Topic: Mitigating the whiff-effect

[Thot]

You know the whiff-effect? That's the effect that occurs when you do something in the game, spend effort on it, and then... nothing happens.

In RoleMaster, this happens when you roll extremely low on you attack roll so that you don't even do concussion damage - but that's actually rather rare, and needs to be in the game for obvious reasons.

But it also happens in RoleMaster when you score a critical hit, only to then find that you roll a very bad result for the critical, reducing this experience of success into this "hmpf". For example, when you score an E critical, but then only roll a 03 on your crit roll. Rather anticlimactic, isn't it.

Now, you might argue that this also is intended and needs to be in the game. That's a perfectly valid way to look at it. But suppose you wanted to lessen the impact a bit... I'd like to collect and discuss ideas on what to do to achieve this.

• Simply always roll 2D100 when attacking, one for the attack, the other for a possible crit (or fumble); thus, you can immediately see if your critical is worth looking forward to or not.
• Use the same die roll for the attack roll AND the critical. So if you roll high, you will always have a meaningful critical hit, while if you roll low, no matter how skilled you are, you immediately know it's not going to end the fight.

Any other ideas? Comments why these ideas wouldn't work for you or your group?

[Spectre771]

• Simply always roll 2D100 when attacking, one for the attack, the other for a possible crit (or fumble); thus, you can immediately see if your critical is worth looking forward to or not.

Crits are always worth looking forward to!  They are the jelly on the toast, the sprinkles on the ice cream!  :D
This doesn't really address your concern though.  If  you roll the crit immediately and you are disappointed or you wait the 5 seconds for the GM to look up the result and tells you to roll the crit, the end result is the same, only delayed a few seconds.

• Use the same die roll for the attack roll AND the critical. So if you roll high, you will always have a meaningful critical hit, while if you roll low, no matter how skilled you are, you immediately know it's not going to end the fight.

This method essentially eliminates roughly half of the crit table results and any chances of 66-crits, unless your OB is huge and a low roll produces a crit, but then you've stumbled into the initial issue of a low crit roll.  Low and mediocre rolls will guarantee a low and mediocre crit result which eliminates the lower value ranges of the crit tables.  The PC has to be really lucky and hope that an attack roll of 66 will yield a crit after OB and DB is calculated.  Lower level PCs are probably going to be struggling to even see a crit result.  The A-crits will always be low-result A-crits because the OB was low initially,  C-crits will always be medium level C-crits as the attack is mediocre, and the E-crits will always be high end E-crits as the attack roll has to be high to get an E-crit.  This nearly eliminates chances of high end A and B crits and the low end D and E crits.

One of my PC's has an OB of 168, barring a fumble, I can roll a 5 and do max damage which leaves me with a guaranteed 5-E-Crit roll.    The skill happens to be a Battle Axe which does huge damage and really nice crits, but I don't want guaranteed low or even mediocre crit every time I attack.

The only way to address the low crit result is to re-write the crit table and to eliminate the "whiff" results.  The lower range of the crit tables do give nice stun results, 'have initiative', +# to attack, must parry, etc. results which can help out other players as well as the attacker.   Yes, it can be frustrating landing a crit and rolling a 3, but that's probability and if you wish, the whim of the Dice Gods.

Across the board, (1-5) E-Crits yield +3 to +5 extra damage.  Yeah, lousy results but we always treated 1-4 as a fumble result (unless stated specifically by the weapon fumble range), so the player "fumbled" the crit.*   The player landed a good solid hit, found the seam in the armour, drove deep for high damage... but no extra gore.  Isn't that what we're hoping for with crits anyway?  Extra gore!!!     The reality is that rolling a 1-5 on the crit roll is only 5% chance.  Perhaps re-writing the D and E crits for a little extra damage at low ranges? 

And lest we forget the other side of that double-edged sword...  The GM will be giving the PCs the guaranteed high crit rolls and eliminating the whiff rolls against the PC.  All E-crits against the PCs will be high E-crits with no chance to whiff.  Yikes!  No thank you!


* - yes, we know you don't fumble a crit roll, but that is the believable explanation/description we use for having +3 hits on an E-crit result.

[Ginger McMurray]

Spectre771 covers it pretty well for the "use the same roll" option. The "roll both at once" option would work, but isn't really necessary. It only moves the disappointment earlier in the process.

I'll be using a variation of fate points. They can be spent to reroll anything. If it's really important to you that you get a beefy crit, reroll the 06. In general, players always kept those in reserve for crits against them except when fighting something really nasty. But the option is always there, and a player sitting on a stockpile may decide to completely decimate the orc rather than hold back.

[Majyk]

Yup to what was said above.

Fate/Hero points to affect crits though usually saved to reduce crits received vs dealt!!!

This sounds like you might have an issue with Players not liking to wait for Christmas and spooge their loads(apologies for the graphic description but it is apt) on opening every gift on its Eve, instead!

Delayed Gratification, babee.  Roll ‘em separately...
Make ‘em sweat when it’s received and doubly so when the BBEG is slaughtering the party around it and a last ditch 100% OB swipe digs in and counts as a coup de grace to save the world!

[Thot]

(Still hoping to collect more replies before replying. For context, though: I am currently in preparation of a RoleMaster campaign, not actually playing yet, as my current campaign hasn't come to its end yet. So no current issues with players here; I am just trying to anticipate potential reservations or frustrations.)

[terefang]

you could experiment with:

• rolling d100 for the attack roll and
• switching numbers (tens and ones) for the critical result.

eg. an attack roll of "69" would give a critical of "96".

so even a low attack roll ("19") would give some nice critical ("91")

[intothatdarkness]

I've had far too many players saved by a low E crit roll to be in favor of anything that ensures an E crit will always be high damage. Since RM has NO fate mechanism, I always viewed this as the game's nod in that direction. So they hit with the flat of the sword once in a while....landing a heavy thud (the concussion damage) but missing the mark otherwise. Stuff happens.

[Thot]

• Simply always roll 2D100 when attacking, one for the attack, the other for a possible crit (or fumble); thus, you can immediately see if your critical is worth looking forward to or not.

Crits are always worth looking forward to!  They are the jelly on the toast, the sprinkles on the ice cream!  :D
This doesn't really address your concern though.  If  you roll the crit immediately and you are disappointed or you wait the 5 seconds for the GM to look up the result and tells you to roll the crit, the end result is the same, only delayed a few seconds.

Hm, you fear it would not change anything significantly? I can see why.

• Use the same die roll for the attack roll AND the critical. So if you roll high, you will always have a meaningful critical hit, while if you roll low, no matter how skilled you are, you immediately know it's not going to end the fight.

This method essentially eliminates roughly half of the crit table results and any chances of 66-crits, unless your OB is huge and a low roll produces a crit, but then you've stumbled into the initial issue of a low crit roll.

Hm, "low crit roll" as such isn't exactly the issue I am trying to address - rather the disappointment that comes with them because of the anticipation of "yeah, I scored a crit".

  Low and mediocre rolls will guarantee a low and mediocre crit result which eliminates the lower value ranges of the crit tables.  The PC has to be really lucky and hope that an attack roll of 66 will yield a crit after OB and DB is calculated.  Lower level PCs are probably going to be struggling to even see a crit result.  The A-crits will always be low-result A-crits because the OB was low initially,  C-crits will always be medium level C-crits as the attack is mediocre, and the E-crits will always be high end E-crits as the attack roll has to be high to get an E-crit.  This nearly eliminates chances of high end A and B crits and the low end D and E crits.

Hm, I did not mean the attack roll as a whole, just the die roll. So with this variant, if your OB is 100, and you roll a 50, that would be a 50 on the E column of the critical hit table. Likewise, if your OB is 150, and you roll a 06, that's a 06 on the E column of the critical hit table, and if you have an OB of 10 and roll a 99... . Granted, the impact of this highly depends on the competence level of the characters, at least usually.

One of my PC's has an OB of 168, barring a fumble, I can roll a 5 and do max damage which leaves me with a guaranteed 5-E-Crit roll.    The skill happens to be a Battle Axe which does huge damage and really nice crits, but I don't want guaranteed low or even mediocre crit every time I attack.

Hm, but is that what would happen? You don't always roll roll on your attack roll, do you? In fact, it seems to me now that in such a case, a high attack roll wouldn't seem as wasted as it usually does when you have this kind of OB?

The only way to address the low crit result is to re-write the crit table and to eliminate the "whiff" results.  The lower range of the crit tables do give nice stun results, 'have initiative', +# to attack, must parry, etc. results which can help out other players as well as the attacker.   Yes, it can be frustrating landing a crit and rolling a 3, but that's probability and if you wish, the whim of the Dice Gods.

Across the board, (1-5) E-Crits yield +3 to +5 extra damage.  Yeah, lousy results but we always treated 1-4 as a fumble result (unless stated specifically by the weapon fumble range), so the player "fumbled" the crit.*   The player landed a good solid hit, found the seam in the armour, drove deep for high damage... but no extra gore.  Isn't that what we're hoping for with crits anyway?  Extra gore!!!     The reality is that rolling a 1-5 on the crit roll is only 5% chance.  Perhaps re-writing the D and E crits for a little extra damage at low ranges? 

That is an interesting idea! It does sound like a lot of work, though, and as your write:

And lest we forget the other side of that double-edged sword...  The GM will be giving the PCs the guaranteed high crit rolls and eliminating the whiff rolls against the PC.  All E-crits against the PCs will be high E-crits with no chance to whiff.  Yikes!  No thank you!
[...]

Another important point to consider. Changing too much may create a greater problem than what was to be solved.

[Thot]

[...]
I'll be using a variation of fate points. They can be spent to reroll anything. If it's really important to you that you get a beefy crit, reroll the 06. In general, players always kept those in reserve for crits against them except when fighting something really nasty. But the option is always there, and a player sitting on a stockpile may decide to completely decimate the orc rather than hold back.

Hm, maybe a general "fate point" for any roll, and a "crit result reroll point" for crit rolls only?

[Thot]

you could experiment with:

• rolling d100 for the attack roll and
• switching numbers (tens and ones) for the critical result.

eg. an attack roll of "69" would give a critical of "96".

so even a low attack roll ("19") would give some nice critical ("91")

I don't know... this would work to reduce the number of disappointing crits, but they would still exist and come up in the most inconvenient moments...

A fate point mechanic currently strikes me as more promising.

[Thot]

I've had far too many players saved by a low E crit roll to be in favor of anything that ensures an E crit will always be high damage. Since RM has NO fate mechanism, I always viewed this as the game's nod in that direction.[...]

Seems like another vote for some kind of fate point?

[gog]

Since RM has NO fate mechanism, I always viewed this as the game's nod in that direction.

From memory RM2 and RMC don't have a fate mechanism, however RMSS and RMFRP do have one - it's in the Channeling Companion section 11.

[Amano]

Rolling the critical before the attack roll has been suggested on these boards as an alternative method of accounting for piecemeal armour. I think it makes a lot of sense for that issue and Hurin has assured me that his players still find criticals exciting, so I am voting for option one.

Rolemaster character creation has always been quite an involved and time consuming process and losing all that effort to a bad die roll is not every player’s cup of tea. I suggest discussing with your players whether they would like some kind of luck or fate point system in your game.

[Grinnen Baeritt]

I've had far too many players saved by a low E crit roll to be in favor of anything that ensures an E crit will always be high damage. Since RM has NO fate mechanism, I always viewed this as the game's nod in that direction. So they hit with the flat of the sword once in a while....landing a heavy thud (the concussion damage) but missing the mark otherwise. Stuff happens.

That's why I'm entirely ok with the critical system as it is, relatively speaking. My issue has always been the same however, it's a definite disadvantage to the popularity of the RM system as a whole to have a critical system that is so dangerous to the characters, that it literally disincentives some player from playing RM again when a random hit kills the character in it what maybe it's first combat.. in fact possibly, even before they've rolled a dice themselves and at no fault to themselves. With games that only take 2-5 minutes to create a character, it's more acceptable... not one that the process is both detailed, lengthy and even for veteran players HOURS to do.

I'm in favour of  GM's fudging dice or allowing grace to a degree within ANY system, but it seems that with RM specifically, there should be a distinct resource both for GM and the players to circumvent spectacularly lethal critical rolls (and ONLY critical rolls received by the character). Granting players a small pool of fate at 1st (say 5 points) then granting an additional one per level to replenish those used is a fair option. The choice to use them is the players (but the amount required for each use is the GM's).   Eg.  Simply keeping the character alive (but unconscious and stable and safe) is one point. Lessening the effect, so it still has an effect, but allows the character to fight on.. might cost two, avoiding the crit entirely costs three.

[Spectre771]

Fate/Hero points to affect crits though usually saved to reduce crits received vs dealt!!!

That has always been our the case with our Fate Point usage. lol.  This last session we did, three players used up Fate Points to stay alive or to save a member of the party.  Sadly, the party of five players now has only one Fate Point among them.  Only once was a Fate Point used for a Locate Secret Opening that absolutely needed to be discovered and the two PCs who were looking both fumbled spectacularly and couldn't try again in the same location for a week (per RMC-II fumble results ).

I've had far too many players saved by a low E crit roll to be in favor of anything that ensures an E crit will always be high damage. Since RM has NO fate mechanism, I always viewed this as the game's nod in that direction. So they hit with the flat of the sword once in a while....landing a heavy thud (the concussion damage) but missing the mark otherwise. Stuff happens.

That is cool way to look at the mechanics of the game.  I hadn't thought of it in that manner.

[Hurin]

Rolling the critical before the attack roll has been suggested on these boards as an alternative method of accounting for piecemeal armour. 

I think this is now in the rules for piecemeal armor; I think I remember JDale posting about how piecemeal armor rules involved rolling the crit/location first (please correct me if I am wrong).

On the other issue, I personally have no problem with a character getting a high attack roll but low critical. Even as great a hero as Beowulf experienced this:

Beowulf swung his great sword, and smote the dragon's head, but the blade glanced from the bone, for Wyrd did not decree otherwise.

[Thot]

Rolling the critical before the attack roll has been suggested on these boards as an alternative method of accounting for piecemeal armour. 

I think this is now in the rules for piecemeal armor; I think I remember JDale posting about how piecemeal armor rules involved rolling the crit/location first (please correct me if I am wrong).
[...]

Not quite:

"When a combatant is struck in a location that has a different AT than what was used for the attack table, the severity of any critical is increased (for lesser armor) or decreased (for greater armor).[...] In the case of reducing an ‘A’ critical, reduce the
critical to the next lower rolled row that affects that location (If there is none, use the first row on the table,
and change the prose to fit the location)."

At least according to the 2015 playtest files.


Thanks everybody, I'll settle for just granting more Fate Points and reducing the cost to buy new ones. This has been a very insightful discussion.

[Hurin]

At least according to the 2015 playtest files.

I was talking about a more recent change made after the 2015 beta2 release. JDale updated us on new rules for piecemeal armor when I posted a thread with my own chart that gave specific stats for each individual armor piece (rather than just light/medium/heavy for non-torso pieces):
 http://www.ironcrown.com/ICEforums/index.php?topic=19169.0

The relevant statement by JDale is this:

So if you are using the piecemeal armor optional rule, and it's not a called shot, you roll the critical at the same time as the attack, and then use it to determine the location before resolving the attack.

The original rule was to resolve the attack based on the torso armor and then modify it if the location was armored differently. But that created too many quirky results that we didn't think we could fix. Resolving the attack based on the target location always works.

[Thot]

That's quite interesting, and the new rule does make sense, I like it!

Speaking of which, when will RMU be on Kickstarter?

[jdale]

Yeah, Hurin is correct.

Rolling the two things separately takes marginally more time but the players never complain when I ask them to roll a critical. That tells them they hit and there's a chance for more. For NPCs, personally, I have everything automatically rolled and looked up by software.

I like fate points too.