Alt Resistance Table

[Harshax]

I recall this posted somewhere . . . Crashbox, Tal Meta, the old RQ Digest.

It was a mathematical formula for bell-curving the resistance table.

Anybody have any idea what I'm talking about? I'm digging through old files trying to dredge it up.

[AikiGhost]

The question is do you really want give a STR 10 weakling a 1% chance of pushing a SIZ 40 boulder? I'd just stick with the normal resistance table myself.

[Harshax]

Resistance Table Repaired

A^2/(A^2+P^2)

Formula by Jesper Wahrner

Date: 23 May 96

RQ Rules Digest: V2 #259

And no, it didn't result in the possibility of what you described.

Has anyone ever tried this table?

Sampling:

      8       9      10      11      12      13      14

 8   50%     44%     39%     35%     31%     27%     25%

 9   56%     50%     45%     40%     36%     32%     29%

10   61%     55%     50%     45%     41%     37%     34%

11   65%     60%     55%     50%     46%     42%     38%

12   69%     64%     59%     54%     50%     46%     42%

13   73%     68%     63%     58%     54%     50%     46%

14   75%     71%     66%     62%     58%     54%     50%

[frogspawner]

Nope. It looks hard to work out on the fly. And what problem is it supposed to "repair"?

[Rurik]

The problem with that (IMHO) is that the formula is not simple.

The Resistance table is so easy to calculate that I have not needed to reference the table in over 20 years now.

One of my favorite criticisms is of the Resistance Table is the old "Have to look it up on a chart and charts is evil" argument. I was able to do it in my head since I was 12 or 13 (when I first picked up Stormbringer 1ed).

A bell curve, while it may be more satisfying in a pure mathematical sort of way, to me adds complexity (and makes the table required) without making enough of a difference at the table to justify the added work.

Of course, if you expect to regularly oppose characteristics in the range of 240 vs. 250 the formula you mention would make a difference and work better than the 'normal' table - but you had better have your wall size resistance chart or calculator handy.

[Rurik]

Nope. It looks hard to work out on the fly. And what problem is it supposed to "repair"?

It 'repairs' the fact that in the traditional table, POW 5 vs POW 15 is exactly the same as POW 205 vs. POW 215. It does not scale as the numbers grow larger and therefore proportionately more similiar.

This is exactly the same problem MRQ tried to solve with the infamous and since abandoned (rightfully so) Halving rule for opposed tests.

Who knows, maybe the alternate table would be worth the effort with Superhero games or whatnot. I personally do not feel BRP scales as well as some other systems to handle super high characteristics.

[Harshax]

I've never used the table myself, but have always been interested in it. When I run BRP, I tend to be low powered compared to most, though high fantasy. Go figure. To me, having 100% in a skill is to be taken almost literally (actually I usually use 100% + Skill Modifier). Opposed traits are rarely higher than 40.

With the formula below, 1A vs. 40P has no chance while 40A vs. 1P does not result in an automatic success. Not sure if that is reasonable, or that having to look up probability is worth it, but it has always intrigued me.

How exactly does MRQ's opposed rolls play out? [maybe I'll go look it up now . . .]

[fmitchell]

The Keeper's Companion vol. 1 has a simpler "bell-curved" table based solely on the difference between numbers. I don't have it handy, though.

In that case, I believe it was explicitly designed so that a STR 10 character had a miniscule but nonzero chance against a STR 40 character.

[Rurik]

I've never used the table myself, but have always been interested in it. When I run BRP, I tend to be low powered compared to most, though high fantasy. Go figure. To me, having 100% in a skill is to be taken almost literally (actually I usually use 100% + Skill Modifier). Opposed traits are rarely higher than 40.

With the formula below, 1A vs. 40P has no chance while 40A vs. 1P does not result in an automatic success. Not sure if that is reasonable, or that having to look up probability is worth it, but it has always intrigued me.

How exactly does MRQ's opposed rolls play out? [maybe I'll go look it up now . . .]

MRQ Dropped the resistance table alltogether - everything is resolved as an opposed skill roll. In short the mechanic is: highest roll under skill wins, criticals trump normal successes (there is only a critical at 10% of skill, no specials).

If your skill is over 100, you can add the amount over 100 to your roll for purpose of determining the winner. All in all it sounds pretty similiar to how BRP resolves opposed skills from what I've heard - I don't have Edition Zero.

[frogspawner]

It 'repairs' the fact that in the traditional table, POW 5 vs POW 15 is exactly the same as POW 205 vs. POW 215. It does not scale as the numbers grow larger and therefore proportionately more similiar.

Oh, I see. Thanks!

Hmm, if anyone is bothered by that scaling wrinkle, maybe they could try opposed POWx5 rolls (or x1, or x1/10th) instead. Would that work?

This is exactly the same problem MRQ tried to solve with the infamous and since abandoned (rightfully so) Halving rule for opposed tests.

What was wrong with the 'Gooses Halving Rule, then?

[RosenMcStern]

Halving rule works well with both skills 200+, but is broken with, say, a 150 vs. 90. (101 vs. 90 is actually WORSE than 100 vs. 90) So they fixed it with the Player's update, which is less effective at 200+ level but works well at 101-190 level. But characters rarely have more than 200, so it is a better solution. Overall is is acceptable. But dropping the resistance table was a bad idea.

I think STR 50 vs. STR 90 must not be resolved on the resistance table, but as an opposed roll of STRx1 as a skill. This handles STR 200 vs. STR 21o equally well. Resistance table is for characteristics up to 20-25, it breaks after 30.

[frogspawner]

I think STR 50 vs. STR 90 must not be resolved on the resistance table, but as an opposed roll of STRx1 as a skill. This handles STR 200 vs. STR 21o equally well.

I agree with you! :shocked: (Maybe I failed my SAN roll looking at all that 4E stuff after all... )

Resistance table is for characteristics up to 20-25, it breaks after 30.

Hmmm - it's poor design to have two mechanisms for the same thing, though...

[heresy]

Maybe the Resistance Table should be scrapped and always use STATxX v STATxX instead...?

[/heresy]

[Chaot]

I don't view it as poor design. I view it as having options to choose from.

[RosenMcStern]

Stat vs. stat in the 1-10 range handled with an opposed roll is not a good idea. Resistance Table is better in that interval. Let the GM decide when it is the case to roll opposed instead. After all, most contests are human vs. human (or dwarf/elf/troll). Bronto vs. Mother of Monsters should be the exception, not the rule.

[Al.]

One of those 'its such an ingrained house rule that I forgot it was a houserule' houserules for me is/was

Resistance Table for Characteristics

Chance = 50 + (Active-Passive) x5

Resistance Table for Skills

Chance = 50 + (Active-Passive)

Now I've never had really big characteristic vs. characteristic contests so cannot vouch for brokeness of the chart for big numbers, but I suppose that they could use the 'for Skills' formula above.

Another 'I suppose'.

I cannot abide a default low chance of success in percentile games. I do not understand why 'all else being equal' the chance to succeed isn't 50:50 and I am struck by the irony of a crap listener making you more likely to move quietly so I suppose I could use the 'for skills' formula to add a blanket +50 to skills for an uncontested test

i.e. Amnesiac Escapee has picked up a Rake (10% base) and is attempting to bury it in the back of the head of the Idiot Lunatic with a Chainsaw. This being an uncontested test he adds +50 to get 60%

Al

[Tywyll]

Another 'I suppose'.

I cannot abide a default low chance of success in percentile games. I do not understand why 'all else being equal' the chance to succeed isn't 50:50 and I am struck by the irony of a crap listener making you more likely to move quietly so I suppose I could use the 'for skills' formula to add a blanket +50 to skills for an uncontested test

Al

I totally agree! I personally think its simply an artifact from RQ1&2 being written in an era where all new PC's were supposed to be absolute crap at start. Lacking situational modifiers didn't help at all. That was something good that Rolemaster brought to the table with their skill system, and percentile games in general.

[frogspawner]

I haven't tried it in-game, but the formula ( Active / 2xPassive ) % seems nice.

Moving Silently should always succeed if there's no-one to hear it, even if you roll a "fail", so it's never truly uncontested. (Hmm - further details of this may belong on the 4E thread...)

[AikiGhost]

I still say balls to it. Sticking to the normal resistance table is fine and dandy, if you have stats above 30 or so then there's something going wrong, unless your playing a dinosaur

[Tywyll]

I still say balls to it. Sticking to the normal resistance table is fine and dandy, if you have stats above 30 or so then there's something going wrong, unless your playing a dinosaur

Or you are playing supers...

Or High Fantasy...

Or sci-fi (cyborgs et al)...

Or pretty much anything that isn't hyper focused on the 'mundane'.

[RosenMcStern]

I still say balls to it. Sticking to the normal resistance table is fine and dandy, if you have stats above 30 or so then there's something going wrong, unless your playing a dinosaur

Or common Dark Trolls (STR 23) who know Strength 8.

GM: You enter the Giant Termite Lair

Player: Ok, I grab the nearest Giant Termite and throw it at the Giant Termite Queen.

GM: What's your STR?

Player: 46

GM: :shocked: Uh, er, make a Throw roll....

Believe me, it actually happened to me

[Al.]

[heresy]

Maybe the Resistance Table should be scrapped and always use STATxX v STATxX instead...?

[/heresy]

No actual reason why not.

By the same token why not use the Resistance Table for all resolution?

Al

[frogspawner]

I still say balls to it.

Yeah, the "balls to it" option is probably best. :cool: Just trying to find alternatives, for anyone who's bothered by the R-table breaking at the high end.

By the same token why not use the Resistance Table for all resolution?

If you like - one mechanism is neater! Personally, though, I think the two-roll "Attack v Parry" mechanic gives better player involvement, more feeling of being there.

(But I now see STATxX v STATxX breaks for high stats too. So (Active/2xPassive)% is better - but that's just one roll. Hmm...)

[NickMiddleton]

Nephilim makes extensive use of the resistance table, and I'm sure I remember someone in the playtest (possibly even Jason) talking about a variant they'd looked at where everything was resolved via the resistance table...

I actually find that one of BRP's trengths is that it has multiple resolution systems - it provides me as GM with flexibility and the different mechanism emphasise raw capability (Stat rolls), the oppoistion of raw qualities (resistance table rolls) or training and experience (skills).

Cheers,

Nick

[soltakss]

To tell the truth, the best way to work out Resistance is an Opposed Roll of Characteristic x 5%.

So, a POW vs POW roll is POWx5% vs POWx5%, resisting a strong wind is Wind STRx5% vs (SIZ+STR)x5% and so on. That way you can use skills vs characteristics.

[frogspawner]

That way you can use skills vs characteristics.

Excellent point! (And I can't recall what made me think this method broke at high values now, either).

Of course, you have to define what happens on a draw (which would be quite common) - but a bit of dramatic clinging to the rock-face (before the re-roll blows him off) is all to the good...