Hello all. Anyone who has played a fair amount of WH40k Rogue Trader surely knows of the Profit Factor system. I am wondering how to convert it in Genesys terms and I was wondering if anyone would be able to help out?

Basically, the scale which measures how powerful your dynasty is, is from 01-150. Now, normally you'd roll 1d100 and add/substract the relevant modifiers and then consult yourself with your Profit Factor, but I want to do away with the d100 completely.

What I'm thinking is, for every 10 (or maybe 20?) of the dynasty's Profit Factor, that would remove one failure from the dice pool (or add 1 success, not sure on which yet). The test itself would be based on the Negotiation skill of the PC making the acquisition, difficulty being the rarity, type of acquisition, and craftsmanship. Any thoughts and/or suggestions?

While I have no familiarity with WH40K (to my great shame), I am familiar enough with Genesys to know that the core system still requires a d100 to roll for critical injuries, which are on a scale of 1-151 (pg.115 of the GCRB). So I guess my question is, why do you want to get rid of the d100? Are you just trying to minimize how often the d100 comes out, or do you already have an alternate system for determining crits? Again, I'm not familiar with WH40K and I'm not at your table, but it seems like you'd wind up having to perform a more complicated set of operations to arrive at your result, slowing down gameplay, decreasing enjoyment at the table.

16 minutes ago, lbwoodard said:

While I have no familiarity with WH40K (to my great shame), I am familiar enough with Genesys to know that the core system still requires a d100 to roll for critical injuries, which are on a scale of 1-151 (pg.115 of the GCRB). So I guess my question is, why do you want to get rid of the d100? Are you just trying to minimize how often the d100 comes out, or do you already have an alternate system for determining crits? Again, I'm not familiar with WH40K and I'm not at your table, but it seems like you'd wind up having to perform a more complicated set of operations to arrive at your result, slowing down gameplay, decreasing enjoyment at the table.

So I didn't do away with the d100 in the normal sense. It was a requirement to make a check in Rogue Trader, which is obviously incompatible in Genesys.

I have my notes on the Rogue Trader conversion up in the Your Settings subforum, but, as of right now, they are very shorthand and presume a great familiarity - if not owning Rogue Trader outright - for anyone to understand what's going on there lol.

Okay, I'm tracking with you now. In my defense, I had only had half-a-cup of coffee when reading your post! ? It being a check makes sense why you'd want some kind of conversion.

On 8/18/2018 at 10:03 AM, Tkalamov said:

Basically, the scale which measures how powerful your dynasty is, is from 01-150. Now, normally you'd roll 1d100 and add/substract the relevant modifiers and then consult yourself with your Profit Factor, but I want to do away with the d100 completely.

Like I said, I'm not familiar, but this sounds like an unopposed role. Is that correct? If so, then you could just run this like rolling for initiative. Using the crit table on pg 115 as a starting point, you could assign a number of Successes necessary for a set of results based on the difficulty to heal crits. You could then use whatever attribute or skill rank is appropriate to add/subtract within that set, use Advantages to further add/subtract maybe (?), and Triumph...get to roll an extra Boost die or two? Or jump up a set? Or pick your result within the set? I dunno what I'm talking about, so that might be a useless idea...

I'll be over here making coffee... ☕

Okay, I've had more coffee and gotten a look at the ruleset from RT. Last post is in fact useless! ? In an attempt to be more than useless:

On 8/18/2018 at 10:03 AM, Tkalamov said:

What I'm thinking is, for every 10 (or maybe 20?) of the dynasty's Profit Factor, that would remove one failure from the dice pool (or add 1 success, not sure on which yet). The test itself would be based on the Negotiation skill of the PC making the acquisition, difficulty being the rarity, type of acquisition, and craftsmanship. Any thoughts and/or suggestions?

I think the easiest thing would be to have the GM decide the group's starting PF. I'm not sure how you'd want to assign difficulty, but I'd use the table on pg 272 of the RT CRB to assign difficulties. My thought is that the base difficulty is Hard (DDD), which then gets upgraded or downgraded the further up or down the table you go, so the +70 would translate to 4 red Challenge dice being rolled. If the total modifiers wind up downgrading the check to simple, then they auto-succeed. If the total modifiers wind up upgrading the checks to more than 5 red, they auto-fail. If you feel like that's too much despair to be playable, you could condense the table a bit and just increase the difficulty for each step instead of upgrading. Then the GM could upgrade it for "reasons" or by flipping a story point.

Now, for the pool the player rolls, I'm thinking that this should be a combined check. They use their skill rank and the groups profit factor to determine the pool. This means the that the PF needs to be set between 1 and 5, which can either be an adjustment you make in your conversion, or they can divide their PF as set by the RT CRB by 25 and round to the nearest whole number. So, if the group's PF is 2, and their rank in negotiation is 3, they would roll (YYG) against the difficulty, plus any Setback/Boost due to situational factors, assistance, or talents. Plus, there are always Story Points for them to spend if it's a really important acquisition.

I hope that any of this is helpful, even if it only makes you laugh at my ignorance. I still have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm having doing it! ?

@lbwoodard That is incredibly helpful, thank you! I'll definitely have a go at implementing what you've suggested. Have a look at the notes I have over at the 'Your Settings' subforum, though they are quite shorthand, as of yet, and not everything might be clear, though with a bit of cross-referencing with the RT CRB, it should be readable enough.