Hi all,

I'm new to the list (despite a few ghost-like posts) so a hello is in order first. My name is Greg Spyridis and I am with Game Monkey Press. Nice to make all your aquaintences.

So, my question is this: In dealing with games that use straight Target Numbers (i.e. Stat + Skill + Roll vs TN), what is the best way to keep it balanced for both starting and veteran characters?

Our new game, Valherjar: The Chosen Slain (print product, due out this fall), uses Stat and Skill at a 1-6 and then 2D6 vs. an average TN of 12. The problem, of course, is that experienced characters will soon get to a "anything but snake-eyes" state to hit.

Anyone have any good suggestions to combat this?

Thanks!

What is the range of the TN?

Traditionally, the way to deal with this is make it very difficult for a character to have a "6" in anything through an massive XP system.

There are several other solutions that come to mind.
1. When characters reach the 6 start them over at 1; have them roll against the same TN scale, but ONLY if the action being attempted is more difficult than actions on the original TN scale. If the action is on the orginal scale, it becomes an automatic succes. (I can explain further or give an example if this needs clarification.)
2. Come up with a method of determining "degrees" of success. This allows the character to "always" succeed (not a bad thing) but with limitations.
3. Compare the roll+stat vs. the TN differently. The closer the roll is to the actual number, the greater the success. Thus, if a player rolls too high, he begins to experience failure. This is known as risk. Allow the players to declare how agressive their character will act. (I will use 4 points out of my 6 to roll...) If the roll is too conservative, the character fails, if the roll is too agressive the character fails.

Hope these ideas help.


Jonathan

Thanks, Jonathan! Some great advice in there...and some affirmations of what we've already done.

We have adopted an incredibly aggressive XP advancement difficulty, and have a Degree of Success system that is applicable in a number of ways, including dramatically increasing damage.

As for the range, it's realistically an 8 to max 20 Target Number range, with 12 being an average combat action (shooting, striking, etc.). Starting characters can have up to a 3 in Stats and Skills, so a maxed starting character (which we have to assume people will make more often than not) needs a 6 on 2D6 to hit.

It's designed on a pretty healthy base of realism and we've spent a lot of time measuring real world bases against in game values (i.e. how often a trained professional hits a target vs. how often an equivelent in game character rolls a hit and to what degree). We're pretty pleased with it over all (I should post the rules for feedback...maybe in the next day or two) but have spent a whole heckuva long time debating the whole higher level character thing.

It's designed on a pretty healthy base of realism and we've spent a lot of time measuring real world bases against in game values (i.e. how often a trained professional hits a target vs. how often an equivelent in game character rolls a hit and to what degree). We're pretty pleased with it over all

Let us know when and where we can get a gander at this game. It sounds interesting, to say the least.

GregS wrote: It's designed on a pretty healthy base of realism and we've spent a lot of time measuring real world bases against in game values (i.e. how often a trained professional hits a target vs. how often an equivelent in game character rolls a hit and to what degree).

GregS wrote: The problem, of course, is that experienced characters will soon get to a "anything but snake-eyes" state to hit.

Great input all...and it's greatly appreciated.

Ethan: You're, of course, right. It does not necessarily matter...and, certainly, the majority of games don't care about that happening (since it does in almost every system). My only concern was in A) avoiding the god syndrome that is common to veteran rpg'ers, and B) to keep people interested. The simple reality, though, is that a character that has been played up to being godlike should, in fact, be godlike and if you are exponentially better than the best of the best then you should never miss. It is, inevitably, up to the players and narrator's to control, I just like building some safeties into the game for hard core rules lawyers (I know, I know...they'll do what they'll do...but it's my first rpg and I'm being overly critical).

Thor: Also right, if the numbers don't work it's most likely broken in the XP, and honestly, I don't think it is. I think it works fine but I wanted to see if anyone had any specific thoughts on it before we jumped into the breech.

Sydney: Not quibbling at all, and frankly, I'm completely with you. I was, once upon a time, a tactical combat instructor and have trained with some of the best of the world's real shooters...which is exactly why this is so difficult for me. On the one hand, I know how consistantly a pro can shoot but, on the other, I know how chaotic and stressful combat can be. It's further compounded by the nature of the game: player characters are fallen mortal soldiers who then train in Valhalla before going back to earth to fight as an avatar for the gods. So, theoretically, you could have a Delta or GSG guy who dies in his prime, then does nothing but train for another 20 years, and then gets sent back to earth as a man who has even less to fear because now he's effectively immortal. How accurately would a guy like that shoot? Pretty darned accurately. But does that make for effective gameplay? There in lies the question.

What it sounds like, though, is that the general concensus is not to worry about it too much. I'm confident in the system's balance, I think the XP set is tough enough to prevent hard core power gaming, there are other goodies that require XP expendature other than just stats and skills, and that in the end it will rely on the players to balance themselves out.

Of course, I continue to be grateful for thoughts and ideas!

Oh and, until I get some kind of draft that's viewable for everyone, the press release for the game can be found at
http://www.gmpress.com/valherjar/index.html

My very, very first tactical game (Concrete Jungle) used a system much like you described. The thing you have to remember is that linear modifiers (+/- a constant) break down at the ends of a bell-curve (2d6) system. A given +1 or -1 represents a different change in success percentage based on your starting point on the curve. A +1 that makes a chance 8- instead of 7- is far more significant percentage-wise than one that makes a chance 3- instead of 2- or 12- instead of 11-.

The way I did it was to scale the modifiers based on the skill/attribute of the person. That is, as you improved in skill, negative modifiers hurt you more and positive modifiers helped you less, and vice versa for low skills.

Example: If I had an "average" attribute and skill of +3 each, then a +3 modifier would be a +3, and -3 penalty would be -3. But, if I had say a +6 attribute and +6 skill, the +3 bonus might only be worth +1, and the -3 penalty might be -5. If the +3 bonus was for aiming, and the -3 was for a called shot, the first character would be at a +0, and the second one would be at a -4. Of course, the second character had +6 more in attribute+skill, so they are actually still at +2 over the normal character.

The result is that if you are good, you're still good, but if the situation has negatives, a player can't just say "I'll do a called shot with my eyes closed while shooting over my left shoulder and hopping on one foot". On the other hand, it means that a very low skill character can still do easy things with a good chance of success. If the newbie aims the gun carefully at a range of 2 yards, yes, they should be able to hit something reliably, and since the positive modifiers are boosted for low skill characters, this works out.

Scaling the modifiers does not completely -solve- the problem, but it does widen the range before it becomes a problem.

Greg Porter
BTRC

Joe Teller's Cosmic Synchronicity had a mechanic where there was some "cosmic number" chance of totally-random-cosmic events, for good or ill. The more "important" your character was, the more severe these events - persons like Alexander the Great are godlike in skill, but when fate its them, it hits them hard.

So, you could reserve particular bad effects for "snake-eyes", and make that effect more damaging as the player increases in power. The Godlike gunman will never miss, but that one time in 36 that he does fail, it's something very awful, like hitting an ally or worse. Of course, 1/36 is 3%-ish, and is rather high for uberfailure; you'd want to temper this mechanic to reduce the "whiff"-factor of gods. (Then again, snake eyes could be your "epic downfall of the godlike" mechanic.)

Niebelung Valesti, man.

GregS wrote: player characters are fallen mortal soldiers who then train in Valhalla before going back to earth to fight as an avatar for the gods. So, theoretically, you could have a Delta or GSG guy who dies in his prime, then does nothing but train for another 20 years, and then gets sent back to earth as a man who has even less to fear because now he's effectively immortal.

Dev wrote: So, you could reserve particular bad effects for "snake-eyes", and make that effect more damaging as the player increases in power.

I disagree with Andrew Morris, but only slightly. Critical failures can add fun if they are used for descriptions of action, but if you kill a friend every time you botch, well that's a real downer and probably pushing it too far.

I think you need to state the level of "realism" you are shooting for, I hate that term when applied to games, however you do speak of having a realistic mechanic. If you want your newly un-dead characters to still have human levels of talent constraints then there must logically be an upper limit to their skill. Perhaps a +6 bonus is the maximum anyone could get. It's like running the mile, there is simply a limit to what a human can do, and endurance in doing it is an entirely more complicating and realistic addition. On the other hand, what is the realistic talent potential of a revivified/teleported/materialized dead person that has trained for combat for 10 years and can't be killed by mortals? That would be tough to decide since it is completely outside of our frame of reference.

Having said that, I have no problem with characters that automatically succeed at tasks, but they should still roll the dice. An automatic success is based on assumptions and also would be automatic only at the lowest possible level of skill+stat, given that you have a mechanic and not just a story; so there is still an incentive to roll. Plus a botch roll could be a failure without being catastrophic--there is always a small chance that a character will fail, even if they are the best!

Hmm, that's enough for my first comment on another person's thread!
Bob

Lots of great stuff.

To address the above in no particular order, the realism is what I would consider as "epic war movie" realism. Getting shot means your dead, the situations are stressful and harrowing, and you hit more than you miss...as opposed to "action movie" realism where you score a hit just for pulling the trigger.

To promote this, we have included a snake eyes roll is never a hit rule as well as a slightly different critical failure concept (it would take some explaining...so suffice to say it's there).

And, as adversaries, the PCs have monster/enemy species based on Norse mythology. We have taken singular antagonists from the myths and turned them into races, so there are a ton of very frightening baddies for them to fight.

Thanks again for all the feedback!