There's been a lot of threads about success rates, maths being off, higher 'leveled' characters being gods, attempts at changing the success ratio etc, but, for myself at least, I'm still a little unsure of what all this means. At the risk of being lynched, I was hoping someone would be so kind as to easily summarise what the main issues are with the rate of success. There was the graph, but I didn't understand it.

Sorry for being dense and thank you very much for your efforts

Rat Catcher said:

A challenge die rolls 0.75 challenges average on a single die.

A stance die rolls 0.70 successes average on a single die.

That's an indicator that the challenge die will not scale well when more dice are added, because it's almost equal to ONE stance die.

My suggestion is to increase the potency of the challenge die to deliver 1.25 average challenges on a roll. That is more balanced.

To make the challenge die give the average of 1.25 you simply let boons and chaos star count as both challenges and boons / chaos stars.

Gallows said:

Well that sounds easy enough

Some people feel it is an issue, others don't. I suggest you actually play a few session by the rulebook first. Then you can make your mind up whether changes need to be done. Also, read the design diary about the dice, that gives some ideas on how the designers have thought.

There are a couple of different issues that are related that are being discussed.

1. Combat hit rate, the issue being that it's too easy to hit in combat. Some people think that it should be harder to hit, the opposing view is that the wound system is tailored for a high success rate. Gallows has some house rules that makes it harder and to make the active defenses better.

2. Success rate for skill checks. Some people think it's too easy to succeed on skill checks. Even on the daunting challenge level it is quite high probability of getting at least one success if you have high skill and characteristic. The opposite view is that you can use banes/chaos stars to make that success a bit less sweet, that you can easily add more misfortune dice if you want to make a test really hard (or house rule that more purple dice than 4 can be used) or use some kind of progress tracker and require multiple successes to make the test.

3. Opposed check unscalabiltiy. Opposed tests versus a mirrored opponent do not scale in difficulty as you gain more dice. It becomes easier and easier the more dice you gain. I can't really argue with this, you probably have to switch to using competitive rolls for most checks if you want the difficulty for mirrored opponents to stay constant.

Vendolis' plots are not really showing the success rates, they are more about how the stance dice affect the outcomes (with red dice giving a higher probability of getting multiple successes/boons but with a higher failure risk, and green dice giving a more certain chance for success but lower chance for multiple successes).

gruntl said:

Thank you for this - it's perfect.

Could you elaborate a bit more on opposed and competitive rolls please?

From my post in the House rules forum thread on opposed rolls:

But I agree that it could be a problem (the non-scaling of opposed tests). Comparing your last (very skilled) example with equal characteristics to an example with low skill adversaries I get (now using RAW, exactly the same training, no stance dice):
Chance of at least 1 success (using http://jaj22.org.uk/wfrp/diceprob.html )
Very skilled (i.e. 6vs6+2 skill, spec): 76%
Low skill (3vs3, 1 skill, no spec): 45%
So, yes, that might indeed be a problem. Of course one could use an competetive test, but I think it's a bit weird that a game mechanic that works for beginning chars have to scrapped at higher ranks. It should be scalable.

A competetive test just means that both "combatants" roll for their skill vs a set difficulty, the person with the most successes wins.

I never use opposed rolls. I just use normal rules with modifiers. Instead if two parties are competing I use competitive rolls. I see no way to fix opposed rolls and since competitive rolls work just fine there isn't really a reason to bother with it.

It is important to remember that this system is designed to be actor-centric. If two opponents are equal in stats, the actor is more likely to be successful. So, if a PC is trying to sneak past a group of guards, he is more likely to succeed on his Stealth roll. OTOH, if a PC is standing watch to ensure that someone can't sneak up on the party, then he will be more likely to succeed on his Observation roll. Since the PCs are the stars of the show, I've got no problem with that. Some people do and are looking for ways to make it more difficult for the PCs. A variety of house rules and suggestions have been proposed, but I personally haven't felt the need to monkey with the system yet.

mac40k said:

But the strange thing is that it's the other way around as well. If the NPC decides to look for someone he has a greater chance. The NPCs can also be the ones actively using a skill in which case the PC's are in trouble.

I am not looking for a way to normalize things and make it easier to miss in combat because I don't want the players to hit so much. I am doing it because it is thrown right back int he face of the players then the NPCs are acting.

Gallows said:

Unless of course the roll goes with the player to see if he observes the potential observer

Gallows said:

Yes, but the PCs should be the actors whenever possible since they are the stars! Therefore the NPCs don't get a Stealth check to sneak up on PCs. The PCs get an Observation roll to detect the NPCs trying to sneak up on them. The NPC doesn't get an Observation roll to look for the sneaky PC, the sneaky PC gets a Stealth check. The PCs are the principle actors and make the majority of the rolls. Generally the only time NPCs make rolls is during encounters (combat or social) where the "camera" is zoomed in to increase focus or raise tension. In encounter mode, yes the NPCs will succeed with equal ease. It's what the consequences of those successes mean to the PCs that is important.

Gallows said:

Do you mean /banes/ instead of boons in this? So, banes and chaos stars count as both one challenge and one bane?

jh

Emirikol said:

Yep banes I remember editing it thinking it was wrong, but I must have been cunfused about what I was writing.