What about this mechanic?

[Nakana]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, (Fairly new to the BRP system) but so far I haven't seen it anywhere.

Instead of using the resistance table, what about using this mechanic:

CHARACTERISTIC + 1d10 = X

Highest X wins.

Furthermore if you want degrees of success:

If the difference of X's are 5 or more it is a special success. If the difference is 10 or more it is a critical success.

For example Bill and Bob want to arm wrestle. Bill's STR is 12 and Bob's STR is 10. They each roll 1d10 and add it to their STR. Whoever is highest wins. If Bill wins by 5 or more = special success; 10 or more = critical success.

On the resistance table Bill would need to roll 60% or better. Bob needs 40% or better. Bill has a 20% advantage over Bob. Likewise, using the new mechanic, Bill still has a 20% advantage over Bob. Right?

I'm not a math genius, but unless I'm missing something I think the probabilities are basically the same. (Minus a rounding error of 1/10th versus 1/100th. Yet, on the resistance table degrees of success negate the rounding error anyway.)

This mechanic to me would be a lot simpler and faster than worrying about the resistance table.

(None of this would apply to opposed skill rolls, which would be done as normal)

Anyway, if this method doesn't work please explain to me why. Also if this idea is nothing new please tell me.

If for some reason this is a breakthrough mechanic that has never been done before, I hereby dub it "Nathan's Rule of Resistance"

[RosenMcStern]

This mechanics breaks when a contestant has an advantage of 5 points or more in a characteristic and you are counting special successes. While the regular resistance roll will give you a special success 15% of the time, this mechanics will grant the highest characteristic a special success 50% of the time. With an advantage of 6 or more, special successes become more likely than normal successes.

Another point is that so few abitudinary players of D100 find the usual maths so "scary" as to wish to shift paradigms in favour of a "roll over" mechanics for characteristic comparisons when the rest of the game system is "roll under".

[Nakana]

This mechanics breaks when a contestant has an advantage of 5 points or more in a characteristic and you are counting special successes. While the regular resistance roll will give you a special success 15% of the time, this mechanics will grant the highest characteristic a special success 50% of the time. With an advantage of 6 or more, special successes become more likely than normal successes.

I gotcha. The probabilities of degrees of successes become skewed, so degrees of success do not fairly work in this mechanic.

Another point is that so few abitudinary players of D100 find the usual maths so "scary" as to wish to shift paradigms in favour of a "roll over" mechanics for characteristic comparisons when the rest of the game system is "roll under".

I wouldn't say the math is "scary", just simply not as quick. (Although we're only talking a matter of seconds of time saved) Also to point out, I as well as any immediate possible players I have at my disposal are not in the habit yet of the d100 "roll under" paradigm. Admittedly, the d20 "roll over" mindset is a habit I am now trying to break. In time "roll under" will become second nature and this mechanic at that point may even seem odd.

Nonetheless, you make a good point. It is a roll under system - better to keep it that way.

Thanks for the response and insight.

[frogspawner]

If you prefer a formula to the Resistance Table, you could try this instead: STAT x 5% roll (modified +/-5% per point by which the opposed stat is under/over 10).

[Gollum]

DEX + 1d10 rolls are used to determine initiative during combats, if I'm not wrong... But I don't remember where I saw that: an optional initiative rule in the Big Golden Book, a specific genre version of the game or a french translation of the Basic system? ... I'm not sure.

[Gollum]

Yes! After a few research, I found it. It was in the Big Golden Book. Option: Initiative Rolls, page 288. And now that my memory is more focused, it was also the standard rule in Basic, the french version of the Basic Role Playing system published by the magazine Casus belli.

So characteristic + 1d10 could be a good house rule. It would give quite different results, as it has been said (and well explained) above, but it is still one possibility. Personally, I just prefer that resistance rolls use the same system than success rolls: a d100 roll against a percentage. But that is just a matter of preference.

Edited April 11, 2013 by Gollum

[Atgxtg]

STAT+1D20 is a closer match to the resistance table, but has been co-opted by some other rpg.

[frogspawner]

STAT+1D20 is a closer match to the resistance table, but has been co-opted by some other rpg.

We shouldn't be dogmatic, though. Would it make for a better system...?

[RosenMcStern]

STAT+1D20 is a closer match to the resistance table, but has been co-opted by some other rpg.

You mean... Sarah Newton's "Monsters and Magic"?

[Atgxtg]

We shouldn't be dogmatic, though. Would it make for a better system...?

No. Not at all. Since we are attempting to emulate the resistance table, we aren't evern trying to make anything better[/i. We are just trying to make something the same using a different die mechanic.

I suppose some might find rolling 1D20+STAT ONE- STAT TWO easier and/or faster that rolling percentile dice and looking it up on a table. But I don't think that is necessarily better. But then I'm one of those people who can do the resistance table in my head, so to me it's the same.

Other alternates would be to use the Pendragon mechanic or, better yet, the HeroQuest mechanic. Another would be to come up with a die formula for each stat. For instance, a 10 could be 1D10, and 11 could be 1D10+1, a 12 could be 2D6 and so on. Then roll and compare.

But I think to some extent those approaches open up a bigger can on worms. TYouend up with a very different mechanic for resistance rolls than you have for everything else, as opposed (pardon the pun) to a slightly different game mechanic. It also would make the idea of cooping the new resistance roll method for other things, both to cut down to one method of task resolution and to handle opposed rolls. And then it really isn't BRP anymore.

[Atgxtg]

You mean... Sarah Newton's "Monsters and Magic"?

No, Arduin!

[Gollum]

Other alternates would be to use the Pendragon mechanic or, better yet, the HeroQuest mechanic. Another would be to come up with a die formula for each stat. For instance, a 10 could be 1D10, and 11 could be 1D10+1, a 12 could be 2D6 and so on. Then roll and compare.

Be careful with dice changes, though. 2d6 statistical results are quite different from 1d10+2 ones for instance. As soon as there are several dice, the statistical curves are not anymore the same.

Edit

To be more precise, 1d10+2 (minimum result, 3; average result, 7.5) has more than one chance in two to win 2d6 (minimum result, 2; average result 7).

Edited April 15, 2013 by Gollum

[Atgxtg]

Be careful with dice changes, though. 2d6 statistical results are quite different from 1d10+2 ones for instance. As soon as there are several dice, the statistical curves are not anymore the same.

No the are not, but then they don't have to be. THe idea is to come up with a simple, alternate mechanic for handling opposed stat rolls (the resistance table). The statistical curves don't have to be the same, and the odds do not have to be in 5% increments. It just has to work and give an "acceptable advantage" to the higher stat. Just what is an "acceptable advantage" might vary from GM to GM.

I've got an idea I've been working on that uses 1D20 per 10 points of stat plus any remainder. For instance a 10 would be 1D20, a The guy with the 10 has little chance against the guy with the 24, but I'm fine with that, and it's still better than his chances on the resistance table.

Edit

To be more precise, 1d10+2 (minimum result, 3; average result, 7.5) has more than one chance in two to win 2d6 (minimum result, 2; average result 7).

[pansophy]

Trouble starts with an alternative when you have values outside the usual range, e.g. STR63 against STR66. You would need to come up with a different formula every now and then, while the Resistance Table still works (35% chance in the example above). And that is why I like the resistance table as it is.

[Atgxtg]

Trouble starts with an alternative when you have values outside the usual range, e.g. STR63 against STR66. You would need to come up with a different formula every now and then,

Not if you come up with a good formula. FOr instance the 1D20 per 10 points plus remainder works just fine outside the usual range. Or, this progression

Stat/Die

1/1D2

2/1D4

3/!d6

4/1D8

5/1D10

6/1D10+1D2

7/1D10+1D4

8/1D10+1D6

9/1D10+1D8

10/2D10

etc.

while the Resistance Table still works (35% chance in the example above). And that is why I like the resistance table as it is.

Oh, Generally speaking I prefer the table too, but the thread was discussing alternatives.

[pansophy]

hm, your progression table reminds me on the CORTEX rules system ... they used this progression table for all stats and skills. Good system IMHO, but it was inconsistent and not well supported by MWP.

Anyway, you are right, the thread was about alternatives. Just wanted to add that the current table is not that bad and there is a reason for it.

[Gollum]

Trouble starts with an alternative when you have values outside the usual range, e.g. STR63 against STR66. You would need to come up with a different formula every now and then, while the Resistance Table still works (35% chance in the example above). And that is why I like the resistance table as it is.

Yes. This is the problem of additive progression rather than multiplicative progression (I don't know at all whether these are the good mathematical English terms, but you will still understand easily what I want to mean – at least, I hope so).

In additive progression, the mathematical difference is what is taken into account. So, 1 vs 2 is exactly the same thing than 10 vs 11, 20 vs 21 or 100 vs 101. The table of resistance works like that: 45% chance of winning on the resistance table in every case.

In multiplicative progression, this is different. 1 vs 2 is the same thing that 10 vs 20 or 100 vs 200: Half. Intuitively, our mind works like that. We thing that there is less difference between 100 and 101 than between 1 and 2. 2$ is two times 1$ while 101$ is about the same cost than 100$. And there is more difference between a 2 years old child and a 1 year old child than between two hundred years old men.

One way to solve this problem is saying that when numbers are beyond 20, the GM can divide them by the same number before looking at the table of resistance (to go as close as possible from 20 with one of the number). 63 and 66 could for instance be divided by 3 to give 21 and 22.

This house rule could even be used when there is only one number beyond 20. 17 vs 30, for instance, would then be considered as 8 vs 15.

Also note that the characteristic + D10 or characteristic + D20 system exactly has the same problem. Both of them use an additive progression.

[Gollum]

Yup. But 2D6 has a better than even chance of beating 1D10+1, and that's the important thing.

Yes, you're perfectly right here...

[frogspawner]

[Re. 'Better system...?'] No. Not at all. Since we are attempting to emulate the resistance table, we aren't evern trying to make anything better. We are just trying to make something the same using a different die mechanic. ... And then it really isn't BRP anymore.

Yep, I can only agree. Though I don't like too much use of tables (they separate you from the 'being-there' feel), I am ok with the Resistance formula. And D20 mechanics don't belong in the core of a D100 system.

[Atgxtg]

hm, your progression table reminds me on the CORTEX rules system ... they used this progression table for all stats and skills. Good system IMHO, but it was inconsistent and not well supported by MWP.

Thr 1D2/1D4/1D6 etc method was something I pulled from Elric! years ago and even passed on to Steve Perrin as an alternate db for SPQR.

The D20+adds method is something I am working on for a base ten logarithmic stat game. That is a 20 would be ten times the value of a 10 and so on. The idea is for the system to be able to handle some really high values, such as those used for superheroes and battleshiips as well as for normal people, yet keep the values relatively small.

Anyway, you are right, the thread was about alternatives. Just wanted to add that the current table is not that bad and there is a reason for it.

It's not bad at all. Matter of fact, I've used it as the basis for a BRP variant once or twice.

[Atgxtg]

Yes. This is the problem of additive progression rather than multiplicative progression (I don't know at all whether these are the good mathematical English terms, but you will still understand easily what I want to mean – at least, I hope so)...

Yeah, it boils down to deciding what;s more important the difference between the stats or the ratio.

But since BRP uses a doubling scale, it's effectively doing both. At least in the 8-88 stat range where 90% of the game is played. A SIZ of 88 (51.2mt) is twice the value [/i (in this case mass) ]of a 80 (25.6mt), which is why there is such a big swing in the resistance table despite what is only a 10% difference in the actual stat. By doing thing that way, you don't need to worry about the 100 vs 200 situations as a stat of 200 has over 500 times the value of a stat of 100. It's like comparing humans to ants.

[vagabond]

If you prefer a formula to the Resistance Table, you could try this instead: STAT x 5% roll (modified +/-5% per point by which the opposed stat is under/over 10).

Or, use 50 + 5 X (ACTIVE_STAT - OPPOSING_STAT), which is what the Resistance Table actually is.

Ian

[frogspawner]

...which is what the Resistance Table actually is.

I know. But expressing it as just a modifier to the unimpeachably simple "STATx5" might make some people happier to use it.

[vagabond]

I know. But expressing it as just a modifier to the unimpeachably simple "STATx5" might make some people happier to use it.

Yes, but it loses a lot of the accuracy and flexibility.

Another option would be 5% X (10 + ACTIVE_STAT - OPPOSING_STAT)

Ian

[frogspawner]

Yes, but it loses a lot of the accuracy and flexibility.

Nope. STATx5 modified +/-5% per opposed stat point under/over 10 is the same as the Resistance Table.

And as your formula. But being based on the very easy and familiar STATx5, some players may be less averse to using it.