A five percent solution?

[filbanto]

There's room for both rules in BRP. The -30% is more cinematic - a skilled swordsman can confidently hold off a number of foes. Halving feels a bit more realistic - since chances of fending off multiple opponents drops so quickly.

[frogspawner]

Yeah, guess I prefer gritty to cinematic. For me, even a 184% Errol Flynn should have more trouble than 94% parrying that fourth attacker.

This is "crushing dissent" is it?

Let's just say I've become sensitized to such issues, given the realization of what's been done to Britain.

[NickMiddleton]

Yeah, guess I prefer gritty to cinematic. For me, even a 184% Errol Flynn should have more trouble than 94% parrying that fourth attacker.

And that IS a quantified and specific criteria.

I would suggest that the halving idea may still not be the best solution anyway, because the differences are only really pronounced with high skills - and if you prefer gritty to cinematic, do you often see skills over 100, or even 150? If you do, the switch will be VERY noticeable and might well throw some people. Bear in mind that the Sheriff of Nottingham is probably 150% or so attack - an opponent that Errol Flyn would be VERY wary of riposting against. The riposte is for dealing with the mob of guards at the castle gates... And if you WERE running a cinematic, heroic game, would you want Erol Flyn to get bogged down in to a protracted fight with four no-name mooks at the castle gate?

For gritty games I tend to a) cap skills at 100 anyway and revert to the Call of Cthulhu / RQ rule where you get to roll two out of three of an attack, a parry or a dodge each round, if I don't just revert to a subset of the BGB that looks almost exactly like RQIII...

Cheers,

Nick

[smjn]

Yes, for gritty realism RQ3 is a good choice.

[Conrad]

The underlying problem is the unfairness of having no chance to parry multiple attacks after the first.

Which is why giving the player a 5% chance looks kind of dramatic, when you've whittled your parrying down to zero due to the -30% rule.

[Conrad]

Consensus would have us all playing D&D. Or, a wider form, not playing any RPG at all. In fact that would probably be best for... Public Safety. No telling what dangerous subversive ideas might occur to the citizens otherwise. You are quite right to brutally crush any dissent, Comrade Middleton.

Quite right comrade. If you don't like a rule in your game, then you have every right to change it. Just don't expect everyone to agree with your opinion though.

So, explaining the terms I used; explaining the original rules contexts of the specific rules we are discussing (including highlighting some subtle features you appeared to have missed); pointing out the work that had gone into developing these rules; querying the exact criteria the change you were proposing is supposed to satisfy; explaining that I believe there is a large body of evidence supporting the assertion that division is more "difficult" than subtraction... This is "crushing dissent" is it?

People disagreeing with you is not "crushing dissent", nor is suggesting that revising rules needs a somewhat more robust and quantified criteria than "frogspawner thinks it should be different".

Cheers,

Nick

Just watch your back dissident Frogspawner. Nickolai Middletonivitch will probably be sending his secret police out to get you. If you're not careful its the BRP Gulag for you!

Edited March 31, 2013 by Conrad

[frogspawner]

I would suggest... <etc>

Surely 'gritty' doesn't just mean low-skill, it must go deeper - to issues such as we're now discussing.

I don't like to classify my games, but just guess (hope?) they'd be called 'gritty' rather than 'cinematic'. Though I still like the players to be heroic. To my mind, only when the characters are stretched, risking all, are they really heroes. If the game system supports them too much, they're not being heroic, are they? Then it's just bullying. Nasty. (For the same reason I don't like the D&D sack-of-hits HP mechanism).

And the whole 'mook' concept offends me - all should be characters. An impossibly impractical dream, perhaps, but the ideal.

Our top characters have say 120% weapons skills, but we don't use the -30% steps anyway (or riposting), so no-one would balk at the new Halving method.

Like the problems I see with Opposed Rolls, it's about the feeling. I feel the "-30% Step" lacks elegance, whereas "Halving" feels right. If you don't, then forget it. I'm not pushing for a doctrinaire 'one-size-fits-all' consensus.

(BTW, this isn't the forum to discuss such things but for the benefit of those of you who don't know, I'll just say what has happened to Britain: We have been infiltrated by soviet agents to the highest levels. They control the BBC, the 3 main political parties leadership, NHS & local council executives, much of the police, most newspapers and the Utility companies. Of course the EU is theirs, through-and-through. Perhaps they don't have much hold in the British army, hence the continual cutbacks. But it's not just high-ups - they are among us at lower managerial levels too. Pervasive, like Stasi. Nasty civil war is probably the best future facing us. The other option is that they will keep the lid on their evil conspiracy (with the Leveson press/internet gag etc) and keep control. In which case you'll stop hearing from me, as I'll have been dragged off as soon as the new gulags are built.)

[nclarke]

Frogspawner is due a meeting with his therapist. The long cold, dark winter is getting to him and he's with no doubt drowning in a mix of 10 foot (no meters for Frogspawner) snowdrifts and his own self-loathing.

[frogspawner]

Frogspawner is due a meeting with his therapist...

Nope, I'm not crazy. Sorry. That would make it so much easier, wouldn't it?

[Chaot]

If you don't, then forget it. I'm not pushing for a doctrinaire 'one-size-fits-all' consensus.

That's my mantra right there. Whatever feels right for your game. I like the 30 step and actually don't use the doubling rule.

Might I suggest for those who don't like doubling or halving and also don't like the 30 step consider bonuses and penalties of 20? It would probably work best for those who keep skill levels around 100% and below.

[frogspawner]

Whatever feels right for your game. I like the 30 step and actually don't use the doubling rule.

'Xactly. Me, I avoid +/- modifiers and stick to just halving/doubling. Whatever feels best for you.

...division is the basic arithmetic operation people find hardest...

Trying to be helpful: Let me suggest that, instead of dividing the target percentage, try multiplying the roll. E.g. If Rollx5 is skill or less it's a special.

[NickMiddleton]

...Trying to be helpful: Let me suggest that, instead of dividing the target percentage, try multiplying the roll. E.g. If Rollx5 is skill or less it's a special.

Not that it matters to me (my menal arithmetic is fine and I usually do all the math for all my players anyway) but multiplication is generally classified as the next most difficult operation after division...

Cheers,

Nick

[frogspawner]

...multiplication is generally classified as the next most difficult operation after division...

Still, it's a tip other readers may find useful.

[seneschal]

Wasn't something like this addressed in-depth in a book a few years ago: The Seven Percent Solution?

[frogspawner]

Doubt it - never touch the stuff. How does it end?

[Atgxtg]

Wasn't something like this addressed in-depth in a book a few years ago: The Seven Percent Solution?

Yeah, I though this was going to be a supplement for running a Consulting Detective campaign using BRP rules. It would have been a great title. A take off of the Nick Meyer pastiche and very BRP-ish.

[seneschal]

Yeah, I though this was going to be a supplement for running a Consulting Detective campaign using BRP rules. It would have been a great title. A take off of the Nick Meyer pastiche and very BRP-ish.

Now, Watson. Careful observation of Atgxtg's typewritten statement indicates clearly that he is age 32, weighs 189 lbs, is of mixed Bosnian-Italian ancestry on his maternal great-aunt's side, owned a pot-belied pig named Alfie while in third grade, and worked as a doughnut frier during his second year at Berkeley, from which he graduated with a dual degree in radio astronomy and theater production. No need to be so amazed, Mr. Atgxtg. Based on your word usage and typing patterns the conclusions were quite elementary, really.

By the by, have you read my monograph of the 4,927 types of polyhedral dice commonly used in the greater London area? It is sure to be of great benefit to future law enforcement officers -- and Cthulhu by Gaslight Keepers.

Edited March 29, 2013 by seneschal

[frogspawner]

Careful observation of Atgxtg's typewritten statement indicates...

...that it's not by the real Atgxtg - there's only one typo in it!

[Lexis]

I have been known to allow an arbitrary number of rolls for defense, without penalty. The rationale being that you are already penalized simply by getting many incoming attacks compared to the number of attacks you are able to make yourself. Statistically, you are already more likely to fail. This was also in a game where I tried to as far as possible give no bonuses or penalties except in really extraordinary circumstances; that saved me lots of effort for very little visible cost.

I have also been known to give a flat penalty based on the number of opponents in position to attack; from even the first parry. The rationale for that was that you have to split your attention, even if the opponents miss or decide to delay. I didn't feel it added much to make up for the book-keeping.

I have also tried to allow arbitrary number of un-penalized defense rolls, as long as you win them. This is a horrible death trap, which sometimes is fun but only in the right games.

I also like the RAW, mostly because people seem to understand it easily. If you are in a position where you actually run out of parries due to this, you are very much in over your head

[frogspawner]

I have been known to allow an arbitrary number of rolls for defense, without penalty.

I use this all the time - though with Defence only reducing damage by 10*, not entirely negating. It works well. Characters are safer, of course, but they don't feel much safer, which is the important bit. Players still whine to have their D&D Hit Points comfort-zone back! Never.

I have also been known to give a flat penalty based on the number of opponents in position to attack; from even the first parry. The rationale for that was that you have to split your attention...

Seems very reasonable. Don't think I can be bothered with even that little admin though, personally.

(* Yes, I know - it's an arbitrary 'Magic Number'. Can anyone think of a more elegant mechanic?)

[1d8+DB]

I've been re-reading the Mongoose Traveller rules, and I'm intrigued by how they handle multiple parries/dodges in combat.

Anyway, in Traveller there is a flat penalty for multiple dodges/parries, however, for each additional parry/dodge, you suffer a -2 adjustment to your Initiative.

So in the D100 world this work something like this: any parry/dodge after the first one is 1/2%. However your DEX rank for taking action is reduced by 3 per each additional parry/dodge after the first one.

[pansophy]

So in the D100 world this work something like this: any parry/dodge after the first one is 1/2%. However your DEX rank for taking action is reduced by 3 per each additional parry/dodge after the first one

.

I like that rule, but then I would stick to 5DEX per opponent, and it does not matter if you need to parry or not. Makes it easy and fair. 3 opponents meand -15 DEX to your INI (yes, it will make you go last) and parries or dodges are made at 1/2 skill.