tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Uh, the worse you are at at task, the quicker you succeed as well. Surely you can see the absurdity in this?
Timing/Effect System Broken on Failures As Well
- Thread starter tbeard1999
- Start date
Uh, the worse you are at at task, the quicker you succeed as well. Surely you can see the absurdity in this?
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Regardless of its merits (or lack thereof), your fix does not work with the combat system, which is where the idiocy of the T/E system comes into full bloom.
Well, that's what I'm saying. If somebody screws up entirely, it tends to be done pretty quickly. If you almost do it, but fail narrowly, then you may well spend a lot longer getting to that point. That is, more able practitioners take more care (and time) to achieve better results.
It's not something that is neccessarily a universal truth, but you can rationalise it if you want.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Since virtually any result can be rationalized if you try hard enough, this observation doesn't seem to get us very far. Unless you think that the test of a good RPG system is whether its results can be rationalized.
Kharum1
SOC-12
I guess my test of a good gaming system is whether or not everyone has fun and enjoys themselves. I don't know if there is a RPG system that I have ever played strickly by the rules. I have always "fudged" die roles for players in either direction just to make the game more enjoyable. JM2C
sablewyvern
SOC-12
This is true; changes of some kind or another do need to be applied to combat (mainly damage) in order for this to work.
My little brain has been pondering Sable's and Tbeard's posts and have come up with a possible easy fix to Mongoose's Timing/Effect problems. I don't take credit for this (well I will if it horribly fails), since this is derived from their work.
In a nutshell, reverse the polarity of the dice for the task system, but reverse it back for combat so no major changes must be made to the rules. In more detail:
1. Reverse the Fail/Success Effect charts (a.i. 1-2 is Exceptional while 5-6 is Marginal).
2. Multiply the Timing die by the increment (as Sable has suggested). No need for Mongoose's 7-die adjustment.
3. Do NOT applye task DMs to the Effect die (the result is already skewed towards easier tasks having better results).
4. During combat, use the 7-die adjustment for both determining Initiative and weapon damage multipliers (a.i. a 1 timing die results in a 6 Initiative or a 6 effect die results in x1 damage).
Why make these simple changes? Because it results in very hard tasks taking more time and being accomplished with less favorable successes. Easier tasks will tend to be done more quickly and with better results then difficult ones. The problem with the current Mongoose rules is the reverse is more often true! (as Tbeard has been attempting to point out).
Below I crunched some numbers as Tbeard has to show some results of these simple changes. I have shown the percentages of the varying degrees of success (Marginal / Average / Exceptional) if a roll actually succeeds. To make the number crunching simpler and to make a point, I have only shown what happens if the roller always picks the best result for his Effect die:
-sorry for the poor editting, not sure how to make a table here-
DM / Roll to Succeed / Marginal - Average - Exceptional
-4 / 12+ / 100% na na
-3 / 11+ / 100% na na
-2 / 10+ / 66% 33% na
-1 / 9+ / 40% 60% na
0 / 8+ / 27% 60% 13%
+1 / 7+ / 19% 52% 29%
+2 / 6+ / 15% 46% 39%
+3 / 5+ / 13% 40% 47%
+4 / 4+ / 12% 36% 52%
+5 / 3+ / 12% 34% 54%
+6 / 2+ / 11% 33% 56%
The percentages worked out great in my opinion. Difficult tasks tend to have marginal results, average tasks tend to have average results, and easy tasks tend to have exceptional results. At the extremes, a -4 DM task (that only succeeds by rolling two 6's), only succeeds with marginal results and the maximum time taken. At the other end, high +DM tasks will have a much larger chance to complete the task with good timing and effect results.
Comments please! Hopefully there is not a glaring problem I have not considered. If this gets a thumbs up here I will post it at the Mongoose forum for possible ridicule.
Notes: There are some other minor changes to be made such as editing some Mongoose rules text to use "highest" instead of "lowest" since the polarity has changed. For example, the multiple action rules currently state the lowest die must be used for timing; this would need to be changed to "highest" (this could result in better results then wanted for multiple actions and I have a simple fix for this but didn't want to get into it here in this first post).
In a nutshell, reverse the polarity of the dice for the task system, but reverse it back for combat so no major changes must be made to the rules. In more detail:
1. Reverse the Fail/Success Effect charts (a.i. 1-2 is Exceptional while 5-6 is Marginal).
2. Multiply the Timing die by the increment (as Sable has suggested). No need for Mongoose's 7-die adjustment.
3. Do NOT applye task DMs to the Effect die (the result is already skewed towards easier tasks having better results).
4. During combat, use the 7-die adjustment for both determining Initiative and weapon damage multipliers (a.i. a 1 timing die results in a 6 Initiative or a 6 effect die results in x1 damage).
Why make these simple changes? Because it results in very hard tasks taking more time and being accomplished with less favorable successes. Easier tasks will tend to be done more quickly and with better results then difficult ones. The problem with the current Mongoose rules is the reverse is more often true! (as Tbeard has been attempting to point out).
Below I crunched some numbers as Tbeard has to show some results of these simple changes. I have shown the percentages of the varying degrees of success (Marginal / Average / Exceptional) if a roll actually succeeds. To make the number crunching simpler and to make a point, I have only shown what happens if the roller always picks the best result for his Effect die:
-sorry for the poor editting, not sure how to make a table here-
DM / Roll to Succeed / Marginal - Average - Exceptional
-4 / 12+ / 100% na na
-3 / 11+ / 100% na na
-2 / 10+ / 66% 33% na
-1 / 9+ / 40% 60% na
0 / 8+ / 27% 60% 13%
+1 / 7+ / 19% 52% 29%
+2 / 6+ / 15% 46% 39%
+3 / 5+ / 13% 40% 47%
+4 / 4+ / 12% 36% 52%
+5 / 3+ / 12% 34% 54%
+6 / 2+ / 11% 33% 56%
The percentages worked out great in my opinion. Difficult tasks tend to have marginal results, average tasks tend to have average results, and easy tasks tend to have exceptional results. At the extremes, a -4 DM task (that only succeeds by rolling two 6's), only succeeds with marginal results and the maximum time taken. At the other end, high +DM tasks will have a much larger chance to complete the task with good timing and effect results.
Comments please! Hopefully there is not a glaring problem I have not considered. If this gets a thumbs up here I will post it at the Mongoose forum for possible ridicule.
Notes: There are some other minor changes to be made such as editing some Mongoose rules text to use "highest" instead of "lowest" since the polarity has changed. For example, the multiple action rules currently state the lowest die must be used for timing; this would need to be changed to "highest" (this could result in better results then wanted for multiple actions and I have a simple fix for this but didn't want to get into it here in this first post).
Last edited:
Not really. I think the test of a good system is how or whether it affects gameplay - everything else can be rationalised.
But you haven't really considered any of my points here. If there is a choice involved by players, about which dice to use for effect/time respectively, then it skews all of your probabilities out, completely.
Your complaint is based upon flawed statistics, and an attitude that refuses to rationalise results in any way that could be beneficial to gameplay.
Last edited:
Have you 'Played' this with anyone? I wonder how it flows.
My first reaction is that it looks like it might work, but it feels counter-intuative (roll low is good sometimes and bad other times). It might be a better T/E system and is worth suggesting to Mongoose.
I will stick with 2D6, roll 8+ of CT fame. A simple system for a simple mind, like mine.
This is only half true.
A player CHOOSING which Die is Timing and which is Effect changes the specific probabilities in [tbeard1999]'s analysis. However, no matter which die the player chooses, the T/E system generates MANY 'exceptionally good' and 'exceptionally bad' resuts because there will be many rolls containing a 1, 2, 5, or 6 on ONE of the dice. 'Exceptional' results (good and bad) will be the norm and 'average' results (roll 3/3, 3/4, 4/4) will be uncommon.
I think that it will create a game with more of a 'Superhero' feel than a 'gritty realism' since there will be many spectacular successes and horrific failures, but it is a matter of taste whether this is good or bad.
Last edited:
sablewyvern
SOC-12
Actually, there's an easier way of handling Timing in combat with this system -- just reverse all the Initiative values (so, you act on initiative of 1, and spending ticks adds to your iniative value).
This is a purely cosmetic change (every current rule on initiative remains the same, you just turn + into - and - into +), and means you can continue to just read the Timing die without the need for making any adjustments at all.
Also, thanks for that statistical analysis. I'd guess your values are the same as the ones I posted over at the Mongoose boards, just tabulated/grouped differently, but the statistical benefits of the system are much more obvious the way you've arranged them.
I still think that reversing the Effect die for damage may be prove too cumbersome, but IMO that's the only draw back with the system.
sablewyvern
SOC-12
Actually, unless I've misunderstood, it's pretty much exactly the system I proposed, just with a 7-Timing for initiative, and strong support for the same mechanism for combat.
Sturm doesn't seem to actually be proposing that you're looking for high Timing/Effect in combat, and low T/E outside combat. Instead, when he says reverse the polarity back, he seems to be talking about reversing the numerical result (so, Timing of 1 (low) is good because it gives you a 6 (high) initiative).
As per my preceding post, this is unnecessary for the Timing die with a minor tweak. It remains necessary for damage, unless the damage system itself is changed significantly.
Last edited:
sablewyvern
SOC-12
For reference, here's my original post:
The basic fix is to make low Timing/Effect results good, and high results inferior, in a fashion similar to the blackjack structure found in some roll-under systems. This achieves two things.
Simplfication
Under this system, there is no need to ever apply any modifiers to the Timing or Effect die to account for skill or situation. Bonuses and penalties to the skill roll automatically influence the quality of Timing/Effect results.
Adjustment of Probabilities
As a result of that, concerns expressed by some people that excellent Effect and Timing results are most probable are dealt with and fixed. Good results are most likely when checks have positive modifiers, and least likely when checks have negative modifiers.
The objective becomes to roll as low as possible, while still getting a total of 8+. Since high Timing/Effect are inferior, checks made at a -4 net modifier and requiring 6-6 for success automatically get the worst possible results if passed, instead of starting with the best possible result and then being degraded by applying modifiers. Positive modifiers to skill checks enable lower (and thus better) successful rolls by default.
The changes required would be as follows:
For general skill use:
- Result of the Timing die becomes a straight multiplier - no need to reference a table or calculate 7 - Die Roll.
- Effect results table is reversed (1-2 is exceptional, 5-6 is mininal success)
For combat:
- Initative structure would need to be reversed. Initiative value increases as you move/aim/etc, drops by two each increment phase, and you act on Initiative 1. Starting initiative would be 1d6-Dex mod. Apart from changing negative modifiers to positive and vice versa, the system as it stands wouldn't really need to be altered. The mechanical results of this system would be exactly identical to the current one.
[Edit: If you really wanted, you could keep the current initiative system, and use the current Timing chart to apply to the Timing die in combat. Just shifting to a low initative = better system would be much simpler, however.]
- The tricky one is that you could no longer read the Effect die as a straight damage bonus or multiplier. This might be the deal breaker. Then again, we already have a reversed value table for the current Timing system, so maybe it's workable. Or, perhaps there's another way of working damage to suit low Effect = better.
Thoughts?
Edit: One workable option for damage would be to change to an Xd6 damage system, as some people have already suggested. In that case, an Effect of 1-2 could add 1d6 damage, and 5-6 Effect subtract 1d6 damage, which would be easy, consistent with the normal Effect Table, and not require any maths or table lookups to make it work.
And, a follow-up post:
These are the margins of success/failure I'd use with this system:
Success:
Effect 1 = Incredible succes
Effect 2-3 = Excellent Success
Effect 4-5 = Succes
Effect 6 = Marginal success or success with minor complication
Failure:
Effect 1 = Marginal failure, or success with serious complication
Effect 2-3 = Failure
Effect 4-5 = Dismal Failure
Effect 6 = Catastrophic Failure
The basic fix is to make low Timing/Effect results good, and high results inferior, in a fashion similar to the blackjack structure found in some roll-under systems. This achieves two things.
Simplfication
Under this system, there is no need to ever apply any modifiers to the Timing or Effect die to account for skill or situation. Bonuses and penalties to the skill roll automatically influence the quality of Timing/Effect results.
Adjustment of Probabilities
As a result of that, concerns expressed by some people that excellent Effect and Timing results are most probable are dealt with and fixed. Good results are most likely when checks have positive modifiers, and least likely when checks have negative modifiers.
The objective becomes to roll as low as possible, while still getting a total of 8+. Since high Timing/Effect are inferior, checks made at a -4 net modifier and requiring 6-6 for success automatically get the worst possible results if passed, instead of starting with the best possible result and then being degraded by applying modifiers. Positive modifiers to skill checks enable lower (and thus better) successful rolls by default.
The changes required would be as follows:
For general skill use:
- Result of the Timing die becomes a straight multiplier - no need to reference a table or calculate 7 - Die Roll.
- Effect results table is reversed (1-2 is exceptional, 5-6 is mininal success)
For combat:
- Initative structure would need to be reversed. Initiative value increases as you move/aim/etc, drops by two each increment phase, and you act on Initiative 1. Starting initiative would be 1d6-Dex mod. Apart from changing negative modifiers to positive and vice versa, the system as it stands wouldn't really need to be altered. The mechanical results of this system would be exactly identical to the current one.
[Edit: If you really wanted, you could keep the current initiative system, and use the current Timing chart to apply to the Timing die in combat. Just shifting to a low initative = better system would be much simpler, however.]
- The tricky one is that you could no longer read the Effect die as a straight damage bonus or multiplier. This might be the deal breaker. Then again, we already have a reversed value table for the current Timing system, so maybe it's workable. Or, perhaps there's another way of working damage to suit low Effect = better.
Thoughts?
Edit: One workable option for damage would be to change to an Xd6 damage system, as some people have already suggested. In that case, an Effect of 1-2 could add 1d6 damage, and 5-6 Effect subtract 1d6 damage, which would be easy, consistent with the normal Effect Table, and not require any maths or table lookups to make it work.
And, a follow-up post:
These are the margins of success/failure I'd use with this system:
Success:
Effect 1 = Incredible succes
Effect 2-3 = Excellent Success
Effect 4-5 = Succes
Effect 6 = Marginal success or success with minor complication
Failure:
Effect 1 = Marginal failure, or success with serious complication
Effect 2-3 = Failure
Effect 4-5 = Dismal Failure
Effect 6 = Catastrophic Failure
Last edited:
Of course you could just make the margins of success failure:
1 - Critical failure/Narrow success
2-5 Normal failure/success
6 - Partial failure/Critical success.
Essentially, this means that the exceptional success/failure element is reduced accordingly.
In terms of damage, if you really want to cut out the nonsense, just have fixed damage, based on weapon type, for Narrow/Normal/Critical successes, accordingly.
1 - Critical failure/Narrow success
2-5 Normal failure/success
6 - Partial failure/Critical success.
Essentially, this means that the exceptional success/failure element is reduced accordingly.
In terms of damage, if you really want to cut out the nonsense, just have fixed damage, based on weapon type, for Narrow/Normal/Critical successes, accordingly.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
No it doesn't, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. Since you can't be bothered to actually read my posts, I feel no obligation to waste further time re-explaining it to you.
The T/E system yields dubious results that no amount of bizarre rationalization can convincingly explain. If, in spite of this, you still love it, then good for you.
We'll see how well the gaming public loves it in a couple of months.
The statistical analysis is not flawed; you simply don't like the results. So I'd appreciate you not shooting the messenger. But you are correct that I'm not excited about making wild leaps just to rationalize a clumsy and ill-conceived gaming mechanic.
Last edited:
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
In such a system a +1 net modifier would eliminate any chance of a critical failure or narrow success. A -1 net modifier would eliminate any chance of a critical success or partial failure.
Seems a pretty coarse mechanic.
tbeard1999
SOC-14 1K
Best of luck getting Mongoose to adapt any changes to the T/E system. When I last looked at this idea, it failed to impress me. My enthusiasm for analyzing further fixes (that in my opinion have no chance of being adapted by Mongoose) is seriously waning. If Mongoose adapts it, I'll spend some time analysing it in detail.
Then why bother? Seriously - just take some time out. You've created a lot of noise, got people talking about it, and sometimes it's better just to stand back at that point to allow people some thinking time.
If you keep talking yourself into an aggrieved (and somewhat aggressive) state, all you are going to do is turn people off from what you've got to say.
It's not a question of 'loving' it. It's a question of how it's actually worked in different people's games, and finding the best consensus of opinion of how it would best work. This includes analysing your complaints too. However, if you just personalise your criticisms, accusing people with differing opinions of being 'raving fanboys' or whathaveyou, then all you are doing is polarising opinion in a negative way.
Indeed.
It's flawed because you've glossed over one of the central aspects of the system: that players are going to end up interpreting the dice in the most advantageous way it applies to their characters situation. Your stats simply don't account for that.
Last edited:
sablewyvern
SOC-12
It's unchanged from what I originally posted on the Mongoose boards, so I assume that your original observations still stand.
Ok, I've done my own analysis of possible results, which incorporates every possible result over a range of modifiers from -5 to +5, here:
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=480246#480246
Along with this I've offered a suggested way to fix the skewing of results, one that fits exactly with the concept in the playtest doc. (And in fact 'fixes' another issue too, weapon damage).
I have added a rational that IMHO makes sense and is reasonable.
Now, it just needs to be tested to destruction.
http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=480246#480246
Along with this I've offered a suggested way to fix the skewing of results, one that fits exactly with the concept in the playtest doc. (And in fact 'fixes' another issue too, weapon damage).
I have added a rational that IMHO makes sense and is reasonable.
Now, it just needs to be tested to destruction.
Similar threads
