posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
mylescorcoran at 01:35pm on 03/02/2005 under role-playing
mylescorcoran at 01:35pm on 03/02/2005 under role-playingThis is primarily aimed at the players in my Elizabethan Superspies role-playing game. We're using a variant of the HeroQuest rules, thought up by Alex Ferguson (aka ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
alaimacerc). I've wondered about going a step further and making it entirely 'roll and add' rather than the 'roll under' system used in the published rules and Alex's variant.
Conversion
You have a rating in each ability on your character sheet. These ratings can run from 1 whatever, the higher the better. To convert current ratings multiply the number of masteries by 10 and add the target number you currently have. E.g. You have ‘Impressive Whining’ at 5M. That’s 10 x 1 mastery plus 5 = 15. If we were still using the basic rules each mastery would be worth 20 points.
Resolution
Roll d12 and add your ability and compare with the total rolled by the opponent, or natural resistance (also d12 + ability). If you roll an ‘11’, roll again and add 10 to the result. Repeat as necessary. If you roll a ‘12’, roll again and subtract 10 from the result. Repeat as necessary.
The higher roll wins. Beat the opposition by ≤ 10 points, marginal victory; ≤ 20 points, minor victory; ≤ 30 points, major victory; greater than 30 points, complete victory.
Improving abilities is as before. I think we're using something like: 1 hero point to increase an ability by 1 point. 2 hero points to add a new sub-power to one of your powers, and 6 hero points to add a completely new power.
alaimacerc). I've wondered about going a step further and making it entirely 'roll and add' rather than the 'roll under' system used in the published rules and Alex's variant.Conversion
You have a rating in each ability on your character sheet. These ratings can run from 1 whatever, the higher the better. To convert current ratings multiply the number of masteries by 10 and add the target number you currently have. E.g. You have ‘Impressive Whining’ at 5M. That’s 10 x 1 mastery plus 5 = 15. If we were still using the basic rules each mastery would be worth 20 points.
Resolution
Roll d12 and add your ability and compare with the total rolled by the opponent, or natural resistance (also d12 + ability). If you roll an ‘11’, roll again and add 10 to the result. Repeat as necessary. If you roll a ‘12’, roll again and subtract 10 from the result. Repeat as necessary.
The higher roll wins. Beat the opposition by ≤ 10 points, marginal victory; ≤ 20 points, minor victory; ≤ 30 points, major victory; greater than 30 points, complete victory.
Improving abilities is as before. I think we're using something like: 1 hero point to increase an ability by 1 point. 2 hero points to add a new sub-power to one of your powers, and 6 hero points to add a completely new power.
(no subject)
Simple is good.
(no subject)
By any reasonable cognitive model (hark at him!), roll-and-add is fiddlier as it requires arithmetic, which roll-under doesn't. But I think "roll high" is more intuitive in some sense, and it avoids the 'edge effect' of roll-under. (Damn, if I'd only fished for another +1 augment, that'd have been a critical...)
(no subject)
HQ as such isn't bad, but has some wierd textured bits, depending on the target number you're comparing against (this comes up most in the augment system, where there are opposing numbers that are better and worse to pick vs their effect), and doesn't allow static target numbers -- in order to have a comparison, you have to roll two dice unless the result is automatically going to be "complete success".
(no subject)
There's indeed a bit of a "curve" with HQ target numbers; in the middle of the range, you're less likely to get a marginal victory, and more likely to get a minor one, proportionately speaking. There's indeed no mechanic for a static test (other than ability checks), and no terminology for it either, but it'd be trivial to add.
(no subject)
>over vs. roll over is anything to do with complexity, so much as theology. :)
Oh, I dunno -- I don't actually care all that much, but it seems like one requires either an unintutitive "roll higher, but still under" in order to get comparative results, or requires subtraction, wheras "roll and add" produces a single number you can pretty easily compare with other numbers.
(no subject)
Personally I find 'roll and add' more satisfying as it produces a single number that acts like a quality of result. I accept that for others a roll under is easier as a simple yes/no result. Neither is intrinsically superior.
My wife, Sam, perversely seems to like the Godlike/Wild Talents dice pool system best of the 3 or 4 we've used with the Tudor Talents game. Go figure.
(no subject)
>You reading this, Alex?) it's only roll under, lower is better.
I know.
But there, it's very difficult to get a comparative result -- you end up with the convoluted setup that HQ has, of "determine your degree of success, and stop if the two are different; otherwise, compare the two numbers and take the lower one" -- too many comparisons, if you ask me, and you can't get more granular results than the four degrees of success.
(no subject)
(no subject)
I think that's actually 2 points, but still 1pt for a "bump". Or those would be the "status quo preserving" options.
(no subject)
(no subject)