Kesendeja

Fate of BRP

80 posts in this topic

4 hours ago, Joerg said:

Your seem to have swapped the frequency of specials and criticals - your criticals crop up half of the time, and for only marginally developed skills usually as critical failures.

The probability to avoid a critical failure changes in a very erratic way, too, with plateaus of 11 percentiles between rapid rises of 10 steps in between (counting the last step double with the plateau). Chances for critical failure obviously move in the opposite direction, which means that there are narrow brackets where every circumstantial percentile will effect the outcome in a significant way half of all dice rolls, and then there will be brackets where modifiers of 10 percent might not matter much at all. A nightmare for estimating outcome probabilities, and a case where successful supporting actions that hinder opponents may be a great deal-changer or just pointless fluff. Having an additional D2 (odds on any even-numbered die) in the toss yields much better predictability than your method.

Incorrect. The frequency of criticals and specials is the same as regular BRP, so the probabilities are exactly the same when rolling on d100. Check out Nakana's visual graph of the systems, for an example skill of 60%.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Questbird said:

Incorrect. The frequency of criticals and specials is the same as regular BRP, so the probabilities are exactly the same when rolling on d100. Check out Nakana's visual graph of the systems, for an example skill of 60%.

My statement is correct. Look what a 5% shift does to a skill of 55% and what it does to a skill of 65%. In one case it is fairly dramatic (10% more positive and 10% less negative "critical" outcomes), in the other case no effect.

Criticals ought to occur 1 time in 10, not half of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Joerg said:

My statement is correct. Look what a 5% shift does to a skill of 55% and what it does to a skill of 65%. In one case it is fairly dramatic (10% more positive and 10% less negative "critical" outcomes), in the other case no effect.

Criticals ought to occur 1 time in 10, not half of the time.

Maybe we should restart that thinking about criticals thread rather than derailing this one.

There is some distortion of specials (1/5) in the visual system. They are more likely by 1-2% in the visual system for many skill levels than the equivalent in the BGB. That might be a problem for extremely low skill levels, but generally I can live with it. For example if you have just 02% in a skill, the visual system would give you a special success if you roll either 01 or 02, which is not great, while the BGB would correctly give you no chance of a special. Another example is 12% skill which in the visual system would give you a special on 01,02,11,12 as opposed to the BGB's 2%.

But the criticals on odd '10's  (1/20) are spot on, exactly the same probability as the BGB.

It's possible to tweak the visual system to be even closer to the BGB result. You could make a roll of 1 or 6 on the units die to be a special. That makes the visual system differ from the BGB by a max of 1% for specials for less than half of skill levels. But 1 and 6 are not very memorable for a 'visual system', so I prefer 1 or 2.

 Another method which reduces the variance of specials to a maximum of 1% while preserving the 'visual-ness' is to use 1 or 2 on the units die for a total less than (rather than less than or equal to) the skill level ==> a special success. That results in a fairly even distribution across the skill levels of either the same or +1% chance of a special compared to the BGB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Bad wording for your criticals - "Rolls of 10, 30, 50, 70 and 90 are criticals" would have been clear, and in about the same number of characters. Agreed, that gives a 1 in 20 chance, and at the same steps.

1 hour ago, Questbird said:

There is some distortion of specials (1/5) in the visual system.

The visual system does provide the same overall probabilities for a very large sample or rolls at every skill level up to 100%. It totally fails for skills above 100%, but given the slow progression once you reach this region, I am cool with having every roll under effective skill minus 100% a special, and every fifth such roll a critical, using the non-visual system, in addition to the benefits from the visual system.

I still say that divorcing the roll that determines specials or criticals from the success dice is the easier option for skills under 100%. In RQ and derived systems, crits are specials, so basically you don't have a 20% of you skill percentage chance for non-critical specials, but a 15% chance. How do you model that? Criticals that don't get the effect of specials?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Questbird said:

Maybe we should restart that thinking about criticals thread rather than derailing this one.

 

May I suggest that you start a new thread? This seems to have very little to do with the fate of BRP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now