|
|
Post by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara on Sept 18, 2007 22:04:57 GMT -5
This may be minor, but I find myself having difficulty conceptualize four different success levels. Three is easy: partial/minor success, moderate/complete success, spectacular/critical success. But four? Four throws me off. And I note that it seems to have thrown Zeb off too, since the Magic Talents only list effect difficulties at three levels and ignore Orange successes.
Anyone else find this odd?
|
|
|
|
Post by markkrawec on Sept 22, 2007 22:09:17 GMT -5
When you first mentioned it, my instinct was to agree. But after a couple of days' reflection, four makes sense: level 1 - made it by the skin of your teeth; level 2 - good enough; level 3 - nailed it; level 4 - surpassed your own hopes/knocked that one out of the park.
|
|
|
|
Post by reaperwolf on Sept 26, 2007 17:15:03 GMT -5
Personally, I prefer five levels: fumble, failure, marginal, complete, and outstanding.
>>ReaperWolf
|
|
|
|
Post by markkrawec on Sept 27, 2007 12:13:23 GMT -5
"Fumble" as in not just failing, but suffering an additional setback?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Fiendish Dr. Samsara on Sept 27, 2007 15:25:54 GMT -5
Well, if you're counting "failure" then ZEFRS has five. But no fumble (I think), unless you added in something like a natural 01 is a fumble.
Then it would have six.
|
|
|
|
Post by reaperwolf on Sept 27, 2007 23:37:09 GMT -5
"Fumble" as in not just failing, but suffering an additional setback? Yup, if the system allows for outstanding successes it should, IMO, also allow for bitter and potentially disastrous setbacks and defeats, i.e. fumbles, botches, blunders, what have you. Fumbles should be a function of the fail rate. If you had a 75% chance of success, fumbles should only occur roughly 10% of the time. So in the above example, a roll of 75 or less is some degree of success with failure occuring on rolls of 76 to 97 and a fumble occuring on rolls of 98-00. A fumble should always occur on a roll of 00 regardless of % success. Some people don't like fumbles, more power to 'em but having re-read the fiction regarding Conan's loss of the Aqualonian throne to usurpers, there must have been a fumble or two involved, that and an immortal Acheronian sorceror.  Best! >>ReaperWolf |
|
|
|
Post by markkrawec on Oct 1, 2007 9:08:27 GMT -5
Bear in mind that there's already an Accident Prone weakness that causes something to go terribly wrong every time the player rolls 99 or 00.
If you want everybody to run that risk, though, how great a chance of disaster would you want there to be? It appears from a quick glance at the resolution chart that heroic success occurs at about a 1:7 or 1:8 ratio (that is, out of every seven or eight checks that result in any degree of success, one will be heroic). Would you want to make dismal failure as common, or rarer? Off the top of my head, you could declare that rolling doubles when getting a failure result means a botch. That would make it more common when you're checking against a very low or negative rating & increasingly unlikely as the rating rises.
|
|
