solve most the problems.  No automatic high crit on hard to hit foes, one roll and likely no 'wrapping' needed anymore.

Doh, I keep forgetting the fact that the armor types each have their own column at the moment.  If that wasn't the case this would be really easy.  Course, if it was really easy I'd probably be trying to work something up for D&D, not Rolemaster. 

[Marc R]

I'm still iffy on the idea, if only because of the above. . .

Some people think a (150) "45E" attack table result, followed by an (01) "+5 hits" roll on the E table resulting in 50 hits, nothing else, is a flaw in the system.

I see it more as a good feature. . .odds get really low in E territory that you'll get out not bleeding, stunned or injured, but it's still remotely possible.

This plays into the issue of "How much of combat is skill, and how much is luck?"

The attack table half of the equation, except at low level/low OB, is mostly about skill, and other factors like armor. . .the 1-100 attack roll is open ended with some auto fumbles at the bottom, so luck has a chance of jumping out and throwing the odds totally off up or down, but mostly skill and tactical choices rule the attack table. . .and the results are all about how well you hit the target.

The Critical table is mostly about luck, which it should be. . .millimeters or less can make the difference between a flesh wound or bleeding out from a torn artery, minute variations in angle the difference between skipping off the armor or cleaving into it. . .Essentially every attack is intended to kill, and many attacks don't. . .not because the attack was poorly executed, but because murphy has a hand in any fight. Very few factors can bias the crit. . .and most of the factors just switch the column around, they don't change the crit. . .and of the items that change the crit, the most effective, ambush, requires an unaware foe who allows you to set up a perfect shot on them.

The problem I have with a one table method, is it shifts the bias way in favor of skill and tactical factors. . . so that weapon skill, face to face, is the same as ambush when I sneak up behind you. . .Ambush may still be nasty, you may use the skill rather than the ranks, and allow it to be added to OB to push the result up even higher for a sneak attack. . .and it's not just the offensive side. . .throwing on your plate armor and going full parry then acts as anti-ambush. . . .

Now, some folks reading this might think "Good, skill should matter more, and luck matter less." But, consider this:

In RM, one of the things that make it RM, is that when someone pulls out a sword on you, it's never funny, even if you're 10th level and they're 2nd. . .and a good deal of the reason why it's not funny, is that those A criticals start early, and a 00 result on an A will kill you.

I strongly suspect that any one table method would reduce that fear, because at high levels, with better gear, you can just swamp the attacker's OB with DB, and since luck is being downplayed vs skill, the odds on that smart mouth punk killing or maiming you have gone way down.

[Ecthelion]

Good posting, LM!

Some people think a (150) "45E" attack table result, followed by an (01) "+5 hits" roll on the E table resulting in 50 hits, nothing else, is a flaw in the system.

Yes, that's how it often seems to be. What people tend to ignore, when they want their characters' high attack rolls to result in deadly criticals, is that the NPCs would use the same system. And quickly they would find themselves confronted with their characters being subject to a simple open-ended roll from an NPC that results in a fatal critical and a dead character. For me the critical roll adds suspense (will I get that opponent killed or not?) and it also protects the PCs from the majority of unlucky rolls (even with an E critical you have ~80% chance to survive).

[Cory Magel]

It will take some luck out of the separate critical roll, however it's hit or miss if people do or don't like that idea.  Even in the existing RM users you have one camp that thinks it's silly when you end up with a 150+ attack then get an 01 on the crit and you have one camp that likes the randomness of it.

I'm not trying to figure a way out to make the game better for me.  I could go right on playing RM even if there was never another single printed word published for it again.  The whole point of my thoughts here on the forums is to find ways to make game more (or at least appear more) playable for newcomers for the purpose of ICE actually having a successful RM again.  And as I've said before, I think Rolemaster needs to overcome some of the criticisms of the gaming community in general whether those of us who play it think they are valid or not.  A new edition really is what is needed.  You have to put out a new version of a game system eventually for it to remain commercially viable, otherwise you just keep adding more and more to try to get the existing customer to buy new products and it deteriorates into a mess as RM2 did.  I don't think ICE is capable of that anymore.

Personally I think if Rolemaster is truly "too hard" for a gamer to use once they actually make an effort to learn and play it then one of two things is going on.
1. They just want a simple game that they don't have to put much work into. Not saying that's dumb or that they aren't intelligent... they just don't care for the added detail and realism that leaning a system RM will bring.
2. They are ignorant, have only listened to other ignorant gamers, and have not tried the game out themselves or did so with a poorly organized game of RM.

Either RM just isn't your style or you don't really know anything about it.

Unfortunately when you have a company that either isn't willing to or simply unable to put the time or money into promote and/or defend their game, yet still are trying to sell it as a viable commercial product, a way has to be found to overcome the criticisms people have of it.  As someone mentioned elsewhere in the forums there is a circular problem with RM, and really ICE in general.  No money, no staff, so no promotion and no real new products, so no money coming in... repeat.  ICE is doomed to failure again as a publisher of table-top roleplaying games if they can't find a way out of that pattern.  But, money or no money, to find their way out of that they need to actually start putting some effort into doing so regardless of how small their staff might be.  Tracking down every distributor they can and trying to get the word out to every game store they can find would be a good start.

[RandalThor]

I am one whodoesn't like the "00" followed by the "01" thing. Of course, like I said, it is much more of a problem in a game like D&D, as in RM at least you do get the benefit of the initial good roll (i.e., more hits). (Of course, this is why I also like things like Fate Points, or Hero Points, or whatever you want to call them: they can be a good way to counter these events.)

But, I do not like too much luck and randomness in these things. While technically possible, a 20th level fighter shouldn't be too worried about that 1st level fighter he is facing to beat him. To me, when those situations arrise, that is when I like to use my brain to figure out another way of doing things - which is the fun of these games (for me). When I am faced with that overwhelming opposition, I look to use another route (stealth is always a great alternate choice). If it just: "all got to do is get 1 lucky shot, and that luck not needing to be too extreme" why bother?

Also, I don't think there has to be 10,000 variations of something for it to be worthwhile. When it gets like that and you can't even hope to predict a possible outcome, that is also unrealistic - just in the other way. The Hack and Slash "M" column has 25 different outcomes, and that is not counting the 17R and the 18R as seperate outcomes. (The one point difference doesn't make it enough different for me to justify counting twice.) Plus there are the S, L, and H columns to add even more outcomes. That is enough for me.

[markc]

   I can say that I like the 2 roll high hit and low crit combat in RM. I also like that you have to be more on your guard in RM vs opponents than in most other games. You have hits that can get to be a high number to help you increase the PC's "hero-ness" in combat but everyone has to be careful of that one lucky combatant that knows nothing but still gets a luck hit.
  I also have to say that it works in the PC's favor also when and if it has to happen. IE to be the "hero" you have to hold off X deamon for 3 rounds and you know it is pretty much invincible. I think of the lone archer in the Hobbit who shoots the Dragon or any other number of "heroes" in stories.

My 2 cents for what it is worth.
MDC

I also think that RM can be tough to learn but once you have it, it is a very easy game and going back to other systems often seems like a cartoon. At least to me it does.
MDC

[Cory Magel]

I also think that RM can be tough to learn but once you have it, it is a very easy game and going back to other systems often seems like a cartoon. At least to me it does.

I agree, the only difficult thing about RM (and really almost any RPG you haven't played) is learning it.  I always say if I grew up playing RM and had to learn D&D from scratch I'd probably think it's difficult too.  Our group didn't have a problem learning RM because we were proactively looking for a system to replace D&D due to what we felt were major deficiencies in how it works.

[Marc R]

I guess, if one were to get a 150, then roll a 01, and walk away with 4 hits done, it can be irksome, though perhaps that argues more that the tables should be a bit more hits causing at the top, and a critical that does a measly +1 hit (or worse +0) shouldn't be on the crit table.

Having crits offer something a bit beefier at the bottom, like at minimum a +5 hits on an A01 might make that a bit better.

Or, perhaps, getting even more aggressive with tampering, and saying the melee skill is AG/AG/AG. . .and add the strength bonus to the hits done. . .so if Conan +10 ST bonus 150s you in your AT20 with a dagger, then rolls a 1 so it fails to penetrate, at least he rings your bell for 34 hits. . .Not sure if I like that idea applied to the quarterstaff in Conan's hands for 30-50 hits each shot. . .though the vision of Aunt May ST -10 flailing on conan with a stick for 0 hits, 0 hits, 0 hits does seem amusing.

[Tolen]

Might I suggest something?

I admit I haven't thought it through completely, but why not Margin of Success?  In other words, if you need an 80+ to hit your target, and you score, say 135, that becomes a 55 on the critical table?

Roll achieved - Roll needed = crit result

Like I said, that's just off the top of my head, so it may be completely daft.

[Marc R]

You'd need to figure A-E severity into there somewhere. . .

[RandalThor]

I also think that RM can be tough to learn but once you have it, it is a very easy game and going back to other systems often seems like a cartoon. At least to me it does.
MDC

I definately agree with this, though I like to call it 3-D (RM) vs 2-D (D&D and others), but basically the same idea.

[RandalThor]

I guess, if one were to get a 150, then roll a 01, and walk away with 4 hits done, it can be irksome, though perhaps that argues more that the tables should be a bit more hits causing at the top, and a critical that does a measly +1 hit (or worse +0) shouldn't be on the crit table.

Having crits offer something a bit beefier at the bottom, like at minimum a +5 hits on an A01 might make that a bit better.

Or, perhaps, getting even more aggressive with tampering, and saying the melee skill is AG/AG/AG. . .and add the strength bonus to the hits done. . .so if Conan +10 ST bonus 150s you in your AT20 with a dagger, then rolls a 1 so it fails to penetrate, at least he rings your bell for 34 hits. . .Not sure if I like that idea applied to the quarterstaff in Conan's hands for 30-50 hits each shot. . .though the vision of Aunt May ST -10 flailing on conan with a stick for 0 hits, 0 hits, 0 hits does seem amusing.

Both good ideas an worthy of looking into, though I think the previous is more in lines with the game as it stands now and removing ST from the melee skill equation (which I assume it is there in order to reflect the fact taht the greater strength will usually lead to higher hits in damage) could be bigger departure. Hmm..

Definately, and E crit should start off with some effect other than just +1 or even +5 hits of damage, even if it is fairly minor.

[Marc R]

I get why a dagger maxes at a 3C vs AT20, but the C minimums at +1 hit. . .which is admittedly pretty lame, even vs full plate I'd hope a 150+ implied I got a shot into a crack or join somewhere, or at least rang your bell with the pommel.

Yeah, the STR thing would be a big shift, and likely rapidly get out of hand too. . .I'm contemplating dwarves with ST boosting talents doing +45 hits per attack with a wet towel.

"What happened?"

"He rat-tailed the imperial guard to death, and now he's here for you sire."

Likely tossing more hits on the bottoms of the crits would be best. . .so what if "+10 hits, 2 bleed, 1 stun -10 to all actions" is a result mid way up, +10 hits" down at 01, with no wound, stun, or bleed is a lot less hurtful, and at least makes a dinky 01 roll do something. . I may house rule +5 hits or +10 hits to the first couple of lines of the crits at my table.

[markc]

   I might have it be weapon dependant if you add hits to the bottom of the chart or a min roll for specific weapons.
 But again I do not see a problem.
MDC