Break-point when reaching mastery?

[Snowden]

From my reading of HQ, it seems like there's a break-point each time a new mastery is gained: there's no difference between a 19 abilty rating and a 20 -- either one will get a critical on a 1, succeed on 2 through 19, and fumble on a 20.

This makes sense to me as it basically means that you have to spend an extra HP just to gain the mastery level.  This seems reasonable, because there's a big jump in power between 19 and 1W (moreso than between 17 and 19, for instance), but I'm not completely sure I'm reading right.  Is there a rule I'm missing?

[Brand_Robins]

Nope, you got it right.

The one small difference between an 19 and a 20 is what happens if you add a +1 augment.

[NickHollingsworth]

Related points:

The odds of

a given result vary across the whole 1-20 range. The odds at either ends of the range are dramatically different to the odds in the centre around the 10 mark. That is to say that the odds of the possible results for 10 v 10 are nothing like the odds for 1w v 1w.

While there isn't much difference between having to roll against 19 or against 20, its the target for a given roll and not the size of the ability that is the issue.  This is because you will get a different amount of augments and modifiers from one contest to the next. Which means that there are no real break points when buying increases, only when augmenting. And since more is always better it doesn't actually cause a problem.

The real breakpoints seem to be at 5 and 15 since these are the points where augments round up. However (a) you can augment multiple people with most abilities in exchange for a penalty and it tends to be -3 points per extra person. So while 15 is a break point so is 18, 1w, 4w, etc. and b) the large range of augments and modifiers makes these breakpoints less important too.
[/list:u]

[Invain]

Now that you mention it, I think the mechanic would have worked smoother if you need at least one mastery to crit. All rolls at or below your ability rating are considered a success. Masteries bump as usual.

Example:
Roll a 1 with an ability of 20 = success
Roll a 1 with an ability of 1w = critical

Is there a flaw to my reasoning here? I may have to institute it as a house rule.

I could go even farther and say that you can't fumble unless suffering a "bump down". This would make fumbles pretty rare, though. Probably too rare.

~Kevin McD

[Brand_Robins]

Is there a flaw to my reasoning here? I may have to institute it as a house rule.

Someone with 4 masteries can't crit, under this rule, if they're facing someone else with 4 masteries. Nor can either fumble.

So, unless you have a mastery above your target you can never get Complete or Minor victories.

This will make extended contests between the two go on a good bit longer, will make most contests verge towards mediocre middle results, and will take excitement away from starting characters who might have gotten lucky, but now are just likely to get hosed after a long series of mediocre results.

[Invain]

Someone with 4 masteries can't crit, under this rule, if they're facing someone else with 4 masteries. Nor can either fumble.

So, unless you have a mastery above your target you can never get Complete or Minor victories.

This will make extended contests between the two go on a good bit longer, will make most contests verge towards mediocre middle results, and will take excitement away from starting characters who might have gotten lucky, but now are just likely to get hosed after a long series of mediocre results.

All valid points, if a tad overstated IMHO. The crits that you loose were never more likely than 1 roll in 20 anyway (per participant), and it solves the bit of wierdness where a guy with an ability of 6 crits at the same rate as a guy with a 20 (or 1w).

Or is a roll of a 1 with an ability of 1w in the current rules actually a "supercrit" that bumps down your opponent's roll? That also would differentiate a 20 from a 1w.

I agree about the fumbles, though. I think leaving them alone would be best.

~Kevin McD

[Brand_Robins]

Or is a roll of a 1 with an ability of 1w in the current rules actually a "supercrit" that bumps down your opponent's roll?

Yes it is. You rolled a Crit (a natural 1) and you still have a mastery left -- so down they go.

[Invain]

Yes it is. You rolled a Crit (a natural 1) and you still have a mastery left -- so down they go.

Thanks Brand - that's enlightening.

BTW, we have always played it that the difference between abilities of 19 and a 20 was that a 19 could fumble (by rolling a 20) while a 20 would just fail on a rolled 20.

Is this wrong?

~Kevin McD

[Brand_Robins]

Is this wrong?

Yep.

Though it's a fairly common house rule.

[Snowden]

The "abilities rated at 20 can't fumble" rule might smooth out the bump a little, as would an "abilities rated at 1 can't critical" rule.  Ultimately there's still going to be a certain amount of awkwardness due to the graininess of the mastery system; these alterations might spread it around a little but they don't actually solve the "problem."

I'm going to try to look at it as a feature instead of a bug, and emphasize to my players that a (big-M) Mastery represents something more than just +20 points.

[Brand_Robins]

I'm going to try to look at it as a feature instead of a bug, and emphasize to my players that a (big-M) Mastery represents something more than just +20 points.

That's what I do.

Of course, it's also worth noting that someone with a 2w won't actually overwhelm someone with an 18 all that often. The 4 points are significant, certainly, but not so overwhelming as you might think. In fact, I've had players who overestimated their competence simply because they had a mastery advantage -- without realizing that it wasn't a full mastery, but just a couple points over the top.

[NickHollingsworth]

re: abilities rated at 20 can't fumble, abilities rated at 1 can't critical

I think the mechanic would have worked smoother if you need at least one mastery to crit ... you can't fumble unless suffering a "bump down".

Someone with 4 masteries can't crit, under this rule, if they're facing someone else with 4 masteries. Nor can either fumble.

All valid points, if a tad overstated IMHO. The crits that you loose were never more likely than 1 roll in 20 anyway (per participant)

True, but ... when both contestants have the same number of masteries the chance of at least one of them getting a crit or fumble is 19%, ie 1 in 5. Not at all insignificant and a source of entertainment for the players, simple souls that they are. And Brand is right IMO that removing this makes for blander extended contests.

However the effect on normal contests would be worse since you would lose the extreme results. This would be a bad thing. A player should be hoping for Major and Complete victories and defeats because they are cooler and more likely to add interest to the character in terms of nebulous things like  how you feel about various opponents, the effect the character has had on the story and the additional abilities the character has (for example complete defeat may well add some flaws which are interesting and often useful).

Remember also that PC have HP. When masteries are the same you will succeed and the opposition fumble 1 time in 20 (assuming that you have a target number of 10). Thats 1 in 20 simple contests where a HP would give your enemy a complete defeat.

I think its a bad idea to get too hung up on the maths of what happens at 1 and 20. During the course of a game its the same for both sides in equal measure. And its only a theoretical problem not one you will ever experience intruding on play.

re my earlier 'related points' post

I think I made a pigs ear out of that post and garbled my points. (Sudden fear: or maybe they were dull points). Anyway, I was trying to say:

1) If you absolutely must get upset about the maths then get upset about the fact that a given difference in skill levels gives a completely different set of results depending on where on the 1 to 20 range the characters are.

For example 7 v 10 has the same set of results as 7w vs 10w, but a completely different set to 1 v 4 or 1w v 4w even though they are all differences of 4 points in skill. The middle of the range has the more pleasing results, its the small numbers and big numbers that have the wierd odds if I recall correctly.

One way to resolve this is pick a consistent way of normalising the target numbers. You could for example add or reduce them by enough that the lower one becomes 10. But even though we did a big analysis of the odds a few months ago and were shocked at the results we still leave these rules as written - because its not as important as keeping the mechanics fast to apply. In fact I am coming to the conclusion that each number that a players must think about reduces his concentration on the unfolding events.

In the light of experience I strongly suggest people dont worry about what seems like it ought to be a problem until after its has proved itself to have a real effect on the bahaviour of the players and they can describe what alternate behaviour they want to see. Premature optimisation is the root of all evil. We have played solid for 3 years plus and these issues remain a long way down my list of things to 'fix' because I dont see them have any actual effect on how people build their characters or play.

2) You will almost never roll your ability without several augments and modifiers having been appied to it first. So the feeling that there are some ability numbers that are better than others is an illusion - because the numbers on your sheet are not what you will get to roll anyway.

3) #2 is less true of the abilities use as augments because you dont augment augments and because the ref is unlikely to apply modifiers to augments since it would slow down play.

These augmentation breakpoints are 5 and 15 since thats when the augments round up rather than down.

But the fact that you can augment multiple opponents (as well as other standard modifiers like range etc) helps to make less of an issue too.

Bottom Line

Brand is spot on in saying that the size of the difference between two skills is all that really matters. The W is another illusion.

All players need to remember is: when buying abilties every extra point increases your chances against any level of opponent; and when stacking augments every extra point is an improvement in your odds.

[Bankuei]

Hi folks,

I just wanted to back Nick's point that the augments and modifiers make such a difference that you cannot predictably figure exactly how much you'll be rolling in any given situation.  You may have a number of X trait + typical augments, but each situation will provide a couple extra, as well as its own modifiers.  Depending on how loose you play with the modifiers, it is pretty easy to shift up or down a master based on tactics, creative actions, and good narration.

Chris

[Mike Holmes]

Yep, I agree with Chris and Nick. That is, unaugmented rolls are so uncommon when I play that 19, 20, whatever rating is just a jumping off point. You never actually roll those TNs. So I can't imagine anyone actually worrying about whether or not to spend the 1 HP. That is, the "breakpoint" here is just inconsequential in terms of decision-making.

As opposed to the 15, 25, 35 breakpoints, which are pretty strongly incentivized. You see people moving their 13s to 15s pretty quickly, and their better abilities straight to 25 ASAP. The nice thing about this is that it sorta falls off after this point however. This is because at the point that you have an ability that's possible to move to 35, it's going to be mostly used as primary when it is used. So players are more concerned about every single point of addition rather than the breakpoints for augmenting.

In any case, there's always an incentive to go up, given that any ability might be primary, so I haven't noticed it being a problem (you don't get large numbers of abilities stalling out at 15 or 25). That said, I go out of my way to ensure that anything can be used as primary. If, for example, you only allowed relationship traits to be augmentors, then there's little incentive to be anwhere except the breakpoints. So I have players base contests off their relationships, personality traits, everything.

Basically it's never been an issue in actual play that I've noted. Heck, I'd say that I'm the worst player I've ever seen in terms of going for breakpoints, actually.

Mike

[Gelasma]

And since more is always better it doesn't actually cause a problem.

Thats not true, see for example:

[*]10 vs 10M2 => 5%, 43%, 45%, 0%, 0%, 7%, 0%, 0%, 0%
[*]20 vs 10M2 => 5%, 0%, 86%, 0%, 0%, 9%, 0%, 0%, 0%
[*]1M vs 10M2 => 3%, 47%, 41%, 0%, 0%, 7%, 2%, 0%, 0%
[/list:u]
With 20 vs 10M2, the weaker opponents probability for a minor defeat is 86% while there are no major defeats. But with the next value 1M, the weaker opponents probabilities jump back to the same values they had at 10(!), that is 45% for each minor and major defeat.
Conclusio: against strong opponents (that is at least two masteries more) 20 is by far better than a 1M, since 21 is as worse as a 10.