I had a brainstorm and I thought it might be interesting.

What if instead of the regular WT/Soak system, every hit was a crit, and Soak simply reduced the roll?

Of course, a ton of stuff in the game would need to be rebalanced etc. (for one thing, minions would need an overhaul) but what do you think the effect would be if every successful attack simply resulted in a roll on the Critical Injury table?

You'd keep ST though, which means that a result of 1 would always mean you take 1 Strain, which always pushes you towards unconsciousness, in addition to probably adding a "You drop unconscious" crit result. This would mean that there is a certain fear even with durable characters that a hot roll could really hurt them, rather than a pure numbers game.

But each crit you get still puts it at +10, and some weapons would add extra to the roll. It would also greatly, greatly simplify weaponry and give more niches because pretty much all pistols would be the same, then all carbines/rifles would be about the same, then all heavy rifles/light repeaters would be about the same. You'd keep some qualities, but you'd be able to drop a lot of them.

For some ships, this wouldn't work all that well, but I actually started off thinking about it in that regard. I think it might be superior to the current system for Sil 4 ships. What originally made me think about it was WWII era heavy bombers like the B-17. You know, engines 1 and 3 out, tail gone, half a wing missing, and they manage to limp home somehow (okay, I may be exaggerating. A little bit). But I was picturing a chase with a few starfighters and something like the Millennium Falcon. Shields are barely hanging on, stuff is falling off the cockpit consoles, there's a fire breaking out somewhere, but the ship never actually gets destroyed destroyed. I think that's more interesting and dramatic than just Hull Trauma, especially since the ship's engineer can only try to repair that once per encounter, and then you're screwed.

Related to a lower need for multiple dice to generate high effectiveness, I'd also suggest introducing the Genesys cap of 5 on Characteristics, possibly revising it to 4 natural with 5 enhanced, comparable to the current 6-7.

All in all, implementing something like this would probably come with a very large slimming down of the entire system, compacting things in a major way.

What are you fixing?

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

What are you fixing?

Not really "fixing" anything. Just thoughts regarding what might be an interesting system. Like I said, it would be an overhaul, not just a tweak, but I have heard some people complain about hit point systems, and I'm not really a fan of them myself beyond the use they serve.

If you're asking what I hope to gain by it, merely an alternative that is more interesting in certain ways or may lend itself better to the narrative style.

To drill down to specifics, it makes combat a bit more dangerous for durable characters. If you have 9 Soak, you'll be immune to most small arms fire. But if each point of Soak only reduces 5 points from a crit, now you'll still get bumped around a bit, a high roll of the d100 can really do something, and high quantities of fire can wear you down. If they were using heavy blaster rifles that deal +40 crits (just for example, not a specific number), you're much more at risk. It also means that if you don't have armor, wounds (little "w") are much scarier. You can't just tank a couple shots from a blaster pistol without any worry. That doesn't mean that you can't still take the same number of hits, you may even be able to take more, but the hits you take may matter more.

This is just in the theoretical/contemplative stage at the moment and I'm looking for others' thoughts on this.

I think a rule that just says everyone suffers at least 1 Wound from a successful attack fixes the PCs with the 'Superman' development path in mind. Crits themselves aren't all that hard to come by consistently. I plan on some overhauling when I run it again, but with things like the 1 Wound rule, and I will make a new crit chart so that critical injuries are actually critical. I am changing up some other things as well.

22 hours ago, 2P51 said:

What are you fixing?

This is a most excellent question, you were wise to ask it

11 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

This is a most excellent question, you were wise to ask it

The problem is this isn't a fix. It's an idea regarding an alternate way of doing things.

Fair enough, just accustomed to people throwing up things they want to change or house rule because of an in game issue.

22 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The problem is this isn't a fix. It's an idea regarding an alternate way of doing things.

The question of WHY you'd want to do it this way remains. Game design (because with the scope of this change that is what you're doing) should be reasoned/intentional rather that "what if" or "this is a nifty fiddly bit" every rule should contribute/cooperate to produce the desired game play experience.... and I don't think you've even articulated what the desired gameplay experience you're pursuing is.

It seems to be that the percentile critical hit table was a gameplay goal they were designing to meet rather than something thrown against the wall to see if it stuck.

My two cents.

2 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

The question of WHY you'd want to do it this way remains. Game design (because with the scope of this change that is what you're doing) should be reasoned/intentional rather that "what if" or "this is a nifty fiddly bit" every rule should contribute/cooperate to produce the desired game play experience.... and I don't think you've even articulated what the desired gameplay experience you're pursuing is.

I've played way too many RPGs over the last 35 years to believe that all game designers would agree with your "should" statement.

59 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I've played way too many RPGs over the last 35 years to believe that all game designers would agree with your "should" statement.

And how did the games that didn't follow the "should" play. Rifts/palladium for example is a textbook example of bad system design... but with an awesome setting.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

The question of WHY you'd want to do it this way remains. Game design (because with the scope of this change that is what you're doing) should be reasoned/intentional rather that "what if" or "this is a nifty fiddly bit" every rule should contribute/cooperate to produce the desired game play experience.... and I don't think you've even articulated what the desired gameplay experience you're pursuing is.

It seems to be that the percentile critical hit table was a gameplay goal they were designing to meet rather than something thrown against the wall to see if it stuck.

My two cents.

I already stated why I thought this would be an interesting alternative. I don't need your lecture on "proper game design."

Like I said, this was a brainstorm . An idea that popped into my head. An idea I thought might be interesting to discuss.

Boy was I wrong! Apparently that's just not something we do around here. 🙄

25 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

And how did the games that didn't follow the "should" play. Rifts/palladium for example is a textbook example of bad system design... but with an awesome setting.

It varied, really. Some badly designed games played just fine with quirks that players and GMs found endearing. Conversely, some games that were very well designed were deemed dull and forgettable.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

It varied, really. Some badly designed games played just fine with quirks that players and GMs found endearing. Conversely, some games that were very well designed were deemed dull and forgettable.

Dull and forgettable is a function of the setting not the system.

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Dull and forgettable is a function of the setting not the system.

Not always. A good setting can have a regrettably dull and forgettable system that actually detracts from the enjoyment of the setting (OK, so it might be memorable in that way). I would point out Numenera and The Strange as examples.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Not always. A good setting can have a regrettably dull and forgettable system that actually detracts from the enjoyment of the setting (OK, so it might be memorable in that way). I would point out Numenera and The Strange as examples.

Thanks... I've heard of numenera but never played either of them, I'll take a look at these "well designed but dull" systems and see if I concur about it being well designed... btw the use of a d20 die is a black mark against a system in my book Nd10 take the largest 2, is a good replacement.

And what's the example of a poorly designed system that had endearing mechanics?

9 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

And what's the example of a poorly designed system that had endearing mechanics?

My group enjoyed Earthdawn's unholy complexity and bizarre mechanics which were often specifically made to complement in-world aspects. The magic system, and thread weaving in particular, were very evocative even if they were a pain in the *** and led to spending XP that will ultimately evaporate. We mainly played 1e, but the game has really changed very little over several editions.

Also, the original Deadlands (before Savage Worlds) with the playing cards and poker chips. It was a mess, but it felt interesting to play. The Savage Words version is mechanically much more balanced and streamlined, but the feel of the original is barely there.

I'm going to try and address this again:

Disclaimer: First, this is not a "fix" for anything, just concept for an alternative system that I find interesting. Secondly, this would require a massive overhaul and condensing of the system. Thirdly, this is still just in the conceptual stage, and is not (and will not be) proposed as a houserule.

So here's what I was thinking: Drop Wound Threshold entirely, but keep Strain Threshold. Each attack, instead of dealing wounds, automatically deals a crit. Instead of a damage stat, weapons increase the crit roll +5(?) per success and Soak now reduces the roll by 5(equal to value of success) per point of Soak.
Then condense the crit table and change the results, keeping the lowest as Minor Nick. Now the crit itself describes the effect of the hit, and every hit has an effect. Death would probably be at 100, and there'd be one for Incapacitation. Likely, some others on the chart would have Incapacitation as a secondary effect, like Bleeding Out or The End is Nigh (one of which would probably be removed, not sure which. Bleeding Out would need adjustment).

This may be a bit too punishing though, I'm not sure. Possibly increase the effectiveness of armor to twice success? So with 5 Soak and 3 success, it's a net of -35, before accounting for weapon modifiers. I'll proceed under this assumption.

This would come with a massive overhaul and condensing of equipment, bulking many specialty pieces together and only having a few with particular abilities or unusual stats. Damage would obviously be dropped, though Critical Rating would likely stay, Vicious would probably become an Active quality, Ensnare might get overhauled (like, 2 Advantage to restrict legs, 3 to restrict arms, Triumph to restrict both), Pierce would probably get dropped in favor of increasing damage (though Breach would stay), talents like Durable and Lethal Blows would be removed, probably restrict the Advantage=Strain option to once per round, etc.

Minions are a bit of a puzzle here, however. One way is to simply have it that minions drop in one hit, another would be to roll against a number (like 50), and if it rolls above that number, a minion dies and you add +10 to future rolls. If it doesn't, you just add +10 to future rolls. Since stormtroopers have a Soak of 5, you'd be talking a modifier of -45 on a one-success hit with a pistol.

Thoughts on the benefits of this alternative: Every hit now has an effect, circumventing the hit point system. You can't just take it until you reach a certain point, where you suddenly drop. The element of randomization makes combat a bit more suspenseful than a DPS system, and it makes Stun weapons much more important for taking someone alive when you don't otherwise care about their health and wellbeing since you can't risk a high crit roll.

A note on specific equipment: This is a basic idea of what the gear selection would look like for ranged weapons:

• Pistols (no modifier)
• Rifles (+20[?])
• Heavy Weapons (+40[?])
• Disruptors (modifier equal to subclass, with Vicious rating, or maybe just subclass modifier +50 or something. So a disruptor pistol would be +50, a disruptor rifle would be +70)

9 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I'm going to try and address this again:

Disclaimer: First, this is not a "fix" for anything, just concept for an alternative system that I find interesting. Secondly, this would require a massive overhaul and condensing of the system. Thirdly, this is still just in the conceptual stage, and is not (and will not be) proposed as a houserule.

So here's what I was thinking: Drop Wound Threshold entirely, but keep Strain Threshold. Each attack, instead of dealing wounds, automatically deals a crit. Instead of a damage stat, weapons increase the crit roll +5(?) per success and Soak now reduces the roll by 5(equal to value of success) per point of Soak.
Then condense the crit table and change the results, keeping the lowest as Minor Nick. Now the crit itself describes the effect of the hit, and every hit has an effect. Death would probably be at 100, and there'd be one for Incapacitation. Likely, some others on the chart would have Incapacitation as a secondary effect, like Bleeding Out or The End is Nigh (one of which would probably be removed, not sure which. Bleeding Out would need adjustment).

This may be a bit too punishing though, I'm not sure. Possibly increase the effectiveness of armor to twice success? So with 5 Soak and 3 success, it's a net of -35, before accounting for weapon modifiers. I'll proceed under this assumption.

This would come with a massive overhaul and condensing of equipment, bulking many specialty pieces together and only having a few with particular abilities or unusual stats. Damage would obviously be dropped, though Critical Rating would likely stay, Vicious would probably become an Active quality, Ensnare might get overhauled (like, 2 Advantage to restrict legs, 3 to restrict arms, Triumph to restrict both), Pierce would probably get dropped in favor of increasing damage (though Breach would stay), talents like Durable and Lethal Blows would be removed, probably restrict the Advantage=Strain option to once per round, etc.

Minions are a bit of a puzzle here, however. One way is to simply have it that minions drop in one hit, another would be to roll against a number (like 50), and if it rolls above that number, a minion dies and you add +10 to future rolls. If it doesn't, you just add +10 to future rolls. Since stormtroopers have a Soak of 5, you'd be talking a modifier of -45 on a one-success hit with a pistol.

Thoughts on the benefits of this alternative: Every hit now has an effect, circumventing the hit point system. You can't just take it until you reach a certain point, where you suddenly drop. The element of randomization makes combat a bit more suspenseful than a DPS system, and it makes Stun weapons much more important for taking someone alive when you don't otherwise care about their health and wellbeing since you can't risk a high crit roll.

A note on specific equipment: This is a basic idea of what the gear selection would look like for ranged weapons:

• Pistols (no modifier)
• Rifles (+20[?])
• Heavy Weapons (+40[?])
• Disruptors (modifier equal to subclass, with Vicious rating, or maybe just subclass modifier +50 or something. So a disruptor pistol would be +50, a disruptor rifle would be +70)

If reworking the critical injuries table for this use, I'd suggest replacing the d% with a d20 and just having Damage and Soak use their regular values (i.e., not multiplied by 5). The critical injury chart would then run from 1-20 instead of 01-100.

I think players will just shift focus on development from Talents and Attachments that may have boosted damage in the past, to ones that either boost crits or protect against them in the future. They'll be focused on Lethal Blows and Vicious and Deadly Accuracy and flip a DP to add stat X to the damage are eliminated. They'll rank up Durable and Enduring, get Armor Masters, Superior, etc. Essentially it just shifts the focus of where XP is spent to bend the probability curve in their favor.

In particular, from a GMs perspective, a high level of randomness isn't a good thing, it already can be a super PITA to balance encounters as is, making that job harder, nigh on impossible really.

Ultimately wounds, HP, etc are an element that are in RPGs to make characters feel heroic. Absent that you may end up with a better simulation in which people actually are eliminated by injuries inflicted by the sorts of weapons used in RPGs and the wounds they would really inflict. I guess that would be for each table to decide what approach they like. Me personally I like to encourage character buy in at my table and see the 'personalities' develop, if PCs are just being killed randomly and frequently there would be far less of that imo.

At first glance I don't hate what you're proposing, like I usually do with alternatives to the hitpoint system. Though I can see much that would need an overhaul for it to work as you pointed out.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

• Pistols (no modifier)
• Rifles (+20[?])
• Heavy Weapons (+40[?])
• Disruptors (modifier equal to subclass, with Vicious rating, or maybe just subclass modifier +50 or something. So a disruptor pistol would be +50, a disruptor rifle would be +70)

What would be the point of using a pistol? Flavor? Why wouldn't everyone go for a rifle? Expense?

How does this affect Dual Wielding? Second shot adds +10 or something?

14 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

I think players will just shift focus on development from Talents and Attachments that may have boosted damage in the past, to ones that either boost crits or protect against them in the future. They'll be focused on Lethal Blows and Vicious and Deadly Accuracy and flip a DP to add stat X to the damage are eliminated. They'll rank up Durable and Enduring, get Armor Masters, Superior, etc. Essentially it just shifts the focus of where XP is spent to bend the probability curve in their favor.

In particular, from a GMs perspective, a high level of randomness isn't a good thing, it already can be a super PITA to balance encounters as is, making that job harder, nigh on impossible really.

Ultimately wounds, HP, etc are an element that are in RPGs to make characters feel heroic. Absent that you may end up with a better simulation in which people actually are eliminated by injuries inflicted by the sorts of weapons used in RPGs and the wounds they would really inflict. I guess that would be for each table to decide what approach they like. Me personally I like to encourage character buy in at my table and see the 'personalities' develop, if PCs are just being killed randomly and frequently there would be far less of that imo.

That's why I'm saying it'll need a complete overhaul. I even explicitly mentioned removing Lethal Blows and Durable and adjusting Vicious. For this to work, talent trees would need a complete redux and would likely be significantly shrunk in size, probably by removing a column from each or a similar tack in order to maintain the cost. @whafrog has talked before about redoing the talents system and simplifying it, and my approach would likely be comparable.

And balance/lethality is something that would need to be worked out. I want to make it a little more lethal, but I don't want gritty realism where your character dies every other session.

8 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

At first glance I don't hate what you're proposing, like I usually do with alternatives to the hitpoint system.

I'll take that as a compliment!

27 minutes ago, CloudyLemonade92 said:

What would be the point of using a pistol? Flavor? Why wouldn't everyone go for a rifle? Expense?

How does this affect Dual Wielding? Second shot adds +10 or something?

Pistol/Rifle, the difference would be pretty similar to what we have now. Again, balance and numbers are still a concern, and one that would need to be worked out.
As for why you'd use a pistol, the reasons remain largely the same. Lower encumbrance, Ranged (Light) is a more common career skill, more easily concealed, more widely legal, draws less attention, less expensive, etc.

Dual Wielding I think would operate comparably to Auto-Fire, simply being a second crit. Pretty much how it operates now. I'd likely eliminate Linked from personal weapons though. Possibly add Vicious (which would be an Active quality) or simply increase damage (the crit modifier). Most of the time, I would likely nestle the weapon under its category and any second barrel would merely be fluff.

2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

If reworking the critical injuries table for this use, I'd suggest replacing the d% with a d20 and just having Damage and Soak use their regular values (i.e., not multiplied by 5). The critical injury chart would then run from 1-20 instead of 01-100.

That makes sense. Depending where I go with this, I may choose to implement that as-is.

There are pros to working with a 5 or 10 system because it can be more easily adjusted to fit an "unusual" increment. For example, if I want increments of 7%, I'd have to alternate between 1 and 2 on a d20, but on a d100 I could have increments of 7 up until 98, then it's just 99+ tacked onto the end.

With a d20, it's best to go with 10 or 20 effects and you have less flexibility.

19 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Not always. A good setting can have a regrettably dull and forgettable system that actually detracts from the enjoyment of the setting (OK, so it might be memorable in that way). I would point out Numenera and The Strange as examples.

The only thing I know about the cypher system is what I've read here

http://cypher-system.com/what-is-the-cypher-system/

But tell me if I'm off base... for a supposedly "well designed" system it has a craptastic core mechanic that for any difficulty greater than 3 failure was the most probable outcome. And even for difficulties of only 3 the failure rate was unacceptably high. There was an effort mechanic that injected a level of choice into the system but it's a static not renewable resource. A problem with the mechanic is the designer wanted difficulties between 1 and 10, wanted to use a d20 die, and wanted difficulties that were impossible without spending effort, so that a normal mundane character couldn't succeed on impossible tasks on a natural 20 the designer choose a multiplier of 3 to result in targets between 3 and 30.

Now that's a fundamentally bad choice... for several reasons the dice roll statistics just don't work.... if someone insisted on this kind of scheme it would be better to either use difficulties between 1 and 15 with a d12 die or difficulties between 1 and 10 with a d8 die. But that's just a bandaid solution that wouldn't fix the larger statistical problems.

Dice pool systems have innately better statistics than a single die because a dice pool has a central tendency (law of "large" numbers), i.e. has "typical"/most probable outcomes that are easy to calibrate to make success the typical outcome when it should be.

The choice mechanic of effort also doesn't seem to regenerate.... a "luck pool" that you can swap dice into/out-of is a much better implementation of a choice mechanic.

So am I off-base or does that sum up a huge game mechanical problem with cypher that makes it a poorly rather than well designed system?

It seems somewhat odd but I've found that very few rpg designers have an adequate grasp of the statistics of polyhedron dice rolls.

8 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

My group enjoyed Earthdawn's unholy complexity and bizarre mechanics which were often specifically made to complement in-world aspects. The magic system, and thread weaving in particular, were very evocative even if they were a pain in the *** and led to spending XP that will ultimately evaporate. We mainly played 1e, but the game has really changed very little over several editions.

Also, the original Deadlands (before Savage Worlds) with the playing cards and poker chips. It was a mess, but it felt interesting to play. The Savage Words version is mechanically much more balanced and streamlined, but the feel of the original is barely there.

The "thread weaving" sounds like the narrative fluff I pulled out of "a hat" for a perturbation of a d20 system that use #d10 keep the 2 largest system and sum them... every one starts with 2d10 you add them, natural 20 is critical success... skill ranks add more d10's rather than flat numerical bonuses.. unfavorable circumstances decreased the number of d10's below 2d10 was add a die and keep the 2 smallest.

It was a few page thread over on the d20 radio forums maybe 6 to 10 years ago. I hadn't worked through the full thread weaving mechanic yet.... it was an intellectual exercise I wasn't fully pursuing, my attention was on a 3D system... the first iteration of which was craptastic, and unnecessarily complex, it used 3d6 and power of 2 multipliers,... I wiped the slate clean and used polyhedral between d4 and d12 but kept the 3D because 3 dice is the minimum number of dice in a pool needed for good/interesting statistics.... adds the luck/destiny pool regenerating choice mechanic to swap dice into out of and a karma pool that was like a combination of the destiny pools of Saga (what it could do, and ffg's insert into the narrative) and ffg (white and black chips, players spend white which flips to black, GM spends black which flips to white) that also functioned as a party morality mechanic (doesn't reset at the beginning of each session, evil acts can flip white to black, self sacrificial good acts can flip black to white). The one roll resolution core mechanic was the die with largest rolled result determines success failure and the sum of the 2 smaller dice determines damage... so it was a bit like the cortex plus dice roll mechanic "in reverse". Typical result between equally matched opponents was success with a few points of damage making it past dr. I.e. it had good statistics. Skills/attributes/equipment dice pool building were a bit like cortex plus. Had themes which are a bit like fate aspects grant favorable circumstances (upgrade a die, e.g. from d10 to d12). had d6 style character points ("xp" you can spend to grant favorable circumstances)

I stopped working on it 3.5 years ago when my son was born and I was in a middle of a range band rewrite. But the chase/race mechanic was inspired in my opinion.

I'm guessing what I'm saying is there are good mechanics out there but very few good systems because most professional rpg designers don't have a strong grasp on statistics.

5 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I think players will just shift focus on development from Talents and Attachments that may have boosted damage in the past, to ones that either boost crits or protect against them in the future. They'll be focused on Lethal Blows and Vicious and Deadly Accuracy and flip a DP to add stat X to the damage are eliminated. They'll rank up Durable and Enduring, get Armor Masters, Superior, etc. Essentially it just shifts the focus of where XP is spent to bend the probability curve in their favor.

In particular, from a GMs perspective, a high level of randomness isn't a good thing, it already can be a super PITA to balance encounters as is, making that job harder, nigh on impossible really.

Ultimately wounds, HP, etc are an element that are in RPGs to make characters feel heroic. Absent that you may end up with a better simulation in which people actually are eliminated by injuries inflicted by the sorts of weapons used in RPGs and the wounds they would really inflict. I guess that would be for each table to decide what approach they like. Me personally I like to encourage character buy in at my table and see the 'personalities' develop, if PCs are just being killed randomly and frequently there would be far less of that imo.

You have a good understanding of statistics in the context of rpgs.

High level of randomness is also not fun from a players perspective.

Using a Dice pool in the core mechanic can reduce randomness.

@P-47 Thunderbolt have you looked at how d6 star wars handled damage? There are similarities to what you are proposing.