Pure Mechanics Question

[Christoffer Lernö]

Let's say I've established, through the mechanics, that A is doing B, but the effect of that hasn't yet been established. What options do I have to implement those rules?

The most common case in RPG is that of damage: We establish that A hits B and then roll for damage. (Of course it doesn't necessarily work like that)

Now what about other things? Let's say you use the same mechanics (Ygg does) to establish that A is trying to throw B. When the second part of the mechanics kicks in we've established that A has managed to get B into a good position for the throw and is initiating it.

Why not resolve the throw automatically? Well consider a really weak person against a really strong one for example. This is a little less relevant if they are actually skilled at fighting.

But in any case, if you want to weigh in factors like which says what the odds are to actually make the action work (ADD does this with AC incidentally) you start mixing things up, especially if the damage system isn't coupled with the attack roll.

My initial idea was simply decide on the effect of an established initiated action by use of my action resolution system.

Now if you happen to remember, it's a simple stat vs stat, highest wins kind of thing.

However, this quickly becomes inappropriate in combat, not to mention chosing stat to contest is not always obvious (if I want to sweep him, do I contest his strength, his dex or his size? Maybe for a human I'd choose dex, but what if you try to - theoretically speaking - do the same to an elephant or something else where weight makes it harder?). The GM is allowed within the rules to fudge these numbers, which is all well if these were only limited incidents, but I expect it to happen really often.

I'm all open for ideas, even meta mechanics.

A quick recap how it works with ygg:

Contest Skill vs. Skill with D12. If the success has enough margin you can attempt sweeps, throws, aimed shots and so on. However it only establishes you initiated the motion.

The actual outcome of the sweep, throw, aimed shot, pulling down pants, is not covered by the margin.

Damage is currently done by rolling Damage# d12. Everyone die beating the target number means one unit of damage.

The question one more time to make it clear:
How do I establish the effects of improvised actions, if I have already established that they have been initiated?

What are my options (and so on)

[Valamir]

Well, two ideas come to mind right away.

one:  instead of

The actual outcome of the sweep, throw, aimed shot, pulling down pants, is not covered by the margin.

you change that so that the outcome IS covered by the margin.  i.e.  base margin equals standard effect, Margin +x = superior success, Margin +2x = extraordinary success, etc.  Even Margin -Y = inferior success.  Then leave it up to the GM to fill in the actual outcome.


two:  take a page out of your damage mechanic.  Meeting the standard to-hit margin means rolling d12 damage dice to see how effective the hit was.  So meeting the margin for some special effect means rolling d12 effect dice to see how effective the effect was.

The number of success on the "damage" roll then translates into a "degree of success" as it were.

Feet thrown from a throw, penelty to defense for being tripped, Donjon style descriptive facts...whatever.

[Christoffer Lernö]

you change that so that the outcome IS covered by the margin.  i.e.  base margin equals standard effect,

The margin is already used to establish other things, so can't do that.

two:  take a page out of your damage mechanic.  Meeting the standard to-hit margin means rolling d12 damage dice to see how effective the hit was.  So meeting the margin for some special effect means rolling d12 effect dice to see how effective the effect was.

I was thinking about that, problem is that it doesn't scale well. I mean, let's say there are two persons both with Strength 6, and another two with Strength 3. But thanks a lot for mentioning it anyway. I was quickly discarding it because of that problem before, but you're encouraging me to look much deeper into the idea than I would otherwise. I really wish it could be the way to go.

Mechanics babble follows:
If one test is Str vs Str, then we're looking at 6 dice, roll 6+ for success compared to 3 die, roll 3+ for success.

6 die average is at 3.5 successes while
3 die gives an average of 2.5 successes.

This is why I initially thought it was a bad idea. Also the chance of failing (not a single success) would be like 0.5% for 6 dice going up to 1% for 8 dice and so on.

A way to insure symmetry though, could be letting the target number be the difference between the stats+7. That would give a 50% chance on a single die no matter what the individual stats are.

Then you could let the number of dice reflect the quality of the action. If you haven't trained it (you try to sweep without martial arts for example) you get 1 die. If you trained maybe you get two dice. If you do a super attack maybe you get 3 and so on.

However, it is thinkable that the assymetry described above is actually acceptable. It definately simplifies things: "Oh, you try to sweep him? Roll your strength dice against his movement". "Oh, 3 successes, that would have worked if he wasn't so darn big". That way you get a little more flexibility. But...

Anyway, it would be great if I could use the same mechanics as the damage though that would simplify the game a great deal.

[Valamir]

I'm not seeing the problem.

How do you roll damage in your game?

[Christoffer Lernö]

Damage is resolved by rolling (Strength+modifier from weapon) # of D12. For every D12 above or equal to the opponent's toughness equals 1 point of health loss (from which you also can read the extent of the wound)

Example: Have 4 damage dice. I hit my opponent with toughness 6 so I roll 4 dice which are 3, 11, 7 and 5. I inflict 2 points of health loss.

The problem is that if the target number and the actual dice rolled are the same, it looks a whole lot like a stat contest, and yet it produces quite different results from one. In a stat contest you want 50-50 chances when strength is equal, and then go up or down from there. Right? But that's not the results I get from my system.

Again it still could be acceptable. And there is a tweak of letting the # of dice rolled be independent of attacker stat. Well I guess I just have to try and see.

[Valamir]

Ok, I'm sure this is probably in one of the many other Ygg threads...but summarize for me the way you do a Stat vs Stat contest, and I'll try and think of a solution.

[Mike Holmes]

Um, change damage to a stat v stat roll. Where the stat on my end is str modified by weapon, and the stat on his end is tough modified by armor.

Mike

[Christoffer Lernö]

Stat vs Stat is usually resolved by karma. Except for when the stats are identical:

Stat 1>Stat 2: Character with Stat 1 "wins"
Stat 1=Stat 2: Roll a 50-50 roll to determine winner
Stat 1<Stat 2: Character with Stat 2 "wins"

Mike: The reason I don't go with a more standard roll is because the damage system (picked straight outta AHQ) is the best I've ever played with because it models damage so well. Not that it's necessarily realistic, but it feels like it.

Basically you can kill anything with a dagger and fail to damage someone a two handed axe. Strength, weapon, armour and toughness only happens to modify the chances in a very well behaved manner. AND it's extremely simple an fast.

[Walt Freitag]

Really, even though we're talking about improvised moves here, the number of different types of effects the moves would usually have in combat are limited. So consider having a list of effects, each with a number of points required to achieve that effect and the stat used to resist that effect.

When rolling, roll as per damage, but other stats can be used instead of player's strength vs. opponent's toughness.

The player's stat in the roll depends on what the improvised action is. The player must offer a plausible connection between the stat and the action. "I want to tackle him to the ground, using my size."

The opponent's stat in the roll depends on what effects the player wants the improvised action to have. The combat effects list is organized by which stat resists the effect. For instance, the "trip and fall" effect is keyed to movement, "unbalance and fall" is keyed to agility, and the "force to ground" effect is keyed to strength. In the tackling example, the GM would likely rule that tackling the opponent to the ground in the way the player described is closest to "force to ground" so the opponent's strength is used in the damage/effects roll. If the player doesn't get enough points to have the desired effect, another effect keyed to the same opponent stat that requires fewer points of success can be substituted. For example, "force to ground" requires 2 successes against strength; the player gets one success, and can substitute "shove back" which requires 1 success against strength.

Players and GMs could improvise effects not on the list ("wedge his mouth open with the stick") using the list as a guideline.

Yeah, yeah, I know... you hate lists. :-)  But it's the best I could come up with this time.

- Walt

[Valamir]

Ok.  Here is my mechanic suggestion.

I start with the following premises (premices?)

1) In a stat vs stat contest equal stats = 50% odds
2) In a stat vs stat contest unequal stats = automatic success.
3) Most special moves could be characterized as a stat vs stat contest.
eg.  My strength vs your balance, my quickness vs your perception etc (plug in appropriate Ygg stats)
4) In a stat vs stat special move, equal stats should still be 50% odds for consistancy.
5) However, in a stat vs stat special move, karmic resolution of automatic successes is not ideal for your game (for reasons I agree with).
6) Further success/failure is insufficient in these cases, a degree of success is desired.

Ok here it goes.

1) player announces special move, GM determines appropriate stats (and or skills if they are scaled the same) to oppose.

2) if the opposing stats are equal, the player rolls 1d12.  Success occurs on a 7-12 (i.e. 50% odds).

3) if the player's stat is higher add 1 die per point different.  Count success on a 7-12 on each die.  Thus even a small advantage in stats has a dramatic effect on success rate.  1 point higher and my chance of failing is cut in half from 50% to 25%.  Plus there is now a way to count successes for determining degrees of success.

4) if the player's stat is lower add 1 die per point different.  All dice rolled must be 7-12 in order to succeed.  Thus, even a small disadvantage in stats has a dramatic effect on success rate.  1 point lower and your chance of succeeding is cut in half from 50% to 25%.  The number of dice which failed in excess over the number of dice which succeeded is a degree of failure.

5) degrees of success can be used either as Donjon Style facts, or as modifiers to other rolls.


Ex:  I declare I'm going to try and hook my enemy's leg with my pole arm and trip him.  This might require I have at least level 3 pole arm skill or some such requirement.  You (or a standard rule) determines that the appropriate stat contest for this is my strength vs my foe's balance (or equivelent Ygg stat).

My Strength is 6, my foe's balance (perhaps after encumberance or terrain modifiers) is 4.  I have a 2 point advantage.  I roll 3d12.  (1d12+2d12 for the difference).  I count the number of dice that are 7-12.  I get 2 Successes.  

The GM rules that my foe stumbles and suffers a -2 to his defense against my next attack (or anyone's next attack, etc.)


Personally.  I'd use this system for ALL stat vs stat contests for consistancy, and because I'm not a big fan of Karmic Resolution.  The odds are steep enough that for large differences the chance of the smaller party winning is fairly low...especially if you're on a 12 point stat scale.  

If we're engaged in a stat contest and I'm pitting my Strength of 10 vs your Strength of 5, I'd have a 1.5% chance of winning.  Low enough enough to use Karma for most unimportant situations, good enough to be worth rolling in a dramatic situation.

How's that sound.  Probably, best I can come up with.

[Christoffer Lernö]

Ok, I've read your posts a few times to make sure I got your suggestions right.

Walt, you're suggesting I grade things in cost of successes and Ralph you suggest I throw out my karma resolution and put in a steep fortune thing instead.

First I address your idea Ralph: It's a good one. Unfortunately the levels are tucked so close to each other, more than the 1-12 scale would seem to imply. My mother probably has Strength 3 and someone built like Schwarzenegger has around 7-8. That's only a difference of 4-5 so we're talking about between 3% and 1.5% chance he won't be able to win over her in a game of armwrestling. If she'd want to put a headlock or something on him we'd talk about similar chances for her to do so.
I don't think that would happen 3 times out of 100.
If the scale was a bit wider it would have worked though so it's not that your idea was bad or anything.

Walt: Initially I was thinking that your scheme with success costs for moves wouldn't fit well. "Suddenly counting successes? I don't use successes like that... this will go all Shadowrunny on me if I implement it".  But luckily I didn't write that but instead I thought. Hell I'll think about it a little longer. And now that I have it is making perfect sense in a "ygg mechanic logic" kind of way. You see, I already quantify damage...

AHQ didn't. You had "wounds". One hit could give you several wounds if you rolled a lot of damage. I reinterpreted this as a single hit giving 2 wounds was a big wound, enough to be as dangerous as two minor wounds. I didn't want to mess around with modifiers because of damage here and there. So I made four categories of wounds. Normal wounds (minor ones), Serious wounds (usually if you get what amounts to 3 wound points, but that varies depending on your max), Mortal wounds and Instant Kills.

Normal wounds wouldn't give any negative modifiers no matter what.
Serious wounds would give a disadvantage and you needed someone to treat them if they were to heal.
Mortal wounds were big enough to kill you (only in Ygg you can keep on fighting even if your guts are running out. It's just that afterwards there is no chance in hell you'll survive)
And finally Instant Kills are exactly what it sounds like. If you cut off someone's head off that's what happens unless it's a chicken you killed.

Each of these had a threshold in wound points before they "happened". In fact even normal wounds are supposed to be a level up from scratches and bruises. So I already have this kind of success level, and for the "same" mechanic too.

So it makes sense. The only problem is the symmetry (why does 3 vs 3 behave different from 6 vs 6) but maybe that's a minor problem.

Incidentally: Ralph, your suggestion sounds like Sergio Mascarenhas mechanics for "Travels..."

[Valamir]

You're looking for a system that's fast and flavorful.  There isn't really any need to worry about the odds at these extreme margins for many reasons.

1) most players are going to realize that the odds of your mom beating arnold is extremely minute and not even bother to try, so the dice aren't even going to get rolled in this situation.

2) IIRC you have various fate point like mechanics you've been pondering.  Anything that gives Arnold rerolls or do overs or anything like that is going to take those odds way down.   3% with a reroll option goes all the way down to 0.09%

3) You want a game where players get some narrative control.  I'm sure good players could come up with an interesting way to justify your mom's "win"

4) Your mom's win would be a single success in any case.  Not too significant.  one can easily imagine your mom jumping on arnold scoreing a single success (as unlikely as that is), which is hardly enough to incompacitate anyone.  Arnold proceed to bash a few heads suffering a minus 1 penelty for your mom clinging to his back (for her 1 measly success), before deciding he's had enough of her and flings her aside with a 94% chance of success, likely scoring multiple successes.


In any case the system was not initially designed for the purposes of replacing your karma system.  It was designed as a way of giving you a mechanic that would permit degrees of success for special moves and skill use.  As such things mirror stat rolls, I suggested for unifying purposes it could be used for that too.  It would be easy to add a karma rule to say if the difference is above X the GM can decide to allow a role or just rule on the outcome if you like.

If you don't like the idea, that's perfectly fine.  I'm just saying that I don't think the reason you gave is really worth bothering about.

[Christoffer Lernö]

1) most players are going to realize that the odds of your mom beating arnold is extremely minute and not even bother to try, so the dice aren't even going to get rolled in this situation.

Yeah. I think it works Ralph. But now that I got started... I see some problems. If we are on equal strengths for example, I can't score any extra successes. That's kind of a bummer.

Also, I'm starting to feel the pull towards a unified mechanic or two. I already wrote that in another thread but no replies so far.

You started out with these premises

1) In a stat vs stat contest equal stats = 50% odds
2) In a stat vs stat contest unequal stats = automatic success.
3) Most special moves could be characterized as a stat vs stat contest.
eg. My strength vs your balance, my quickness vs your perception etc (plug in appropriate Ygg stats)
4) In a stat vs stat special move, equal stats should still be 50% odds for consistancy.
5) However, in a stat vs stat special move, karmic resolution of automatic successes is not ideal for your game (for reasons I agree with).
6) Further success/failure is insufficient in these cases, a degree of success is desired.

I can accept that 4) could be different from 50% because there is already an advantage established by the attacking roll. So higher than equal chances is ok.

On the other hand, for a standard stat vs stat test, it has to be 50%.

I was thinking, what if I go with the system Walt suggests and then do two rolls in the case of a pure stat vs stat and compare successes. Something like this:

A strength 3, B has strength 4

Case 1:
A wants to throw B in a special move. A rolls 3 dice against target number 4 and count successes to see how well it was done.

Case 2:
A and B armwrestles. A rolls 3 dice against target number 4, B rolls 4 dice against target number 3. This is 50-50 for equal stats.

A whole lot of rolling though and no immediate karma resolution system that fits with it. And the problem comes here:

Case 3:
A wants to jump a cliff: A rolls 3 dice against target number ? and counts successes.

In case 3, how do we do it? A possible way would be to set the target as something low like 2 and say that the number of successes says how far you jumped. And you need x successes.

But how is this 2 set? Here we run into the Shadowrun problem of both having a minimum number of successes and a target number to fiddle with when describing difficulty.

On the other hand we could invoke the D12 system of ranged combat. You roll your dice against the difficulty modified by stat. But this is too random to apply to non-stressed situations.

Another way would be to stipulate a minimum stat to be allowed to make an attempt. Or a maximum stat over which you did not need to roll. Then for every point abover (or under) that stat you got a dice. But how do you get the distribution nice (and so on) yadda yadda. I have no idea.