3d6+skill
Håvard Faanes
thinking about changing the basic mechanics to rolling 3d6+skill. Results
lower than 18 would constitute failure. Fumbles and critical success would
have to be reversed ofcourse. In contents, the higher total (above 18)
would be the winner.
Has anyone tried this before? Are there any problems with doing this that
I havent been able to see?
Feedback is most welcome :)
Havard
Charlton Wilbur
H> Hi, in my ongoing project to make GURPS combat quicker, I have
H> been thinking about changing the basic mechanics to rolling
H> 3d6+skill.
How would this make combat quicker?
Charlton
Jim Lustig
"Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:slrnb810g...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
roll is 3, so any effective skill of 15 or better is automatic success. And
if you were going to leave 3 as always critical failure and 4 as always a
failure then really there'd be no point in getting a skill higher than 14
(other than to overcome negatives)
Joachim Schipper
news:slrnb810g...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
Well, here's how I would handle it:
Bonuses to skills are bought via the normal skill table, i.e. 1 cp will give
you +0 on an easy skill, 8 cp will give you +1 on a PH skill, &c.
Add the attribute involved, minus 10. So DX 11 would give +1 to all P
skills, IQ 9 would give -1 to all M skills.
[This really boils down to 'buy the skill and subtract 10', but it's
a way to make even a novice understand it.]
Roll against 10 for standard conditions. The GM will make this higher for
hard skills, lower for easy skills. (High is good in this system.)
This seems to be a bit easier than GURPS' standard system... maybe it's
worth using. For the record, add 10 to get the normal GURPS skill. So a
skill of +5 would allow you to get crits on 5-, and a roll of +6 would allow
you to get crits on 6- and negates crits on 17.
Also for the record, rolling a 10 with a +5 bonus on the roll amounts to
needing to roll a 6+, which is the same chance as rolling a 15- due to the
fact that a mirrored bell curve is still the same bell curve. So the normal
system remains intact.
BTW, this becomes slightly more complicated with crits, as it's adjusted
skill that counts IIRC. So the GM would have to adjudicate any roll of 6-.
Oh well, nothing's perfect I guess...
Your systems works roughly the same - it just produces unwieldily high
results in skill checks.
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.463 / Virus Database: 262 - Release Date: 17-3-03
Peter Knutsen
Håvard Faanes wrote:
> Has anyone tried this before? Are there any problems with doing this that
> I havent been able to see?
I don't know about problems, but I can see one advantage. You get rid
of the nonrealism where a highly skilled combatant consistently hits a
lesser skilled swordsman, who then always makes his parrying roll. If
the second character has Broadsword 17, he'll parry almost all blows,
regardless of whether the blows come from someone who matches his
skill, or is vastly superior.
But if you go with 3d6+skill, you could require the parrier to get a
result higher than the attact result. That way it does matter whether
the blow you're parrying is coming from someone with Broadsword 17 or
someone with Broadsword 23.
Also in general success margins are slightly easier to calculate.
> Havard
--
Peter Knutsen
Robert Scott Clark
news:slrnb810g...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no:
How would this make combat quicker?
Robert Scott Clark
>
> But if you go with 3d6+skill, you could require the parrier to get a
> result higher than the attact result. That way it does matter whether
> the blow you're parrying is coming from someone with Broadsword 17 or
> someone with Broadsword 23.
You can do this just fine by comparing how well each character beat their
skill.
>
> Also in general success margins are slightly easier to calculate.
It's one subtraction either way.
>
>> Havard
>
David Johnston
It would eliminate parries and dodges.
mcv
:
: "H?vard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote in message
: news:slrnb810g...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
:> Hi, in my ongoing project to make GURPS combat quicker, I have been
:> thinking about changing the basic mechanics to rolling 3d6+skill. Results
:> lower than 18 would constitute failure. Fumbles and critical success would
:> have to be reversed ofcourse. In contents, the higher total (above 18)
:> would be the winner.
: Well for one thing it would definitely shift the bell curve as the lowest
: roll is 3, so any effective skill of 15 or better is automatic success. And
: if you were going to leave 3 as always critical failure and 4 as always a
: failure then really there'd be no point in getting a skill higher than 14
: (other than to overcome negatives)
Obviously 21 should be the default difficulty rating, if you want to
keep the bell curve the same. Done that way, nothing really changes,
except that contests of skill become a lot easier.
Maybe with a bit of fiddling, parrying, dodging and blocking could
use the attacker's result as the difficulty rating, making combat
between skilled opponents a lot easier.
mcv.
Ozzy
>
> the blow you're parrying is coming from someone with Broadsword 17 or
> someone with Broadsword 23.
Sorry, but I don't see were the sword-23 you depict is so experienced
that he just waits the sword-17 miss his defense roll. I think in this
case sword-23 is a stupid lump and deserve what happens!
With +5 skill level compared to his foe, he can do far better than just
"attack & wait & see". Feint exists and works very well, thus skill-17
could quickly become an annoyance!
--
Cordialement
==! Attention à l'e@mail !==
Enlever 'INVALID' pour répondre
Remove 'INVALID' to reply
==!----------------------!==
Kommisar
Just use the optional rule from the basic set that changes the attack
/ defense rolls into a quick contest. Has the same effect as these
rules and you can play GURPS as written - no need for conversions.
Kommisar
> Håvard Faanes wrote:
>
> But if you go with 3d6+skill, you could require the parrier to get a
> result higher than the attact result. That way it does matter whether
> the blow you're parrying is coming from someone with Broadsword 17 or
> someone with Broadsword 23.
>
> Also in general success margins are slightly easier to calculate.
>
>
Skill 23 vs. Skill 17 is adequately resolved using the existing rules.
The skill 23 attacker should feint before attacking, resulting in a
quick contest of 14 vs. 8. So the skill 17 defender will be looking
at approximately -6 on the defense roll.
Dataweaver
> Håvard Faanes wrote:
> > Hi, in my ongoing project to make GURPS combat quicker, I have been
> > thinking about changing the basic mechanics to rolling 3d6+skill. Results
> > lower than 18 would constitute failure. Fumbles and critical success would
> > have to be reversed ofcourse. In contents, the higher total (above 18)
> > would be the winner.
> >
> > Has anyone tried this before? Are there any problems with doing this that
> > I havent been able to see?
> >
> > Feedback is most welcome :)
>
> roll is 3, so any effective skill of 15 or better is automatic success. And
> if you were going to leave 3 as always critical failure and 4 as always a
> failure then really there'd be no point in getting a skill higher than 14
> (other than to overcome negatives)
If you say that any result of 10 or less is a critical failure, any
result of 20 or more is a success, a die roll of 17 or 18 is always a
critical success regardless of the total, and a die roll of 3 or 4 is
always a critical failure regardless of the total, you'll have
duplicated the existing game mechanics in terms of probability curves.
Peter Knutsen
It's easier to figure out who got the highest sum (3d6+skill) than to
calculate two success margins ("how much did attacker roll under his
attack skill, vs how much the parrier rolled under his parry skill").
--
Peter Knutsen
Robert Scott Clark
Maybe I misread, but it looks to me like you said that "in general success
margins are slightly easier to calculate" and not "in the specific instance
of a quick contest of skills, success margins are slightly easier to
calculate."
But maybe what I read as two seperate comments were instead only one
comment.
Robert Scott Clark
news:3E80C6...@telusplanet.net:
Got it.
If I replace "contents" with "contests" it makes more sense. I should read
slower.
It does make low parry and dodge skill virtually worthless.
Jim Lustig
"Peter Knutsen" <pe...@knutsen.dk> wrote in message
news:3E80ED80...@knutsen.dk...
slowing down your game I suggest you find smarter gamers :)
st3ph3nm
> Håvard Faanes wrote:
>
> result higher than the attact result. That way it does matter whether
> the blow you're parrying is coming from someone with Broadsword 17 or
> someone with Broadsword 23.
>
> Also in general success margins are slightly easier to calculate.
>
amount that the attack succeeded by? Or is that over the top - I can
imagine "called" shots going out the window...
Hmmm...
Why doesn't the original poster do a standard contest of skills?
Cheers,
Steve
Peter Knutsen
Jim Lustig wrote:
> If the basic addition and subtraction used for gurps dice rolls is really
> slowing down your game I suggest you find smarter gamers :)
Not all arithmetical operations are equally fast carry out.
--
Peter Knutsen
Jeff Suzuki
> Hi, in my ongoing project to make GURPS combat quicker,
What seems to take the most time in GURPS combat is getting the players to
state what they're doing. I've solved this using the "Three Second Rule". In
a nutshell: when it's your turn, you have a three count (five, if you've got
Combat Reflexes) to accurately state what you're doing; if you don't call your
action by the end of the count, you've lost your action. The most important
thing about this is asking a question counts as an action: "Is he armed?"
"Yes! Next person..." My experience is that this gives GURPS combat the same
adrenaline levels you'd get in "real" combat...
Jeffs
Jeff Suzuki
> Well, on a similar note, has anyone tried reducing parry rolls by the
> amount that the attack succeeded by? Or is that over the top - I can
> imagine "called" shots going out the window...
That's already one of the optional rules (-1 per 2 points made by).
There's also the expanded critical hit table in Martial Arts and other supplements.
(Anyone who's really interested in GURPS combat should get a copy of Martial Arts...it is
probably the best supplement SJG has ever put out for GURPS)
Jeffs
mcv
: Jim Lustig wrote:
I think you actually need 21 for a success, and a roll of 31 or higher
will be a critical success too. And somehow it looks a lot easier and
simpler.
Not too long ago I didn't like those "add everything together and beat
the difficulty rating" systems at all, but now I'm even arguing that
it would make sense for a good old fashioned "roll under skill"
system like GURPS.
mcv.
Bill Seurer
> I think you actually need 21 for a success, and a roll of 31 or higher
> will be a critical success too. And somehow it looks a lot easier and
> simpler.
This is easier than "roll your skill number or less" and "make the skill
roll by 10"?
Ozzy
>
> Hi, in my ongoing project to make GURPS combat quicker,
Because you're toying with bigger number, you necessarily slow the game.
In the current gurps rules, you need just two step: roll & compare.
With your system, you need to roll & calculate & compare, three steps.
IMO, it's slower, heavier and will need a lot adaptation to do with the
rules, to finaly win nothing more for the game confort (which is your
purpose, I guess).
If you want to faster combat, use a system "à la" AD&D, a table
combining stats of attack vs defense, reducing to one roll the result.
It can give something like this (if it's messy, use fixed font):
Def -> 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16+
Att\ 0,46% 1,4% 4,6% 9,3% 16,2% 25,9% 37,5% 50% 62,5% 74,1% 83,8% 90,7%
95,4% 98,1%
5 4,6% 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 3 (2) (2) (2)
6 9,3% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 (2) (2)
7 16,2% 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 (2)
8 25,9% 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 5 4 4 3 3
9 37,5% 8 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 6 6 5 4 4 3
10 50,0% 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 7 7 6 5 5 4 3
11 62,5% 10 10 10 10 10 9 9 8 7 6 6 5 4 3
12 74,1% 11 11 11 11 10 10 9 8 8 7 6 5 4 4
13 83,8% 12 12 12 12 11 10 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 4
14 90,7% 13 13 13 12 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 4
15 95,4% 14 14 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 4
16+ 98,1% 15 15 15 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 4
The GM compare modified attack and defense skills, then the attacker
rolls 3d. If the result is equal or under the number, then he hits.
I hope that helps.
Joachim Schipper
news:0Dhga.321$sz5.2...@timmy.network1.net...
Not that I mean to sound like I have too big an ego, but barring the use of
the words 'D&D' I think my earlier post, which can be found just below this
sub-thread or at
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3e809517%240%24127%241b62eedf%40news.wa
nadoo.nl&rnum=1 makes it all a bit easier...
Strange, though, that posts which have something to do with d20 get so
little response... ;-)
Joachim
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.465 / Virus Database: 263 - Release Date: 25-3-03
Robert Scott Clark
>>
> If the basic addition and subtraction used for gurps dice rolls is really
> slowing down your game I suggest you find smarter gamers :)
Three subtractions are slower than 2 additions and 1 subtraction. That's
just how the human brain works.
CK
> What seems to take the most time in GURPS combat is getting the players to
> state what they're doing. I've solved this using the "Three Second Rule".
In
> a nutshell: when it's your turn, you have a three count (five, if you've
got
> Combat Reflexes) to accurately state what you're doing; if you don't call
your
> action by the end of the count, you've lost your action. The most
important
> thing about this is asking a question counts as an action: "Is he armed?"
> "Yes! Next person..." My experience is that this gives GURPS combat the
same
> adrenaline levels you'd get in "real" combat...
Can you post an example combat encounter? It sounds interesting, but it
seems that the guy who attacks last has the advantage 'cuz he's heard
everything going on and has had time to formulate a plan.
Charlton Wilbur
It's more complicated, especially in determining critical successes --
they're *much* easier to come by at high skill levels. And failure
doesn't happen at all.
Take a skill of 10, for instance. Success happens on a roll of
3-10 if you're rolling under, or 11-18 if you're rolling over --
exactly the same chances. Critical successes happen on 3-4 under the
current system, or not at all under the new system (since the best you
can get is 28).
With a skill of 15 -- success happens on a roll of 3-15,
and critical success happens on a roll of 3-5. Under the new system,
success happens on a roll of 6-18, and critical successes happen on a
roll of 16-18. Identical chances.
Now, with a skill of 20 -- success happens automatically, because
there's no way to roll lower than 1 on 3d6. Critical successes happen
on a roll of 11-18 -- half of the time.
So, in short, if you're working with skills in the 9-15 range, the new
system has no advantage over the old one except that it effectively
eliminates the chance of critical success for skills below 13. And if
you're working with high skills -- well, with a skill of 18 it becomes
impossible to fail, and with skills only a little higher than that
critical successes become ridiculously common.
The solution to the impossible failure problem is probably to set
varying target numbers, which is what d20 does. But I don't see a
qualitative difference between that and requiring a roll to succeed by
a certain margin, and I don't see a lot of benefit from it.
The solution to the absurd range of criticals is to tie critical
successes to the *roll*, but success and quality of success to the
*total* of the roll and the skill -- which is what d20 does.
My advice to the OP? If you want d20, you know where to find it.
Charlton
st3ph3nm
that example seems to me to be ridiculous. Surely the 3 count should
start *after* the player has established the situation that the
character can take in at a glance.
Cheers,
Steve
st3ph3nm
> st3ph3nm wrote:
>
> > Well, on a similar note, has anyone tried reducing parry rolls by the
> > amount that the attack succeeded by? Or is that over the top - I can
> > imagine "called" shots going out the window...
>
> That's already one of the optional rules (-1 per 2 points made by).
Yeah, I thought so. And it means you're not using a whole new
mechanic (which I really like about GURPS, the whole continuity of
mechanics thing).
>
> There's also the expanded critical hit table in Martial Arts and other supplements.
> (Anyone who's really interested in GURPS combat should get a copy of Martial Arts...it is
> probably the best supplement SJG has ever put out for GURPS)
Agreed. As I said, though, in a streamlined system, it's likely to be
used much less.
Cheers,
Steve
mcv
: Bill Seurer <Bi...@seurer.net> writes:
:> mcv wrote:
:> > I think you actually need 21 for a success, and a roll of 31 or higher
:> > will be a critical success too. And somehow it looks a lot easier and
:> > simpler.
:>
:> This is easier than "roll your skill number or less" and "make the skill
:> roll by 10"?
:
: It's more complicated, especially in determining critical successes --
: they're *much* easier to come by at high skill levels. And failure
: doesn't happen at all.
:
: Take a skill of 10, for instance. Success happens on a roll of
: 3-10 if you're rolling under, or 11-18 if you're rolling over --
: exactly the same chances. Critical successes happen on 3-4 under the
: current system, or not at all under the new system (since the best you
: can get is 28).
You're forgetting the stuff that Bill cut; a roll of 17 is always a
success, 18 always a critical success, 3 always critical failure,
4 always regular failure.
Not too dissimilar from Earthdawn; I think there a roll which includes
two 1s is always a critical failure.
mcv.
Håvard Faanes
>Why doesn't the original poster do a standard contest of skills?
I already use the system where you roll and then compare how much below
the skill level you rolled, but like others pointed out, addition is
quicker than subtraction. Now, its not that my players suck at maths, but
when it comes to keeping combat fast paced, a few seconds more for each
die roll sure slows things down.
I have toyed with th idea of eliminating defence rolls too, but I'm not
sure if I'm quite ready to go there yet...
Havard
Håvard Faanes
>"Håvard Faanes" <h...@nvg.ntnu.no> schreef in bericht
>news:slrnb810g...@tyrell.nvg.ntnu.no...
>> Hi, in my ongoing project to make GURPS combat quicker, I have been
>> thinking about changing the basic mechanics to rolling 3d6+skill. Results
>> lower than 18 would constitute failure. Fumbles and critical success would
>> have to be reversed ofcourse. In contents, the higher total (above 18)
>> would be the winner.
>>
>> Has anyone tried this before? Are there any problems with doing this that
>> I havent been able to see?
>>
>> Feedback is most welcome :)
>
>
>Bonuses to skills are bought via the normal skill table, i.e. 1 cp will give
>you +0 on an easy skill, 8 cp will give you +1 on a PH skill, &c.
>Add the attribute involved, minus 10. So DX 11 would give +1 to all P
>skills, IQ 9 would give -1 to all M skills.
> [This really boils down to 'buy the skill and subtract 10', but it's
>a way to make even a novice understand it.]
>
>Roll against 10 for standard conditions. The GM will make this higher for
>hard skills, lower for easy skills. (High is good in this system.)
I really like this variant. It sounds even better than what I suggested.
Thanks!
Havard
st3ph3nm
What about doing it the other way around? One of the things I've
noticed about GURPS combat is that *hitting* people isn't the issue,
so much as *avoiding* being hit. A peasant with shortsword 14 and
little or no armour is going to have no trouble swinging and hitting
you, but he's got himself in trouble if he's up against a trained
bloke in light armour and skill 16. Why not assume a successfull hit,
and just worry about defence rolls? It's pretty much what happens
when you're playing with highly skilled opponents, anyway.
Cheers,
Steve
David Johnston
Now there's an interesting idea. I don't believe I've ever seen a
mechanic like that in any game, but it sounds rather workable..
Bill Seurer
> when it comes to keeping combat fast paced, a few seconds more for each
> die roll sure slows things down.
Actually, no it doesn't. It's each player taking several minutes to
decide what to do in the next second that takes so long.
Håvard Faanes
Two separate issues.
I find that players find the extra time lost doing maths is more
frustrating than the time lost while deciding what to do.
Still, you do have a point, which is why I think your idea (I think that
was you) about giving the PCs a limited time to decide what to do each
turn or lose their turn is a good idea, although a bit of goodwill on the
GMs side might be shown here depending on the situation, mood of the
players etc.
My goal is to have fast-paced action, but above all ofcourse, the point is
to have fun :)
(I know, it is obvious, but it can never be said too often)
Havard
Ozzy
> Bill Seurer wrote:
> My goal is to have fast-paced action, but above all ofcourse, the point is
> to have fun :)
Have you ever tried cards? Each player has a set of card.
Each card describe manoeuvers and movements available, and each player
chose what he wants to do before her turn.
When the GM for the player's action, he can look at the card; if the
player has not chosen yet, his turn is lost.
I've used this sometime in the past. It works quite well with newbies or
less experienced players, at least to help them learn the system.
It could become less useful with already experienced players.
CK
I like the card idea. I have my players turn the cards face down (indicates
readiness and doesn't let anybody else know what they plan to do), then each
in turn reveals their card.
st3ph3nm
In my main campaign, there are a number of highly skilled characters
that use the MA rules, to the point that even targeted hits to
specific body parts are going to hit unless a 17 or 18 is rolled. So
we find that we're virtually doing this, anyway:
"He takes a swing at your neck" (roll after I say it...yep, it's
there)
The players are rolling their parries at the same time, anyway, and
it's more often that I consult the critical miss table due to a
critical parry than due to an 18 in this campaign. Even at lower
skill levels, it's only on "called" shots that it becomes difficult to
hit, and it's rare that lower skilled people will risk it. Still,
there are some issues with hit location if you go down this path...
Cheers,
Steve
Mark K Styles
"David Johnston" wrote...
>(st3ph3nm) wrote:
> >Why not assume a successfull hit,
> >and just worry about defence rolls? It's pretty much what happens
> >when you're playing with highly skilled opponents, anyway.
>
> Now there's an interesting idea. I don't believe I've ever seen a
> mechanic like that in any game, but it sounds rather workable..
Not very interesting (IMO). It would just be d20 with a Base Armour Class
bonus (BAC) rather than a BAB, and with the defender making the rolls not
the attacker. Just as quick as that and still just as dull mechanically.
Joachim Schipper
"st3ph3nm" <sg...@hotmail.com> schreef in bericht
news:221fa157.03032...@posting.google.com...
Why not rule that any attack with skill 16+ always hits? That'd save you
quite a bit of rolling...
Robert Scott Clark
news:v8aotoj...@corp.supernews.com:
Are you saying that 2 rolls is more interesting than one?
Bill Seurer
> Are you saying that 2 rolls is more interesting than one?
One of the main things that some of my friends who dislike D&D hate
about it is that when you are attacked you don't do anything. In Ars
Magica (the skill/combat system upon which 3e D&D is based) they had an
optional rule where you didn't roll for defense as in D&D. Everyone I
knew who played the game hated it and always used the roll for defense.
So, why is this? I'm not sure. Perhaps because it gives the defender
the feeling they are doing something instead of just sitting there.
Even if it statistically doesn't matter.
Håvard Faanes
>Robert Scott Clark wrote:
> > Are you saying that 2 rolls is more interesting than one?
>
>One of the main things that some of my friends who dislike D&D hate
>about it is that when you are attacked you don't do anything. In Ars
>Magica (the skill/combat system upon which 3e D&D is based) they had an
>optional rule where you didn't roll for defense as in D&D. Everyone I
>knew who played the game hated it and always used the roll for defense.
The Dragonlance SAGA rpg introduced a system where the players always are
the active part. For instance, if they want to hit somebody the players
check against a difficulty set by the GM. Also if the monsters attack the
pcs, the players check to avoid the attack against a difficulty set by the
GM. The GM leaves all the checks up to the players, which gives him more
time to provide interesting descriptions, concentrate on the story etc.
The same could work with any RPG I suppose...
Havard
Steffan O'Sullivan
>The Dragonlance SAGA rpg introduced a system where the players always are
>the active part.
I'm not sure what you mean by "introduced," but just in case you
meant it was the first game to do this, it wasn't. At least three
years earlier, Marquee Press used this idea in its RPGs, Lost Souls
and Legendary Lives. I think I've seen a game from the '80s do
this, too, but can't remember which one now, and I've sold most of
my collection.
I agree you can import it into any game - I've run Fudge that way,
for example.
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "I suppose there's nothing that braces one
s...@panix.co | more thoroughly than the spectacle of the
Plymouth, NH, USA | forces of darkness stubbing their toe ..."
www.panix.com/~sos | -P.G. Wodehouse
David Johnston
> > hit, and it's rare that lower skilled people will risk it. Still,
> > there are some issues with hit location if you go down this path...
>
> Why not rule that any attack with skill 16+ always hits? That'd save you
> quite a bit of rolling...
The usual answer is "criticals".
st3ph3nm
You're going to have to sacrifice some amount of detail with any
system that seeks to speed up combat, I guess. But in GURPS, the
defence roll is more important than the attack roll, it seems to me.
As another person has said, it does mean that along with eliminating
the possibility of missing, you also eliminate the possibility of a
critical hit, and it also leaves in question the use of hit location
tables. So I believe, at the end of the day, that the best way to
speed up combat is the optional rule of using a quick contest of
skills.
Cheers,
Steve
Håvard Faanes
>I'm not sure what you mean by "introduced," but just in case you
>meant it was the first game to do this, it wasn't. At least three
>years earlier, Marquee Press used this idea in its RPGs, Lost Souls
>and Legendary Lives. I think I've seen a game from the '80s do
>this, too, but can't remember which one now, and I've sold most of
>my collection.
Aha, wasnt aware of that. Thanks! Are any of these games worth looking
into?
Havard
Steffan O'Sullivan
>Steffan O'Sullivan wrote:
>>I'm not sure what you mean by "introduced," but just in case you
>>meant it was the first game to do this, it wasn't. At least three
>>years earlier, Marquee Press used this idea in its RPGs, Lost Souls
>
>Aha, wasnt aware of that. Thanks! Are any of these games worth looking
>into?
I have a brief writeup of using Lost Souls in a GURPS game at
http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/lostsoul.html There's a review of
Legendary Lives at http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2360.html
That should tell you if want to hunt them down any further.
Mark K Styles
"Robert Scott Clark" wrote...
> "Mark K Styles" wrote:
> > Just as quick as that and still just as dull mechanically.
> Are you saying that 2 rolls is more interesting than one?
Yes. Personally, I like to roll dice a lot, that's part of the fun.
First, exactly what Bill mentioned, perception. Beyond just perception, the
player actually does get to do something acitve all the time instead of just
sitting for half of the combat while the GM "plays with himself" rolling for
the other side.
There are also more varied opprotunities for mechanical modifiers. You have
two rolls to work with. Even if statistically it doesn't matter whether
it's a plus to one roll and a minus to the other or two pluses to one roll
(harder to do in GURPS with a bell curve but, I guess, imagine D&D with a
defense roll), it can be percieved differently. In GURPS, two rolls helps a
lot. By splitting bonuses and penalties between the rolls helps to keep
numbers closer to 10, which is great.
There are likely other reasons, but for me it all comes back to: I like
rolling dice ;-).
Bill Seurer
> imagine D&D with a
> defense roll
I think there's an optional rule about that somewhere in D&D. You roll
a d20+stuff and use that instead of 10+stuff for AC.
RangerRic
You are absolutely correct. D&D3E has a variant rule in the Dungeon Masters
Guide on page 64, Variant: Defense Roll. This roll is an opposed check roll
against the attackers roll. The greater total then wins the contest.
RangerRic
"Bill Seurer" <Bi...@seurer.netNOSPAM> wrote in message
news:hahia.359$sz5.2...@timmy.network1.net...
Taneli Pirinen
There seems to be something weird in Google, as this is the only
message I can reply to.
[/OT]
In order to use this you should also convert the the skill to skill
modifier (as in D&D 3E) in order to make the calculations easier.
Example
Att SM
1 -9
2 -8
3 -7
4 -6
5 -5
6 -4
7 -3
8 -2
9 -1
10 -0
11 +1
12 +2
13 +3
14 +4
15 +5
16 +6
17 +7
18 +8
19 +9
20 +10
Skill Table would be like the one in the book, but instead of
attribute you'd add the attribute modifier to get the final skill
modifier. It would seem a little odd to have to pay points to get a
negative skill mod before attribute mod is added to it...
Example: DX 14 (+4) guy invests 1 point into a Shortsword (P/A) skill.
1 points gives DX-1, or final skill of Shortsword +3. Nice and easy.
You could also swap the numbers a bit... maybe use a attribute
modifier ratings similar to D&D 3E (or maybe not, as they'll screw up
the attribute costs).
Physical Skills
Modifier P/E P/A P/H
-7 def
-6 def
-5 def
-4 0.25
-3 0.25 0.5
-2 0.25 0.5 1
-1 0.5 1 2
0 1 2 4
1 2 4 8
2 4 8 16
3 8 16 24
4 16 24 32
5 24 32 40
6 32 40 48
7 40 48 56
8 48 56 64
9 56 64 72
10 64 72 80
the table is most probably not good, but I don't have time to fix it
as I'm going to sauna now.
Only 1 thing I have no idea of: the defences & how you generate the
numbers? Maybe just put a -5 if it was a 1/2 skill and -3 if it was
2/3 of skill? Or maybe forget them completely, use the full
weapon/shield skill, forget PD (except maybe from shields and special
armor like deflection fields & magic) and let there only be DR.
- Taneli -
Joachim Schipper
news:bbf3cdd5.03071...@posting.google.com...
> Only 1 thing I have no idea of: the defences & how you generate the
> numbers? Maybe just put a -5 if it was a 1/2 skill and -3 if it was
> 2/3 of skill? Or maybe forget them completely, use the full
> weapon/shield skill, forget PD (except maybe from shields and special
> armor like deflection fields & magic) and let there only be DR.
See T. Bone's FEND for ideas: http://www.io.com/~tbone/gurps/fend.htm.
---
My outgoing mail is checked for viruses.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.502 / Virus Database: 300 - Release Date: 18-7-03