Re: GM-controlled Bad Luck points

Simon Smith wrote:
>           "gleichman" <fox1_217.nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>"Simon Smith" <simon_smith_news@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>>>Now here I'm with Peter. I too like variable-numbers-of-dice mechanics.
I
>>>like competent characters to be consistently competent. 'Consistently
>>>competent' is a bit of a nebulous phrase, but among other things it's 
>>>going
>>>to include fumble chances for routine tasks on the order of 1/1000 or 
>>>less,
>>>which gibe reasonably well with real-world failure/fumble chances for
>>>routine tasks.
>>
>>This is a good example of what I meant by "chasing an illusionary target

>>that's meaningful only to him".
>>
>>Many games designs (AoH being one example) do not invoke fumble rules
for 
>>routine tasks, but rather only for stressed or combat conditions. Even
games 
>>where that isn't directly stated are often ran in that style- people
don't 
>>roll skill rolls for walking up stairs, taking a bath, or driving to
work 
>>(although all those are causes of death in the real world) <snip>
> 
> Here's an attempt to articulate why ultra-low (but non-zero) failure and
> fumble probabilities are sought by some game designers (incl. me and
Peter,
> it appears):
> 
> 
> To many strict simulationists, the view given by gleichman, while
pragmatic,
> is bothersome. When considering a game world, I like to assume that the
game
> rules apply universally. That is to say, even off-camera, the plebs are
> driving to work, driving home, crossing roads and so on and - at least
> theoretically - dice are being rolled by some nebulous GM in the sky to
> determine what happens. So if the rules as written give a 1% chance of
each
[...]

Well, that's one difference between my two designs, Sagatafl and Modern 
Action RPG.

Sagatafl is the all-purpose RPG system, intended for anything from a 
heroic laboratory "find the cure for cancer" campaign, and to boring 
everyday life simulation, or traditional adventuring. Hence the roll 
mechanic needs to work for everything - and it does. As you lower the 
Roll Difficulty, the worst kinds of Fumbles become totally impossible. 
At the default, adventuring or "critical situation" RD of 8, all Fumbles 
are possible, but as soon as you lower the RD to 6 (routine activities), 
the worst kind of Fumble, F-6 Disastrous Fumble, can't occur. Lower the 
RD to 5, and you also exclude the second-worst grade of Fumble, F-5 
Grand Fumble. At RD 3, you can only get Minor Fumbles (F-2) and failures 
(f-1), nothing worse.

Modern Action RPG is different, being 100% adventuring focused. "It 
thinks" that life simulation is boring, and it can't be used for a 
heroic "spend time in the lab to find the cure for cancer" campaign, 
because Science skills are fluff skills, and therefore very cheap, and 
thus on a standard character creation budget you could build a scientist 
who is more skilled than Reed Richards.

It is a system built for adventuring. For the subject matter of 
traditonal RPGs. I'd say that my main reason for using a multiple-dice 
roll mechanic, in some ways quite similar to Sagatafl's, is that I want 
to be able to handle opposed rolls well. I'd still want the Fumble 
probabilitie to be good, though, and they are.

If anything is wrong with the MA RPG roll mechanic, it is that Successes 
occur too rarely. In Sagatafl, at the default RD of 8, each dice has a 
5/12 probability of coming up a Success. In MA RPG, where the "RD" is 
fixed, each dice has a 2/12 probability of coming up a Success, with a 
further 2/12 probability of coming up a Partial Success (which is only 
useful if you get no Full Successes). Situational bonuses and penalties 
are handled by increasing or lowering effective skill, so that for 
isntance 7d6 or 5d6 is rolled, instead of 6d6 for a character with a 
skill of 6.

-- 
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org