TN 11 -- does it cause a problem?

[Ben Lehman]

So, one of the quirks of the TROS system is that TN 11 and TN 10 are functionally the same (if you open-end on a 10, then you must at least get an 11...)  Also TNs 20 and 21, for those who care...
  I was wondering if this was a problem in actual play.

yrs--
--Ben

[prophet118]

i kinda get what you mean...its just how the cookie crumbles

to get an 11 you need to roll a 10... sure man i can grasp that concept... so if i roll a 10, damn skippy i wanna succeed... but how much of a margin will it be?...if for some reason my TN in combat is 11 (it could be..lol) then just 1 success isnt likely going to matter

if on skills.... well  refer to the degrees of success chart, on page 6..

a 1 is a narrow success, if you look at it from a white wolf standpoint... that is the most basic success... if i get 1 success on a basketweaving roll... well it'll get done, but there may be some wrong sections, or just some sections that dont look quite right

[Mask-of-Winters]

That's actually a good point, one valid in any open-ended die rolling system.  One way to mess with players who try to exploit this problem -- i.e. that a TN of 10 is about the same as 11-13 -- is to curse them so that they don't get bonus rolls.  Have some mage work mojo on them that limits their 10s to 10s.  Players hate that.  Characters hate that.  And when the Players and their Characters find the NPC who did that to them, terrible things happen.  But at least they're terribly fun.

[Bob Richter]

So, one of the quirks of the TROS system is that TN 11 and TN 10 are functionally the same (if you open-end on a 10, then you must at least get an 11...)  Also TNs 20 and 21, for those who care...
  I was wondering if this was a problem in actual play.

yrs--
--Ben

Yes, it's a problem.

Though less of one than Shadowrun's 6s and 7s. 10s are a fairly uncommon roll and 11s a fairly uncommon target.

I suggest subtracting 1 from the total roll for each additional die rolled.

So you roll the second die for 10-19 and the third for 19-28.

[MrGeneHa]

I like Bob Richter's idea.  It keeps the probability curve very smooth. Personally, this is how I would use his idea.

For a normal d10 roll, read the dice normally with a "0" counting as 10.  A die result of 10 stacks, so roll another d10 and add it to the 10.

HOWEVER, for stacking dice, read "0" as 0.  Rolls of 9 get another stacking die on top.

Example:  (this is improbable) So I roll a pool of 3d10.  All are 0's.  Each one stacks.  So for each one I roll another d10.  The first one gets another 0.  So I add (10+0) and stop at 10.  The second stacking die gets a 5, so (10+5) yields 15.  The third die gets a 9, so it gets another stacking die.  That roll is an 8, so (10+9+8) is 27.  The final results are rolls of 10, 15, and 27.

[toli]

I'm not sure I see the point of having 11 as a TN at all, since as you note, it has exactly the same statistical probability as TN10.  I'd just boost it to TN 12.

[Bob Richter]

I like Bob Richter's idea.  It keeps the probability curve very smooth. Personally, this is how I would use his idea.

For a normal d10 roll, read the dice normally with a "0" counting as 10.  A die result of 10 stacks, so roll another d10 and add it to the 10.

HOWEVER, for stacking dice, read "0" as 0.  Rolls of 9 get another stacking die on top.

Example:  (this is improbable) So I roll a pool of 3d10.  All are 0's.  Each one stacks.  So for each one I roll another d10.  The first one gets another 0.  So I add (10+0) and stop at 10.  The second stacking die gets a 5, so (10+5) yields 15.  The third die gets a 9, so it gets another stacking die.  That roll is an 8, so (10+9+8) is 27.  The final results are rolls of 10, 15, and 27.

Good idea. I wasn't even thinking in terms of the standard d10 and its zero. This actually makes it a lot more convenient. Thanks.

[toli]

If for some strange reason your TN is 20...then you would have to roll 10 then 9 then 1...so 20 becomes a fake TN......19 and 20 are the same....as long as you know what the probabilities are you can do whatever you like.....we just make 11's into 12's....

[MikeSands]

If for some strange reason your TN is 20...then you would have to roll 10 then 9 then 1...so 20 becomes a fake TN......19 and 20 are the same....as long as you know what the probabilities are you can do whatever you like.....we just make 11's into 12's....

No it wouldn't - remember that you are now reading 0 as 0, not ten. So a 19 is 10, 9, 0 and 20 requires 10, 9, 1

[Lyrax]

Sounds great.  I only have one beef with the solution.  That is, I think it's a lot worse than the problem.  A TN of 10 is frikkin' hard to get any appreciable number of successes with... most of the players in my group tend to deal with TNs around 4-7, maybe a little higher, but only if they have to.  By the time your TN is 10, there's a good chance you won't succeed, even with six or seven dice!

[toli]

No it wouldn't - remember that you are now reading 0 as 0, not ten. So a 19 is 10, 9, 0 and 20 requires 10, 9, 1

Ok so I was discussing the rule and forgetting it at the same  time...long day...no sleep...ran out of kauwfee...NT

[Warboss Grock]

Ok, I've been reading this forum. I don't really want to offend anyone here, but honestly, What's the point? I mean, re-doing the entire d-10 based system just to enable a tn of 11? Why not just skip 11 go to 12 and be done with it. This method has the merit of somplicity on it's side. It also works with 21, 31, 41, 51 and so forth. I mean, what's the point,

[Bob Richter]

Ok, I've been reading this forum. I don't really want to offend anyone here, but honestly, What's the point? I mean, re-doing the entire d-10 based system just to enable a tn of 11? Why not just skip 11 go to 12 and be done with it. This method has the merit of somplicity on it's side. It also works with 21, 31, 41, 51 and so forth. I mean, what's the point,

It's no more simple to "just remove TN 11" than it is to "just read the 0 as a 0 on subsequent die rolls."

To me, it makes more sense to fix the probability curve than to just bump up all TN 11s to TN12 (which has the same effect as leaving them at 11 -- two TNs are functionally equivalent.) or adding 1 to all TNs above 10.

This is actually a really rare case anyway. TN 11s basically don't happen.

[Warboss Grock]

It's no more simple to "just remove TN 11" than it is to "just read the 0 as a 0 on subsequent die rolls."

Actually it's a bit more difficult to do that in my opinion, because now you have to do a contest of 9's, so to get TN 20 you have to get a 10, a 9, and a 1, because 0 is 0 therefore the roll over die changed to 9 because 0 cannot be used for that anymore. It's bieng 0 and all. this doesn't seem to be much of a prob untill you realize TN 56 is also like this (10+9+9+9+9+9+1) It begins to be a bit confusing for some players. Time is the reason that they didn't do this in the first place. It's easier to count 10's than 9+1's.

At least that's my opinion. Leaving the rule as stands speeds up gameplay, rather than counting up dice.

[Durgil]

I'm with Warboss here; if adjustments land a TN on 11, 21, 31, etc. then I'm just going to +1 to get it to 12, 22, 32, etc.  Just look at something simple like rolling two dice.  A TN of 9 has a 36.0% chance of getting at least one success.  With a TN of 10 (and 11), you have a 19.0% of getting at least one success.  A TN of 12 has a 17.2% chance of getting at least one success.

I guess if you are a generous Seneschal, you could just have the TN 11 stand, which is the same as a TN 10, and give the character a break.